Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
November 6, 2007
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: American Gangster opened to a scintillating $46.3 million, making it the biggest opener of both Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe's careers. What makes this movie so much of a must-see opening weekend performer than the men's prior projects?
Joel Corcoran: I was impressed (and mildly surprised) that American Gangster had such a strong opening. I think the combination of seeing Washington and Crowe playing characters in conflict against each other and a great story also made this movie such a big draw. Both actors are very forceful personalities, and both have done well in movies focusing on a single character (e.g., Man on Fire, Training Day, Gladiator, and Master & Commander). But this film is one of the few times we've seen either Denzel or Russell matched up against an equally forceful and talented actor. Also, the story is very intriguing. It's based on historical events that not many people are familiar with, and it's a twist on the traditional gangster movie.
Pete Kilmer: It's Denzel playing a charming yet bad man a la Training Day. That's what people went to go see. Russell Crowe as the cop after him is just icing on the cake.
Kim Hollis: I agree that the powerhouse combination of Washington and Crowe is really at play here. The trailer was white hot and highlighted the dichotomy of the characters the two men would be playing. Washington is always consistent and I think audiences can sense when Crowe has done something special - he's carrying over a lot of goodwill from 3:10 to Yuma as well.
Dan Krovich: Could it be time of year? There were plenty of adult oriented drama/action/thrillers this fall that failed to connect to this level. 3:10 to Yuma, The Brave One, The Kingdom, Michael Clayton all had what you would consider movie stars in them. Or was American Gangster the first one of these films to also connect with younger viewers?
David Mumpower: In addition to the other astute points others have made here, I also believe that the Movie Vacuum theory we have also played a key part. If you are not a fan of Saw movies, there has not been a legitimate blockbuster movie choice in quite some time, arguably since summer, even. Both Bee Movie and American Gangster benefit from the fact that after two months of blockbuster fatigue, we have just experienced two of the most disappointing months of movie releases in the past decade if not longer.
Watch out. Here comes Fred Claus.
Kim Hollis: Do you think American Gangster's opening is going to be the biggest one for the rest of 2007?
Joel Corcoran: I'm going to have to say "unfortunately, no." I think the biggest opening in the last two months of 2007 will be National Treasure: The Book of Secrets. And I hate saying that. The Golden Compass has an outside chance to have a bigger opening than National Treasure, but I'm not very optimistic about that happening.
Dan Krovich: No. In addition to the National Treasure sequel, there's I am Legend and I even think Fred Claus could challenge the number.
David Mumpower: I disagree with Joel about The Golden Compass, a movie I believe will do solid numbers over time. As a December release, its opening weekend will be negatively impacted, so I will be surprised if it opens to what would be Lord of the Rings numbers. Fred Claus is a coin flip to match/surpass this in my estimation while National Treasure: Book of Secrets and I Am Legend strike me as mortal locks to beat it. So, my answer is no though it will be on the short list of biggest non-summer openers in 2007.
What do you want, a prize?
Kim Hollis: Does American Gangster's opening automatically move it to the top of the list of contenders for the Academy Award?
Joel Corcoran: I think so. It's a solid, serious film with a "socially meaningful" story backed by a talented cast and crew of Oscar winners. In that respect, it's in a very similar position as The Departed was in the fall of 2006, though American Gangster had a much bigger box office take on opening weekend - The Departed pulled in only $26.8 million when it opened, after all.
Dan Krovich: It already had a good bit going for it with two Oscar winners in the leads and a multi nominated director, but I think this opening definitely solidifies it.
David Mumpower: Short answer: yes. Long answer: In a year where so many potential awards season contenders have been out and out busts financially, it does seem as if a movie with the pedigree of American Gangster and the financial success of a blockbuster is a strong contender for several major awards. With such a dearth of acceptable candidates so far, this one has to be the leader in the clubhouse, even if it is being dismissed by some as a The Departed clone.
We've had movies this year about rats and bees. What's next, an amoeba?
Kim Hollis: Bee Movie opened to an estimated $39.1 million. What do you think of the performance?
Joel Corcoran: That's about five million dollars per year that Jerry Seinfeld has been hyping this movie.
Tony Kollath: .....and about a dollar for every "TV Junior" that NBC showed during the last 2 weeks.
Dan Krovich: It seems like a "wait and see" number. It could hold through Thanksgiving and play through the holidays, or it could be out of theaters by mid December.
