Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
June 8, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: The Hangover, a Warner Bros. comedy starring absolutely no one famous (except maybe Mike Tyson), opened to a remarkable $45.0 million. How do you explain this breakout success?
Josh Spiegel: I think that there are a few things that pushed The Hangover to such a great weekend. First of all, the marketing team at Warner Bros. deserves a collective pat on the back. Despite the fact that the film doesn't star any major celebrities (though most people may easily recognize the faces of Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms), there have been scads of TV ads, trailers, and posters all over the country. Also, the critical response was generally pretty good for the film; maybe not as strong as it was for Star Trek or Up, but still, the overall consensus was that, for a raunchy time at the movies, The Hangover is best. Moreover, the ads teased some of the better gags and reinforced the mystery that drives the plot. Though it's too early to tell how good this film's legs will be, this is a flat-out success all around.
Scott Lumley: There was a really positive vibe coming off this film for a while now, and marketing for this was EVERYWHERE. I think this may have been the most advertised film I've seen in a while with the exception of the Dark Knight last year. I think the studio recognized that this film was even better than they hoped, really cheaply produced and decided to put some major muscle behind it in the marketing department.
Pete Kilmer: The marketing and advertising on this was perfect for this type of film. Plus having the money shot of Tyson knocking the guy out showed that this was going to be a crazy movie.
Max Braden: Twenty-five years ago this would have been called Bachelor Party, which was a favorite then, so it's not surprising that The Hangover would do well, but it did about twice what I was expecting. What's even more impressive is that this is the type of movie Will Ferrell and Danny McBride might have been cast in, and yet they get beaten in the same weekend. Thinking back to Paul Blart's success, appealing to guys with sloppy guy humor seems to be the trick.
Daron Aldridge: For a movie that could have been legitimately retitled Dude, Where's the Groom?, you have to credit the marketing that actually just teased the right bits and gave the audience the feeling that there was stuff just as funny in the movie itself. It didn't give off the air that all the best parts were in the trailer for me. That being said, the film's quality has to meet or surpass expectations and apparently it did. Also of note, Scott, Warner Bros. was the studio behind the saturation marketing of The Dark Knight (which probably didn't really need it) and we know the success of that one, but they were also the ones beating us over the head with Speed Racer last May and sadly, we know the shameful performance it had. Basically, marketing needs a good product to be selling and it needs to be sold accurately.
Scott Lumley: I don't know how big the marketing budget for Speed Racer was, but it certainly must have paled next to the Dark Knight. I remember taking a subway in Toronto and nearly the entire platform was floor to ceiling Dark Knight Posters, standees and wallpaper. Completely insane. You're right in that it certainly didn't need it, but somebody at Warner Bros. believes in overkill.
Reagen Sulewski: I don't have a lot more to add to this - that's what happens when the answer is relatively simple. The marketing guys must dream about being handed something like this to sell. I would strongly disagree with the idea that Paul Blart had much connection with this, though - that was a PG film and made a lot of its money off the back of 12-year-olds.
David Mumpower: On a weekend where we saw a nostalgia film go up in flames, we also saw one succeed to an epic degree. Other bits of the trailer for The Hangover were hilarious (particularly the guy jumping out of the trunk), but it was the usage of Mike Tyson airdrumming In the Air Tonight that sold many. Despite everything we know about his private life, Tyson remains an enigmatic, captivating celebrity. His usage here reinforced the fantastical idea all of us have about Las Vegas: we can envision ourselves meeting a celebrity in a similarly unlikely turn of events. It's silly with just enough thought behind it to be engaging. The Hangover is in the discussion for trailer of the year and that's why it was the #1 film of the weekend.
They'll all be "That Guys" five years from now.
Kim Hollis: Which actor - if any - from The Hangover do you think gets the biggest bump from the film's performance?
