List Price:$239.95 Sale Price: $119.00 You save: $120.95 (50%) Eligible for free shipping! Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Top 10 Romantic Comedies
What are the top 10 romantic comedies of all time? That's something most romantics would surely love to know so here is list which has been prepared by combining the box office earnings of these films from both domestic and international sources. How many have you seen?
Romantic comedy movies are a sub-group of romantic movies and are notable for being light-hearted and having plots that are often humorous. The path of true love may be thwarted, temporarily, by errors, accidents and coincidences, or by differences in social standing. 'Notting Hill' and 'Pretty Woman' are examples of romantic comedies.
The romantic comedies are contrasted with romantic drama, a further sub-group of romance films in which the main premise of the movie is concerned with the romantic attraction between the leading characters but not in a funny or humorous way. The attraction often causes them to struggle with significant questions about their lives, such as "should I remain with my current partner?" and "what am I doing with my life?" Dramatic impact is created by the emotional expression of those involved. 'Titanic' and 'The Notebook' are examples of romantic drama.
The listing below differs slightly from those top domestic earners as some which did well at home performed poorly at theaters in other countries. Others boosted their earnings considerably in the overseas market and greatly improved their ranking.
For instance, Pretty Woman, whilst 4th in domestic earnings, at $178 million, also pulled in a whopping $285 million in the foreign market to grab the top spot overall.
The Top 10 Romantic Comedies - based on gross earnings (U.S. domestic + international):
1. Pretty Woman (1990) - $463 million 2. Sex And The City (2008) - $415 m 3. What Women Want ((2000) - $374 m 4 There's Something About Mary ((1998) - $370 m 5. My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002) - $369 m 6. Hitch (2005) - $368 m 7. Notting Hill (1999) - $364 m 8. The Proposal (2009) - $315 m 9. Runaway Bride (1999) - $309 m 10. My Best Friend's Wedding (1997) - $299 m
The queen of romantic comedies is clearly Julia Roberts. She starred in four of the top 10 movies listed above - Pretty Woman (1990), Notting Hill (1999), Runaway Bride (1999) and My Best Friend's Wedding (1997). The 90s were clearly good for her. Cameron Diaz managed to star in two - There's Something About Mary (1998) and My Best Friend's Wedding (1997).
A high production budget is clearly not a guarantee of success, nor is it a good indicator as Pretty Woman had a budget of only $14 million - Julia Roberts was relatively unknown at the time and her fee for that movie was only $300,000, being mainly known for her role in Steel Magnolias (1989). She was not the first choice for the lead in Pretty Woman, gaining the role only after a number of other, better known, actresses had turned it down as 'too sexist' or 'degrading to women'.
Another movie which far surpassed expectations was My Big, Fat Greek Wedding (2002). It had a budget of only $5 million and earned $241 million at the U.S. box office alone (far surpassing Pretty Woman on $178 million), more than any other romantic comedy. It also earned a respectable $127 million in overseas sales. While not as successful internationally as Pretty Woman (which managed $285 million), it allowed MBFGW to secure the number 5 spot for a modest outlay.
Overseas sales were also extremely important for Notting Hill (with Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts) as it earned 'only' $116 on the U.S. domestic market but more than double that ($248 million) internationally to leap up to 7th place.
About the Author
See the full list of Top 20 Romantic Comedies, with details of stars, directors and earnings at Top Romantic Comedies and also at Romance Movies
What The Camera Doesn't Show—Turning Sub Rosa to Your Client's Advantage
We were packing the last box for the trip up to Placer County when it arrived. Sub rosa, or private surveillance, video of our client. We stopped packing to review it. Ten minutes of video shot over two separate five-day periods. Our client, with a neck injury, exhibiting a full range of motion as she got in and out of her car and turned her head to change lanes. Doing other things she said she had difficulty doing. A report accompanied the DVD.
The first sensation one gets is a tremendous sinking feeling. One of the best pieces of advice I've ever received: almost every piece of evidence can benefit you—you just need to figure out how. Some call this judo law. Others might call it rationalizing.
We showed the film to our client, who was a very active and social individual before the incident. She was part of a swing dance culture where she went out five nights a week to dance. As she watched herself drive home from work, go to McDonald's and eat in her car before going home by herself, she commented on the date on the video screen. "That was my birthday." We compared the film, the report and her schedule, and a pattern emerged.
The camera does not show the client in the house trying to recover the next day. It does not show the client's reportage to her doctor that she was trying out something she did before the accident only to find it caused her great difficulty. And it does not show what the camera operator chooses not to film. But sometimes the absence of activity can be an asset.
So how do you help the jury learn to distrust the investigator and focus on what the camera does not show? First, personal injury attorneys ask a question one usually avoids on cross-examination. Please explain. "Please explain to us how you conduct your surveillance?" My partner, who has conducted a number of investigator cross-exams, suggests this. Cars with tinted windows. Hiding behind bushes. Following into stores. Cameras hidden in. "Have you gone through people's trash?" Not here but yes. "And you control what gets filmed and not filmed?"
The longer the explanation the better. As the investigator explains the jurors imagine this man hiding in their neighborhood. The sleazier the explanation the better.
Next, we compare the time spent following our client to the time actually filmed. In our case the investigator spent 79 hours (or 4,740 minutes) waiting for her, watching her or following her. He shot 10 minutes of video, or 0.2% of the time. He noted that she spent a majority of her time in her house by herself where he could not film. The only time he ever saw her leave the house were the three days a week that she went to work. That was where he helped prove our case. The rest of the time our formerly active, social, dancing client stayed in the house by herself. Her friends and family had already testified that she no longer went out aside from work and errands. "You didn't film her dancing. Snowboarding. Hiking. Running. Going out with friends. When you were following her you didn't see her do anything but go to work, stop for an errand on her way home, and stay in her house."
We also noted other oddities. The time stamp on the film in January showed some footage shot at 5:30 p.m. which looked like daylight. But the sun went down at 5:09 p.m. "Can you control the lighting?" Yes. "What else can you do with the editing software?" All sorts of things. "You can shoot from different angles?" Yes. "And you're told what the subject can or cannot do?" Yes. "You can select angles to highlight activity?" Sure. "Perhaps make it look like she's turning her head more?" Well I wouldn't say that.
He didn't have to. The jury had already concluded the sleazy investigator had cherry-picked the footage and may have doctored it. They believed that the material NOT on tape was the real story and that the investigator had helped prove our case. The lesson learned? Look at sub rosa video closely. Evidence that you automatically assume is bad can yield hidden gems. You may just find your opponent has inadvertently helped your case.
About the Author
We know what it takes to win.
We understand the challenges individuals and families face when they seek recovery for their losses, whether from personal injury, wrongful death, medical malpractice, or employment discrimination and harrassment.
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 4000, San Francisco, CA 94104 415-398-5398 877-398-5398
Eligible for free shipping!
![Klipsch Synergy SUB-10 Subwoofer Speaker - 200 Watts (Black) [Electronics]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31hcvbfP3KL._SL75_.jpg)
