Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
January 30, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: The Grey opened to $19.7 million. What do you think of this result? And do you believe the wolves have been taught a very important lesson about dominion?
Reagen Sulewski: I just hope Liam had enough soul gems on hand ... sorry, I've been playing too much Skyrim lately. Liam Neeson becoming a credible action star at the tender age of 56 is one of the more interesting phenomena of the last little while, and with three of these under his belt, it's clear that it's just a matter of finding a screenwriter with a crazy enough premise to stick him in ("Okay, so Liam is a botanist with a secret, and he goes to the Amazon rainforest to kick some logger butt...").
Then again, maybe it's not that unusual a thing - after all, Charles Bronson was 50 when he started the Death Wish series (and hey, look at that, Joe Carnahan has said he wants to remake that, hint hint).
Matthew Huntley: The Grey's $20-ish million doesn't really surprise me. For one thing, the movie had a catchy trailer, promising action and thrills, on which it faithfully delivered. It's also "that Liam Neeson time of year," when the actor is the made the top draw of a January/February release whose plot is about a man trying to overcome seemingly insurmountable odds. Such a formula is safe and familiar and makes a $20 million opening all but guaranteed.
Surprising or not, the figure is well deserved because the movie is quite good, and given that it carries a production budget of only $25 million, Open Road must be happy, especially since it's nearly double what their last movie (Killer Elite) opened with.
Max Braden: An office mate asked me on Friday for a list of Oscar nominated movies currently in theaters that she should consider seeing. Her response to my list was "Eh. Eh. Oh great, exactly what I need for a Saturday night out at the movies is a downer 9/11 story." A genre movie like The Grey is probably locked in at around $20 million anyway, but having a respected actor in the lead is just enough to allow audiences to go and turn their brains off without feeling guilty about it. I'd choose a wolf getting punched in the face by Neeson over a 9/11 story, too.
Brett Beach: At the risk of embarrassing myself, I think this opening is a big win, if only because I never saw any trailers, had only a bare bones plot description to go off of and the early reviews that I glanced at (which were in the negative minority) made it sound ridiculous and terrible, like The Edge 2: Wolf Pack. I would balance the downward trending of this opening vs. Taken and Unknown with the fact that I think this was a harder sell than "Man beats up thugs to rescue his daughter" or "Man beats up thugs who have stolen his identity". I had not heard about Carnahan's invovlement in a new Death Wish, but yea that would be the logical endgame for these types of latter-day Neeson movies.
David Mumpower: Reagen touches upon an interesting aspect in that this is the acting equivalent to Clint Eastwood's late career ascension as a director, a trend that diminished recently. I think what Neeson has done is more impressive because Eastwood was already a legend. Neeson is experiencing a fundamental change in perception about his acting skill that perhaps hasn't been seen since Leslie Nielsen woke up one day and everyone else noticed he was funny. What is most impressive about the accomplishment is that Taken by all rights should have been a one-time success yet he has followed up with a pair of equally original action premises, Unknown and now The Grey. What is brilliant about the latter film is that if you put someone in their 20s or 30s in the film as the lead, it's not as interesting. An older guy trying to survive enhances the concept.
Since we all agree that this is a fantastic result for a $25 million production, the other aspect of this story I find fascinating is that it is an Open Road Films release. For those unfamiliar with the distributor, this is the joint start-up from Regal Entertainment and AMC Theatres. The two largest exhibitors have chosen to work together to fill a few bare spots on the schedule with their own programming. The first attempt, Killer Elite, was undone by Clive Owen's mustache (prove me wrong!). The Grey, however, is a huge triumph. This demonstrates that the idea is workable and puts some of the power back in the hands of the exhibitors.
Finally, I'm glad those uppity wolves have learned a harsh lesson here. Humanity can unleash the Neeson whenever needed.
Why do mediocre openings happen to awful people?
Kim Hollis: One for the Money, yet another in a seemingly endless line of indistinguishable Katherine Heigl films, opened to $11.5 million in spite of $6 tickets on Groupon. Why do you think this film struggled? Do you believe Katherine Heigl is running out of box office juice?
Reagen Sulewski: I think we've all been very, very patient with Ms. Heigl, waiting for her to star in a movie that would justify her acting like a miserable person to all and sundry, biting every hand that feeds her. That stuff gets out of the insider circles and people noticed. I wouldn't say that's the biggest reason for the failure of One for the Money, but it's in there. Obviously it's the fact that the movie looked terrible (personal pet peeve from the trailer - someone accidentally firing a gun indoors in a crowded room with no one freaking out about almost being shot or complaining about their hearing) and it's remarkable given that this is from a book series with 17 and counting potential sequels (that's, like, a James Bond number of films). This is a squandering of an epic degree.
Matthew Huntley: The answer seems simple: the movie looks bad. Really bad. I haven't seen it, so I can't judge for sure, but if the trailer is any indication of its quality, then I would suspect we're entering The Bounty Hunter territory (and indeed it has a similar plot). When I first saw the preview back in September, the reaction by the audience was a collective "pee-eww," and it looks like things haven't changed between then and now.
If Katherine Heigl wants a shot at becoming a revered actress, she's going to have to take on roles that go beyond the rom-com, girl-next-door routine. Audiences will then respect her, and that can only help translate into better box-office. Right now, I think most people are tired of her because she brings nothing new to the table. We're asking, "What's so special about Katherine Heigl?" It's her job to remind us.
Max Braden: This is a case of two wrongs definitely not making a right. Say what you want about Heigl, but I can't see any actress (Julia Roberts maybe? "They're called guns, Ed.") filling in and making this movie look good. It's like the producers thought, hey, Jennifer Aniston as the bounty didn't knock it out of the park, maybe the solution is to make her the bounty hunter! That's not a comment about the source material; in fact, their serial nature is probably what makes them work, and maybe this would have worked as a TV series. But every bounty hunter movie since Midnight Run has been a poor imitation. Heigl's not going to turn that history around. She needs a project that is going to make her look *less* snide and contemptuous of the world.
Brett Beach: It is my understanding that Heigl purchased the rights to at least the first book, hoping to make this her franchise. If so, then that says a lot about her own ability to pigeonhole the type of character she plays. Considering that the series runs 18 books to date and the character of Plum is somewhat beloved, this represents a major messup and an f.u. to the fans of the books. I think the problem was that the trailers made it look cheap and made it look like a distaff knockoff of The Bounty Hunter. Anyone who sat through that probably wasn't going to get on the merry-go-round a a second time. Although the situations are dissimilar, my first thought was "Kathleen Turner in V.I. Warshawski" and if that rings no bells, there is a reason for that. Projects like this can only keep hurting Heigl in the short term and the long run.
David Mumpower: If Katherine Heigl were a movie character, she would be the obnoxious, entitled witch who gets her just desserts in the end. We may be witnessing an example of life imitating art as her career continues to fall apart. Alternately, this is a correction of sorts as people begin to realize what a joke it is that she keeps getting work as the spunky do-gooder who deserves love and happiness. Ask the Grey's Anatomy writers what she deserves and I strongly suspect the answer is a hydrochloric acid enema.
With regards to why the film struggled, everyone is right about the trailers. Having said that, there needs to be accountability on this, because the book franchise is a frequent staple on the bestseller list. There are 18 titles that could potentially be adapted and yet they can't even get the first film right. I'm not one to call for blood but heads should roll. This is a legitimate female franchise that never got out of the gate. That's inexcusable.