Josh Spiegel: Well, it's a big "if," but the only actor I see getting a boost, and a well-deserved one, is Zach Galifianakis. Here's a comedian who's been working the stand-up circuit for years, but has never really hit the mainstream - partly because his comedy isn't really that mainstream. Even though his character is very strange, and kind of creepy, Galifianakis is pretty much the movie's designated scene-stealer. Ed Helms is good here, but his role on The Office was probably a bigger boost to his career than this film would be. Bradley Cooper is fine here, but the memorable role goes to Galifianakis, so he may be the only lucky one.
Scott Lumley: I think the general rule of thumb for a film with this sort of cast is as follows. 'Whoever is either the funniest or most memorable character (or both) shall reap the lion's share of recognition for the role. I think that's automatically going to be Galifianakis. This film is going to be his 40 Year-Old Virgin.
The tough part will be following up. Does he leap to mind for *ANY* other major role?
Max Braden: I think it's Ed Helms. He's featured prominently so even if you didn't see the movie (like me), you know he's in it. I won't be able to recognize Galifianakis by face or by name in the future. I think he'll need another big movie to establish himself. Even though because I watch The Office it makes me think everyone else does (not the case), I think this weekend will put Helms in the mindset of bigger budget movies. Second is Bradley Cooper, whose name seems to be in the movies a lot in the last 12 months.
Daron Aldridge: As Max said, Bradley Cooper seems be a bit more visible than the other guys and therefore, I think he will get the biggest bump from this one. I liken Cooper to the type of actor that the studios REALLY want to make into a star and this kind of performance will just make them think he's finally arrived. Unfortunately, the word-of-mouth I have heard is that he's the fourth most memorable person from the movie behind Zach, Ed and Mike Tyson. Then again, maybe this proves that Cooper was the reason for Wedding Crashers' success.
Reagen Sulewski: I find Bradley Cooper to be just another one of those blandly handsome leading men, like Josh Lucas or Gerard Butler, of which there seem to be oodles of around. This will get him a couple of years of work but he's honestly the most forgettable thing about it. I don't know if Galifianakis has a lead role in him, but he's definitely about to become hugely famous.
Eric Hughes: Definitely will go with Galifianakis on this one, with Ed Helms coming in second. And to answer Scott's question about what he follows this one up with - Hangover 2, man! It's already in the works.
Pete Kilmer: Bradley Cooper, who had a stellar turn in Wedding Crashers, adds another notch into his movie resume. He works best in an ensemble and I think he realizes that. Ed Helms might just become a "go-to" type of guy for a bunch of movies as the uptight henpecked husband. But Zach just might become the guy that takes some roles that Jack Black is too expensive for.
David Mumpower: As a (or maybe the only?) fan of the short-lived Fox sitcom, Kitchen Confidential, I disagree about Bradley Cooper being bland. If anything, I think his problem to date is that his personality belies what people expect from his looks. His dark sense of humor is hard to translate, which is why I give the producers of The Hangover all the more credit for casting him perfectly here. I agree that Helms will get indefinite work in those Phil Hartman kinds of roles as supporting comedy actor and I also agree that Galifianakis could leverage this the same way that Will Ferrell did with Old School, albeit to a much lesser degree. In the end, Cooper is the one with the leading man good looks, however, and I strongly suspect that unless he prices himself out of it, an announcement is coming any day that he's the new Green Lantern. If that movie is good (a huge if to me), he's a superstar. If not, he runs back to The Hangover 2 and sticks to comedy from now on. Under any circumstance, he's having the career that was expected of his Alias co-hort, Michael Vartan.
Kim Hollis: While I do agree that Galifianakis steals a lot of the show, I also believe that Helms was just really terrific in this role, and his character was different enough from Andy on The Office that you're not just thinking he's a one-trick pony. I can see a lot of casting directors giving him a look for various character-driven roles. However, I still see Cooper as the guy who gets the big bump here. He mostly had the role of straight man in The Hangover, and he handled it very well. Some of his interaction with Galifianakis is just sublime, and I don't think that Zach's over-the-top character would have worked nearly as well without both Helms and Cooper to react to his outrageous antics and comments. Since Cooper is so good-looking, he's the most marketable of a good bunch.