David Mumpower: I believe everyone else is being too polite here. We were hyper-critical of Over the Hedge, the last DreamWorks movie to open in this range. Its $38.5 million start was less problematic as it went on to earn $155.0 million domestically. I don't expect Bee Movie to have that sort of appeal since its reviews are politely blah. It has been hyped to death on NBC as they have cross-promoted it to death with their old pal, Seinfeld, yet that didn't translate to anything more than a lower-than-average opening weekend for the title. Clearly, saturation has set in for the genre, as was demonstrated with even Pixar's latest release, but DreamWorks can't possibly be happy with this result.
Calvin Trager: The movie's premise obviously put people off. A bee that sues a human? That's funny? That's supposed to be funny? That's what passes for comedy these days? What kind of person would come up with an idea like that in the first place? Who ARE are these PEOPLE!?
Well, it made more money than Comedian.
Kim Hollis: Jerry Seinfeld's situation is novel in that he was arguably the most famous TV star of the 1990s, but that was his only real acting gig of any sort. He's been out of the public eye for nine years other than his comedy tours and a documentary about his stand-up. How well do you think he transitioned to making a big-budget, mainstream, family film?
Joel Corcoran: I think he made the transition rather well. This movie was a huge project for him, and while it doesn't seem to be any sort of "breakout hit" or revolutionary step in movie animation, it's a solid performer and a crowd-pleaser. I don't think there's anything terribly good or bad to say about the performance of Bee Move, and I'm sure Seinfeld can look forward to a career doing quite well putting out movies that are four or five years behind the curve.
David Mumpower: I suspect that this was the smartest way for him to attempt to make movies. He's never going to be confused as a good actor, so voice work makes sense. The problem is that he is something of a work trick pony, and his acerbic brand of humor is difficult (borderline impossible) to match with the mercurial tastes of children. So, he can't do conventional movies, he would probably be a fish out of water in a pure comedy, and he has problems making a family film that kids would find funny. It's a situation with a limited number of quality options.
Holds up boombox playing In Your Eyes
John Cusack was unable to sustain the momentum of his $70 million summer hit 1408, as his latest movie The Martian Child grossed only $3.6 million and had a miserable per venue average of $1,782. Can you quantify why a project like this one fails and The Game Plan succeeds?
Pete Kilmer: I hate to say it...but John Cusack doesn't carry films anymore. The women who swooned at him in Say Anything are busy doing other things, and the guys who dug him in Grosse Pointe Blank aren't that interested in a heart warming adopt-a-kid flick. And let's face it...1408 was NOT a John Cusack film. It was a Stephen King movie with Cusack in it. The reason The Rock's movie did so much more is because The Rock is willing to play the game with interviews and guest spots on tv shows....Cusack? Not so much. He's a great actor who does interesting work, but his time is passing rapidly as a movie star.
Joel Corcoran: I think Pete has a point, but I won't go so far as to say Cusack's time has passed. I thought he did a spectacular job in 1408 and it was a role well-suited for him. Yes, it was a Stephen King horror flick, but Cusack brought some genuine humanity to the role - the initial swaggering and arrogance that steadily evolved into abject fear and recognition. I think The Martian Child bombed (and let's be honest here, it bombed) because Hugh Grant should've been cast in Cusack's place. It just wasn't the right place for him to be. A "Cusack film" is one where he plays a character that is just not comfortable with himself, is a little unstable, and is struggling to find his place. Not only was it just not the right movie for Cusack, we already saw this film five years ago when Grant did About a Boy.
Kim Hollis: This was a film with absolutely no studio support, either. It's been delayed and pushed a number of times, and it seems fair enough to say that New Line knew they had a bit of a stinker on their hands. Cusack was working with a director he liked on something different for him and it just didn't work out.
Dan Krovich: I think genre also had something to do with the difference in success of the two films. Sappy comedies are okay, sappy dramas, not so much.
It's all about Scott Patterson.
Kim Hollis: Saw IV fell 65.7% to $11 million this weekend, giving it $51.1 million after ten days. Is this more, less, or about what you expected from the project?
Pete Kilmer: That seems about right for this film. It'll make a pile of money once you get foreign box office counted, but I think the "Must See"-ness of this film has passed a bit.
Joel Corcoran: Saw IV seems to be playing to expectations. It had a big opening, it's dropping off quickly in theaters, and it'll rake in huge amounts of cash in DVD sales and in the overseas box office (like Pete mentioned). Lionsgate could continue pumping out iterations of this franchise for at least a few more years, if not another decade.
David Mumpower: These films are the Tony Gwynn of movie box office. They're every bit as reliable as him hitting .300.