Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
September 8, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: All About Steve debuted in third place with $11.2 million over the three-day portion of the Labor Day holiday weekend despite savage reviews. Is this a good enough result?
Josh Spiegel: It's an OK result. Considering how atrocious the reviews are (apparently, not even Armond White, good for a contrarian view on most days, could recommend this), and how odd the premise seems, I imagine that most of the money thrown towards this movie is based on the goodwill people had for The Proposal and The Hangover. I'm not sure, though, if the date change on All About Steve (which was meant to open pre-Proposal/Hangover) is as wise a move, as people may not be too impressed with what they saw here. Frankly, I was expecting this movie to do a bit worse, so its passing $10 million is just a bit impressive.
Pete Kilmer: Considering what a massive misstep it was for Sandra to do this film I think it's a fine result, where it will very quickly go to DVD and be a decent success.
Sean Collier: Considering what it would've done had there been any serious competition, it's an acceptable performance. My initial reaction was that Cooper and Bullock should've pulled in more after a big hit each, but the film just looks so far inferior to The Hangover (and, frankly, even The Proposal) that fans of those films wouldn't have much of a reason to bother here. It could've been a lot uglier.
Reagen Sulewski: This has sort of been the story of Bullock's career - she's thrown several duds in for every bit of gold, and she's never really been able to sustain a lot of momentum. Audiences want to like her, which is why obvious pieces of crap like this even get this far, but when you're working with nothing, they're going to figure it out no matter how popular the star.
Kim Hollis: I agree that it could (and probably should) have been much, much worse. There was nothing about this movie that looked good, and the only reason it probably finished above $10 million at all is Bullock's presence. On the plus side, reading the reviews of the film has made for some spectacular entertainment.
David Mumpower: I think what we've just seen is how much good will was fostered by The Proposal. This is one of the worst reviewed Labor Day releases of all time, which is like being the nastiest STD in existence. This film is going to be lucky to make $25 million domestically, but there are countless superior films that failed to reach that threshold. This film is a box office win relative to quality, making it a loss for people who want to see good films succeed. Then again, it's Labor Day, so I'm not sure anyone really cares about a third place finisher over the long holiday anyway.
Sandy's All About Steve mullet should marry Tom Hanks' The Da Vinci Code mullet and have babies.
Kim Hollis: Between The Proposal and All About Steve, has Sandra Bullock proven she's still a viable romantic comedy lead, or is All About Steve the beginning of the end for her as a lead actress?
Josh Spiegel: As much as I'm not a fan, I don't think this is anywhere near the end of Bullock's career as a leading lady. Granted, I think she may be advised to choose a little wiser next time, but with the success of The Proposal, she's still viable. If anything, All About Steve will probably be as quickly forgotten as a foray into drama such as Premonition.
Pete Kilmer: This is nowhere near the end for her as a lead actress - she's done this before. She has a massive hit in a rom-com and then follows it up with something that no one wants to see her in. I do think she has a window for how many times she can do this, though, as she's starting to hit that age where movie studios don't want to use women - which is a shame. Sandra is a very gifted comedic actor and I think she's looking for something outside of the "rom-com" playbook. She'll find it, might take a few other missteps, but she will.
Sean Collier: I think she'll stay strong if she becomes more selective. There's nothing wrong with taking a couple of years off and picking your spots, and she'd probably endear herself more if she followed that model. The trick will be not to follow a bad project with another bad project - her next move should be chosen with care.
Reagen Sulewski: I think Bullock is the rare actress that can take several years off and still have people remember her fondly. Usually after a few years of not being on the screen in your typical genre, audiences are on to the next and newest thing. So while it probably doesn't have to come to that (everyone picks a bad script from time to time), she could take another couple of years off if she felt like it.
Kim Hollis: While I think she's nearing her expiration date, I don't think the causality would be from All About Steve. Instead, the honest and brutal reality is that she's reached an age where parts won't come so easily, particularly because she seems to insist on taking the roles that have her tripping and running along beside vans, looking ridiculous. She really ought to do an indie project that lets her showcase some real acting chops, I think.
David Mumpower: I'll offer the dissenting opinion here by saying that I think that her days as a romantic lead are ending in inglorious fashion with All About Steve. The fact that she's gotten two such parts at the age of 45 speaks volumes about her lasting appeal. This is a brutal industry, however, and all good things (i.e. people over 40) must come to an end (i.e. only get roles as treacherous politicians, corporate overlords and wizened grandparents).
The only way this movie was going to succeed this weekend was if it had been called "Football Gamer"
Kim Hollis: Gamer, the videogames-come-to-life action film starring Gerard Butler, opened to $9.2 million. Should Lionsgate be pleased with this result?
Josh Spiegel: I'd say so. Considering that Gamer opened to a bit under the opening weekend take of Crank, the debut film from the two guys who spearheaded this film, it's not too bad. Gamer, like Crank and Crank 2, is a movie that will most likely thrive on DVD and Blu-ray. Still, the main disadvantage here is that the marketing was relatively slight; I wonder if a stronger push could have gotten Gamer more dollars.
Pete Kilmer: Yeah it's a solid take for a movie that will disappear in a week or so and then get replayed endlessly on TNT. If nothing else it keeps Gerard Butler's name out there.
