Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
July 13, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Bruno, the de facto sequel to 2006's blockbuster Borat, opened to $30.6 million this weekend. Should Universal be satisfied with this result?
Josh Spiegel: With the initial opening weekend result, I imagine Universal is relatively happy. If, however, we're looking at the big picture, Bruno has nowhere to go but down. The opening day gross for Bruno was just under half of the opening weekend take. Borat (which did have a smaller amount of theaters in its opening weekend) had a far better opening day and opening weekend. Also, considering the fact that the movie apparently got a C from the polling group Cinemascore...Universal should just be glad that Bruno didn't cost nearly as much as Land of the Lost did. I've got a bad feeling that Bruno will end up just a bit more successful than that flop.
Brandon Scott: Yeah, I think they are okay with it, but probably hoped for more. Initial projections of $35-37 million would have been nicer. (Master of the obvious, I know.) Bruno being "gay" really makes him a much tougher mainstream sell. It's one thing to offend the Jews, but the fact that this didn't open bigger still speaks to homophobia being an issue in America. This was the least funny of Cohen's three original characters, though, so if this bags more than $75 million, it's hard to be unhappy. The issue here is all of the marketing dollars spent and the fact that Bruno opened much wider with greater awareness.
Tim Briody: This is one of the biggest releases that I can recall of something that wouldn't play in Peoria (hi, Kim!). $30 million is pretty good, though it's clear from the big drop on Saturday that it's going to vanish incredibly quickly. The word-of-mouth that Borat had isn't here at all.
Kim Hollis: You're right, Tim. There's not nearly the same buzz there that there was for Borat. Not only are its reviews less kind, but audiences in general seem to be having some negative reactions to something that seems more mean spirited in tone. Still, $30 million is solid even if I'm sure the studio was aiming for something a little closer to $40 million.
Eric Hughes: Absolutely not. Universal paid over $40 million just for the rights to distribute. The studio's still waiting to pay that off before paying for the movie itself. Uni may have to wait for DVD sales before it sees green.
Reagen Sulewski: It's the ugly realities of increased expectations. There was no reasonable chance that Cohen (and director Larry Charles - who's always pretty much an afterthought in these films, but is more crucial than I think people realize) could catch audiences by surprise again. At the same time, audiences are demanding more or less the same thing as Borat, and then getting a little bored when they get it. Under these circumstances, and the more provocative subject matter, this is pretty close to a best-case scenario.
Max Braden: They should be very pleased given that this is following Borat, which readied audiences for the shock factor. To me the character also seemed late in the game, like something Howard Stern would have done 15 years ago (his MTV Movie Awards appearance seemed like a repeat of Stern's Fartman appearance in 1992). And I really think the character's attitude was a factor; Borat creates havoc out of his innocent naivety while Bruno comes across as more contemptuous of others. Head to head, Borat's going to make more money, but $30 million for Bruno is a success.
For his next trick, why not team up with Michael Moore?
Kim Hollis: Should Sacha Baron Cohen continue doing these shock-umentaries or should he try to leverage his flavor of comedy into more conventional comedic roles?
Josh Spiegel: First of all, I'm not sure that we should be boxing Cohen into being solely a comedic actor. Obviously, he's a gifted comedian, but I think that he could just as easily embody a dramatic role as he does with a Bruno or a Borat. If he does decide to continue down the route of these mock/documentaries, what he needs to do is find fewer people who are in on the joke. The biggest flaw of the movie, in my opinion, is how many people were pretty aware of who Cohen really was. Cohen should stick to being creative and crazy, not giving people what they expect.
Brandon Scott: He will not give up doing these characters - it's who he is and what he does - but there is no question he will expand more into traditional comedic roles as well. The man is fearless. I have wondered aloud over the last several months what character he will next create, because his original three are all out in public awareness now. He knew that he had to cash in on an opportunity like this, but his career options are still limitless due to the respect he has earned in the industry and with fans. He's gonna be fine. *as he rolls over onto Isla Fisher*
Reagen Sulewski: Obviously I can't speak for Cohen, but I have to expect that he's bored with this kind of thing now. Doing another shock movie because people expect it would be exactly why he's likely to look for greener pastures. The worst thing to happen to a comedian is to become predictable. In the sort of dramatic/comedic vein mentioned above, I could see him aiming for a Peter Sellers-esque career.
Max Braden: If he continues the repeats he could risk being labeled as someone with an agenda or axe to grind like Michael Moore. I think he could continue his success by using his style in more conventional comedies. A mix of Steve Martin's satire with Jim Carrey's absurd physical comedy.
Kim Hollis: I actually agree that he seems to have more range than just comedy. I found his small role in Sweeney Todd to be very well-done (though admittedly it was a flamboyant character). I wouldn't be surprised to see him explore his options and do some smaller stuff to establish his capabilities as an actor.
