Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
February 7, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Chronicle, the found footage superpower film, opened to $22 million and had glowing reviews along the way. Which surprises you more, the positive word-of-mouth or the excellent buzz?
Matthew Huntley: I saw the film and it's definitely solid, so neither the positive word-of-mouth nor excellent buzz come as huge surprises. Quite simply, the movie offers a fresh take on a ubiquitous (and immensely popular) genre, and while I think some viewers are going to get carried away with it (one commenter on IMDb already said it was the best superhero movie after The Dark Knight), I think it has the power to start a new trend: the combining of realistic, grounded characters with fantastical ideas. Fox must be ecstatic for a few reasons: 1) The production budget was only $12 million; 2) The target audience is males, aged 13 to 30, so it's likely to sell well on DVD and Blu-ray; 3) There's easily room for a sequel. It's rare, but there's nothing but positive news surrounding this one.
Bruce Hall: I have heard someone, somewhere, describe just about every superhero flick made since 2008 as "the best one since The Dark Knight". This includes decent movies like X Men: First Class, mediocre potboilers like Kick-Ass, and intolerable buckets of dog vomit like Captain America. I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. In this case, the positive word-of-mouth behind Chronicle doesn't surprise me. The marketing campaign was intriguing and whenever I've seen the trailer show up at the theater, the place grew quiet and everyone got focused. It would seem the finished product lived up to the hype, and Fox is being rewarded for it. I can't think of anything negative to say about this either, except maybe how mildly surprising it is for a truly interesting trailer to be followed by an equally engaging movie.
Brett Beach: I'll have to go with positive word-of-mouth, as buzz is always too nebulous for me to form any sort of opinion on. My question is whether the uniformly positive critical reaction help get more people out to see this who weren't among the opening weekend preferred demo of teen males? This was marketed in a original manner (loved the human piloted mini-planes flown over NYC last week), and proves once again how an articulated even slightly original idea can trump stars and $100 million of special effects. This strikes me as one of the more unexpectedy entertaining and novel origin stories since... Unbreakable?
Edwin Davies: I'm genuinely surprised by the buzz, not because of how positive it was, but because of how suddenly it appeared. I hadn't heard one word about this film until maybe two weeks ago, yet by the middle of last week it seemed to be the only film anyone was talking about. The buzz went from silent to deafening faster than any recent film I can think of. With Cloverfield or Paranormal Activity there was a build up, but this really seems to have come out of nowhere.
That the final product is apparently really good is also pretty heartening, if only because The Wire/Friday Night Lights fan side of me is just thrilled to see Michael B. Jordan as one of the stars of a hugely successful film. So it's a good film, people are embracing it, and it's made double its budget in four days. This is about as big an all-round win as you can find.
Max Braden: Both are positively surprising, but the good word-of-mouth really surprises me. There's nothing from the trailer that indicates that this is anything other than another cheap genre movie. Which makes me wonder: how did the guys making the trailer miss that?
David Mumpower: I agree with Edwin that the vibe from Chronicle is that a switch was flipped from "What is Chronicle?" to "The universe will take away my cellphone if I don't watch Chronicle asap". I don't know who had the power to pull off such a marketing coup but theirs is the most impressive superpower involved with the movie, the one with practical business applications. If The Devil Inside is the undeserved surprise hit of January, Chronicle is the yin to its yang. It's a wildly profitable title whose buzz will only grow over time, meaning that this is a Paranormal Activity-ish situation rather than a "You are sending me to a Web site???" public relations disaster. What Chronicle has quietly accomplished this weekend is exactly what studios spend tens of millions of dollars to create buzz on superhero franchises. That this has been done so cheaply and effectively is a staggering achievement.
Four word titles are the best!
Kim Hollis: The Woman in Black, Daniel Radcliffe's first attempt at post-Harry Potter success, opened to $20.9 million and also garnered positive reviews. What do you take from this result. Do you believe Radcliffe will continue to be a box office draw or is he permanently typecast?
Matthew Huntley: I never thought it would happen so quickly, but Daniel Radcliffe proved in The Women in Black he's capable of breaking the typecasting curse that plagues so many young actors, specifically ones who were launched into fame because of a single franchise. There came a point in WIB where I actually saw him as his character and not as Harry Potter (or Daniel Radcliffe). I think the film's director, James Watkins, deserves some of the credit because he helps make the role distinct and uses subtle techniques that help flush out an original performance. Right now, if Radcliffe does become a box-office draw, I can say with certain legitimacy it's because of his talent, and not his attachment to the HP brand name.
Bruce Hall: I think the results speak for themselves. Actors become typecast for a variety of reasons, but sometimes it's because they're really not any better than the role that made them famous. I don't pretend to know how Radcliffe's career is going to pan out, but it's become clear that he's a genuinely talented actor, and not just some kid who happened to resemble a fictional character and was therefore cast as that character. Now that Harry Potter is over, its former boy wizard has shown a willingness to take risks and challenge himself. Plus, he's clearly not afraid to fail. I think that those qualities will continue to serve him well.
Samuel Hoelker: I think it says something, as well, that this is the movie right out of the gate: it's not particularly youth-oriented (the setting's a century ago in northern England), it's not gory, and it doesn't rely on action sequences. This result shows that people were willing to take the plunge, and with this success, I think that (within reason) the cinema world is now Radcliffe's oyster.
Brett Beach: I would add a few other observations. CBS Films finally has a big win. Hammer Studios emerges from the distant past. And, although it is still too early in my estimation to declare Radcliffe on the road to a long career, I note some interesting parallels with aspects of Hugh Jackman's career: Yes, they are separated by about two decades, but both are always going to be known for one role (in the fantasy genre), and yet they have each proven themselves on the stage - in dramatic and singing/dancing parts - and seem interested in having a well-rounded and long-lasting career. They also seem to be grounded and be genuinely likable. Mebbe Joss Whedon could cast them in a musical action superhero film?
This was a good, more mature role for Radcliffe to lead out of HP and is a solid stepping stone more than anything.
Edwin Davies: I agree with Bruce that the performance of this film does a lot to illustrate Radcliffe's status as a draw outside of the franchise that made him (certainly in comparison to, say, Taylor Lautner). On paper, the idea of Daniel Radcliffe going straight from being a teenage wizard to a widower with a young child sounds ridiculous, but the response shows that Radcliffe's a good enough actor now to bring that sort of maturity to the role. Whether or not he has a good or great career going forward now depends on the choices he makes, but I think that he has the tools he needs to forge a lasting career as a leading man, and in ten or 15 years we could all be talking about how weird it is that Daniel Radcliffe used to be known just for Harry Potter.
Max Braden: I had no idea that Radcliffe was in this and expected it to make no more than Don't Be Afraid of the Dark did last fall. As it turns out, The Woman in Black has almost met Dark's full run gross in the first weekend. I'm going to have to assume that Radcliffe's audience was well aware that he was in it and he was the primary reason for the movie's decent opening weekend.
David Mumpower: Since we have reached a consensus about the movie being an impressive hit, the one point I would like to make about Daniel Radcliffe is that he reminds me of Sean Connery. Nobody remembers this now but Connery was only 32 when he made his first appearance as James Bond in Dr. No. He worked consistently for 40 years until he made the mistake of signing up for The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Radcliffe is ten years younger and his first role is that much more iconic. There is no ceiling for what he can do in this industry if he has the inclination.