Monday Morning Quarterback
By Kim Hollis
October 20, 2008
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Max Payne, the latest poorly reviewed video game adaptation, earned $18 million this weekend. Given the title's moderately modest budget of $35 million, is this an acceptable result?
David Mumpower: This falls on the low end of what the three Resident Evil films did on opening weekend ($17.7 million, $23.0 million and $23.7 million), but it's better than the most recent fall videogame adaptation, Hit Man. That title started with only $13.2 million. Given the fact that Max Payne is a relatively obscure property and the fact that the reviews are Boll-esque, I think this is a success. The people who cut the white-hot trailers deserve a raise for stealing money out of customers' pockets, but that's how this game works.
Tim Briody: For the budget, it's totally a success. I had completely forgotten that Max Payne the video game existed until the release of the movie, so to most people it's just a "everything must blow up" movie and this is an acceptable opening.
Brandon Scott: Acceptable, yes. However, I can't help but think that Marky Mark is not that beloved by film fans. Given the time of year, yeah, it's a good enough number but based on the star, the trailers, and the fact that I know of the video game, I was hoping for more. I like Wahlberg as an actor but it appears that he has peaked as a box office draw. Should he bring back the Funky Bunch to boost his credibility? One wonders...
Reagen Sulewski: I was expecting a lot more out of this based on the trailer, which as mentioned, was dazzling. It feels like they should have tried a little harder to push it as the next Sin City, or something like that.
Pete Kilmer: The trailers were fantastic and really nailed the essence of the games. Too bad the movie itself didn't. I think it's a more than acceptable take for box office.
Kim Hollis: I agree that the trailer had me geared up for this movie to do a little bit better than it did. I'm talking about maybe mid-$20 millions, though, so it's not significantly lower than what I was thinking. For a video game adaptation, I have to believe this is a pretty good result, particularly when your star is coming off something as terrible as The Happening.
Jason Lee: Personally, I thought that this was a very, very solid opening weekend of Max Payne. The original video game isn't all that well known compared to the Resident Evil / Lara Croft / Silent Hill / Pokemon games that were also adapted into films. You also have a B-level actor that is (as of yet) incapable of opening a movie on his own. $18 million, to me, smells of success.
You'll release the dogs, or the bees, or the dogs with bees in their mouths and when they bark they shoot bees at you?
Kim Hollis: The Secret Life of Bees, the theatrical adaptation of the best-selling Sue Monk Kidd novel, opened to $11.1 million and had the best per venue average in the top 12. Would you consider this a winner for Fox Searchlight?
David Mumpower: Oh, I feel this is one of the biggest success stories in recent memory. This was a quick shoot that occurred at the start of 2008, and it was written and directed by my beloved Gina Prince-Bythewood. She hadn't done a feature film since she got so much (well deserved) acclaim for Love & Basketball, which is hard to believe. The combination of a beloved book, a potent cast and a director who has previously delivered the goods made for a shockingly good debut. This was over double what the studio had been projecting for the title.
Tim Briody: This is one of the more legit surprises at the box office in ages. It's a huge win for everyone involved.
Brandon Scott: It's a surprising, almost shocking figure. To keep the ex-rapper theme alive...why do moviegoers turn out for Queen Latifah while Marky Mark is not bigger? Anyone for an old-school rap battle between the two to settle it? I digress.
Reagen Sulewski: This is an unreserved success, and it's probably bought itself some Oscar consideration.
Pete Kilmer: It's got a stellar cast, it was marketed almost pefectly and it didn't open in a massive amount of theaters. All of these are positives to really get word-of-mouth going and to create a little steam engine of a movie that will expand into more theaters as it goes along.
Kim Hollis: I think there were some signs that this movie could break out, but I am surprised it succeeded to the degree it did. The book is very well loved and Oprah was totally talking the film up, which counts for a lot with the target demographic in particular.
Jason Lee: With this opening weekend success, does anyone else here see a "The Secret Life of Bees 2: The Hive Strikes Back" coming to theatres in Fall 09?
"Investment means you're purchasing something, and somebody has to make that which you purchase and sell that which you purchase. And that's how the economy works." -- George W. Bush, Hudson, Wisconsin, Aug. 18, 2004
Kim Hollis: W. earned $10.6 million during its opening weekend. What should Lionsgate take from this debut?
David Mumpower: W. is one of those wild card releases where box office predictions are all over the place. Few of the ones I saw slotted the film in double digits, nor did the tracking data. Reagen Sulewski, who can't come to the phone right now because he's too hung over from his bachelor party last night, had a pretty good read on it with his $9.5 million prediction. In the end, I think he accurately evaluated the title with his description that this is a "movie without an audience". For a $25 million production that will have a fair amount of historical appeal on home video, this feels like a win.