Borat likes legs! Borat likes you!
Kim Hollis: What was remarkable about Borat was that it increased 7% on its second weekend to $28.3 million, on its way to a domestic total of $128.5 million. I think we all agree Bruno won't be the leggiest film. What are your expectations for it from now on?
Josh Spiegel: With the presumable onslaught of Harry Potter coming soon, the relatively stiff competition from The Hangover (which managed a 12% drop this weekend, an insane number), and other movies grabbing people's attention, I think that Bruno will be lucky to get $75 million in the States when all is said and done. Some people are probably disappointed with the fact that Bruno is very much like Borat, some may be too offended, and some may just not be interested. Either way, Bruno's performance is going to end up being more disappointing than some people may have thought.
Brandon Scott: I agree with Josh that that Bruno will ultimately be viewed as a bit of a disappointment in the end. It was kind of inevitable, I think. The fact that this rolled out into three times as many theaters off the bat makes this a marketedly different approach to a film push versus what Borat was. Borat put him on the map, Bruno was the follow-up and by most impressions, I think he did pretty well given the circumstances. Repeat business will be the key to how well this one holds up, which will not likely be incredibly well.
Tim Briody: Borat's increase was pretty much due to adding nearly 2,000 screens from opening weekend. It fell almost 50% the following week. Bruno is pretty much doomed and I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see a decline around 70% next weekend.
Eric Hughes: I don't feel people are as manic about Bruno as they were about Borat. When Borat opened big in 2006, audiences (including myself) who missed out the first weekend caught the wave by frame two. I kinda get the feeling that the people who wanted to see Bruno already did. I'd be shocked if this one tops $100 million domestically.
Kim Hollis: It's not touching $100 million. It's going to drop off huge next weekend and I would expect it to top out in the low $70 million range. If it had some good word-of-mouth, it would be different, but I just don't think this one appeals to the same wide range of individuals that Borat did. It also doesn't have the same timely feel as the first movie.
Max Braden: Borat was the phenomenon. Despite the good opening weekend, Bruno's going to perform like a typical summer comedy. I'd expect around $75-80 million and like Eric will be surprised if it could make it to the $100 million mark.
Beth who?
Kim Hollis: I Love You, Beth Cooper, Hayden Panettiere's attempt at being a movie star, opened to only $5 million. What went wrong here, and was there anything Fox could have done?
Josh Spiegel: The first thing Fox should have done was re-do the trailer. From all the negative reviews, it doesn't sound like even the best people could make a fully marketable trailer from the footage, but man...the previews for this movie were terrible. The movie felt like every other teenage comedy, the male lead was unfamiliar and bland...there was just nothing to do to salvage this production. If I was in a really cruel mood, I could say that Fox could have not made this movie, but...OK, so I said it.
Brandon Scott: Nobody loved Beth Cooper, that is clear. Layup. She is not a star, she is a niche market. I feel sorry for Christopher Columbus, going from Harry Potter to this. How the mighty fell. Hayden Panettiere now knows where she is in the greater landscape. She should be content to ride the Heroes train until it crashes. Even Katherine Heigl is looking like she might be smart enough to stick with TV now. The transition from TV to film is always one fraught with danger. Buyer beware.
Tim Briody: I know multiple folks here absolutely loved the book, so I imagine it hurts them that it was turned into a generic teen comedy designed as a vehicle for Hayden Panettiere.
Eric Hughes: I didn't looove the book, but did feel it could be good source material for a movie. When the previews (and reviews) came in, I decidedly changed my mind. What went wrong was that people that read the book (and those that didn't) - so essentially we're talking about everyone here - weren't excited to see this thing.
Max Braden: I Love You, Beth Cooper was the funniest book I'd read in five years but even when I first heard it would be turned into a movie I didn't have great expectations. A lot of the funny in the novel comes from internal monologue and creative wordplay, which I didn't expect they'd voiceover, so you're just left with a generic one-crazy-night teen movie like License to Drive. Seeing Panettierre cast was a further letdown but I feel like I'm in the nationwide minority for disliking her as an actress. I think she could bounce back with an edgy villainess character, but trying to put her on some Reese Witherspoon path with this movie wasn't the right step. Given how poorly it did, Fox might have done better with any other cast, surely with Michael Cera.
Kim Hollis: I'm a big fan of the book, too, and I thought the trailer looked harmless enough. I've liked Panettiere in some past roles (Malcolm in the Middle springs to mind), so there's more to her than what is on Heroes and in this film. It just went terribly wrong, and became a generic teen comedy. Clearly, the studio had no confidence in the movie and did the bare minimum to promote it. And they weren't wrong to do that.