Sean Collier: I'm not sure what they could've done differently, so I'd call it solid. A more intriguing title, perhaps; it's currently doing battle on the marquee with Shorts and Extract to see which of the three can be the least descriptive.
Reagen Sulewski: When you throw out a movie that's based on scary technology used for nefarious purposes, you're immediately cutting off a huge portion of your audience that doesn't even know what you're talking about. The mass-media angle didn't help either, as people just don't care about that kind of thing, and then it then got dressed up as EXPLOSION!: The Movie. It's amazing it did this well.
Kim Hollis: It had a tiny budget, which tells us that the movie's writer/directors can create pretty slick-looking stuff on a shoestring amount. I think it did about as well as could be hoped.
David Mumpower: I have to say that I thought the ads for this movie made it look night and day better than it had sounded on paper. I expected it to win the weekend, meaning it failed to live up to my expectations. A single digits result for a videogame-related action film doesn't scream success to me under any circumstance. People just don't care about Gerard Butler.
So far, we know that he's a brutal guy who can win a boss fight and a romantic hun. What's next for our hero?
Kim Hollis: Where does Gerard Butler stand as a box office draw at this point?
Josh Spiegel: I think he's still somewhere in the Eric Bana range; Bana was a guy who, for a couple of years, was shoved down people's throats as the next Russell Crowe, for example; in the past year, he's chosen two roles where he played a supporting character with some kind of quirk, as opposed to the dour leading man. I think Butler could still break out, but it depends on the kind of project he chooses; also, I'm not so sure that any of the movies he's been in that were successful could have their success attributed to him. 300 does well with or without Butler. The Ugly Truth does, I bet, relatively the same with or without him. I think he has potential; first, though, he's either got to work on his American accent or stick to his native tongue.
Pete Kilmer: I agree with what Josh says. Butler will have a very solid career in a high profile, strong supporting roles with the occasional lead role in a lower budget flick - unless Marvel Studios signs him to some project.
Sean Collier: Esquire ran a cover story about him which seemed very convinced of his status as a leading man; then again, this month's Esquire has Sam Worthington on the cover. He's one of those guys who might be a leading man, depending on the way his career goes. I think it'll take a flukey blockbuster to do it - one of his mid-level projects breaking out, and in a more mainstream way than 300 did. He could also follow the Bana path. Too early to call it, I'd say.
Reagen Sulewski: I really don't know how many times we have to reject him before it sticks. I mean, he seems like a very nice guy, but everyone seems to be holding onto the idea that he was somehow a key to 300 working, when he couldn't have been more incidental.
Kim Hollis: I think most people would look at you with a glazed stare if you ask them who Gerard Butler is. He's not interesting and though he can be attractive, he just doesn't stay with you once you've seen a movie of his. He's forgettable.
David Mumpower: As I touched upon in the last topic, he's been rejected as a lead actor as much as anyone this side of Eric Bana. He seems like a nice enough fellow and a decent actor, but his name in the cast means nothing financially.
Extract opens low, King of the Hill is coming to an end. Mike Judge should be a bigger deal.
Kim Hollis: Extract opened in ninth place with a disappointing $4.3 million. Is this going to be another Mike Judge film that becomes a hit on home video? Why do you think people don't go see his films in theaters, in spite of their quality?
Josh Spiegel: People don't know about them. Let's not forget how roundly dismissed Idiocracy was by the same company that reaped benefits from Office Space. Sure, Extract had the biggest push of any Mike Judge movie, but I feel like Miramax didn't know how to advertise the movie. When I saw Mila Kunis on Conan O'Brien this week, I was shocked to find out that her character was a con artist of some kind; the previews basically just show her and have other characters go nuts at how hot she is. I'm sure Extract will do fine on home video; the problem is that Judge's films don't translate as simply as do movies such as, for example, The Hangover. That's not a bad thing, but for the business end, it doesn't help much.
Pete Kilmer: No one really knows who "Mike Judge" is. Yeah the home video crowd does, but as a movie theater "brand" he's not that well known to the mass public. Damn shame too, as he really does have his finger on the pulse of a lot things that people can relate to.
Sean Collier: The humor in his films comes from longer set-ups and character traits; these things don't translate well to trailers and commercials. So you either make a trailer that describes what the film is about (and thus isn't funny,) or make a trailer that tries to piece together one-liners and gags (and thus doesn't describe the film.) It's a marketing problem he's sort of stuck with.
Kim Hollis: His stuff is just impossible to market, plain and simple. Judge is brilliant and funny and if you watch his stuff, even something that is sort of not good like Idiocracy, you're bound to find something worthy of making you laugh. I feel pretty sure this is going to be a DVD hit.
David Mumpower: I feel that the magic of Mike Judge comes from the repeat value of the jokes. The comedy maxim is that something is less funny the second time it's heard. This is not a universality, of course, and a lot of Judge's humor proves this. There is a reason so many of us can recite Office Space/Beavis & Butthead dialogue like scripture. It's still just as funny now as it was the first time we heard it. The problem is that most of his jokes are difficult to articulate in a television ad. "Oww My Balls" is a gag we quote a lot on the site staff page when we discuss Wipeout and other uber-violent reality game shows. Quantifying why it's hilarious is nearly impossible yet we see that reference thrown around quite a bit. His "problem" is that his comedy bits are oftentimes sublime, but they generally take a while to appreciate fully.