Brandon Scott: Does this speak to the real W's approval rating? Perhaps. Stone is a Hollywood pariah almost and can certainly be box office poison. Couple that with an unpopular subject. I guess it's a fair result looking at it that way.
Reagen Sulewski: I thought a drunken bachelor party would be a good tribute for W's opening weekend. Yeah, that's the ticket...
Kim Hollis: I think it was a tough sell no matter what. Conservatives who voted for W. weren't going to come out for this, because it looked like their guy was being poked fun at. Liberals who have endured eight years of his policies probably didn't really need a reminder of what he is to them. With that said, I do think it was marketed as well as it could have been. I was watching a lot of CNN last week and I legitimately think I saw 2,000 commercials. Okay, maybe it just feels like 2,000, but if we were measuring box office based on the quantity of ads I saw, W. would have made $75 million.
Jason Lee: I 100% agree with Kim. If I were to post anything, I'd just re-copy what she said.
Did you know that I Executive Produce Entourage?
Kim Hollis: Since 2003's The Italian Job, this is the seventh Mark Wahlberg film out of eight to open to at least $14.5 million. Is it fair to call Wahlberg a box office draw?
David Mumpower: We had casually discussed this a few months ago upon the surprising $30 million debut of The Happening. I said at the time that Max Payne would be a good opportunity to re-evaluate the situation. Honestly, it's not. I don't think the success of this title is any more indicative of Wahlberg's appeal than The Happening, a film specifically marketed under the M. Night Shyamalan umbrella. Max Payne's trailers sold a John Woo-flavored action film rather than a Mark Wahlberg film. At the risk of making Marky Mark want to crack my beautiful nose, I believe We Own the Night and Shooter best reflect what he means to a movie, which is low teens box office. If the concept is a bit better such as Invincible, that can bump to the upper teens and if he does something with a better cast like Four Brothers, he can sneak into the twenties. Anything more than that in terms of box office would require the mafia, intelligent apes or a capsized boa.
Brandon Scott: Having not seen this question ahead of time, I kind of examined this previously. He is not a guy who can generate a really large opening, but is he is a star? Sure. I honestly don't know why he isn't a bigger one, though. A guy with reasonable acting range, some tolerable film choices, a body cut from stone (hey, man...it is what it is, the guy is in shape), and he seems to be a decent guy off screen. Sometimes these things just don't add up, but on the flipside, he has been at it for a while now, and let's be honest, who would have thought that he would be here a decade in, considering where he came from? Not many, myself included to be sure. My hats off to the chap.
Reagen Sulewski: I'm still bitter about losing that prop bet over who would be nominated for an Oscar first, him, or MC Hammer.
Pete Kilmer: I think he and Leo DiCaprio (who we just talked about last week) fall into the same category. Really solid (and in some movies damn good) actors who don't always open to huge box office but wind up in massive movies at times. People know who Wahlberg is and unlike a lot of guys who started in movies around the time he did, he's going to be working for years and years and years if he wants to.
Kim Hollis: I think he's reliable and makes a lot of good choices in scripts (The Happening notwithstanding). He never pigeonholes himself into any particular type of role. I'm not sure that this means he's a draw, but I do think that his name does add something to a project.
Jason Lee: Frankly, I think that his opening weekend success is as much due to the project as it is to Wahlberg's own appeal. He's smart about what he attaches himself to and never strays too far from his strengths as an actor.
Doom. DOOM!
Kim Hollis: Do you believe the recent financial crisis and impending election aided or harmed W.?
David Mumpower: I think the unprecedented financial collapse aided the film to a degree if for no other reason than the "trillion dollar mistake" tagline recently added. That was an opportunistic ad campaign that drove home the idea that this Oliver Stone presentation would portray him harshly despite the director's assertion it would not be a polemic. Even so, I think we're only talking about a few million dollars of difference over the movie's entire domestic run. Foreign receipts, on the other hand, will paint a much more interesting picture.
Brandon Scott: Yeah, my feelings are that the financial situation isn't helping any film in the end. As for the election, I think it couldn't hurt the box office. Its as good a time to release a title like this as any. Now would an Obama movie have done double the business? Probably.
Kim Hollis: I think the movie was set up for success about as much as it possibly could be. Lots of people are thinking of Bush in the same way the ads seemed to portray him, and the political situation has both Republicans and Democrats running from the guy and totally blaming him for our current crises. I think without the election/financial situation, this would have been best served to open as a limited release, honestly.
Jason Lee: I just don't think anyone wants to talk or hear or watch anything about W. anymore. Period. We need a new fish to fry.
Pete Kilmer: After eight years of squandered hope and oppurtunity to do truly positive things, I think people are just done with him. I know I am.