Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
February 25, 2014
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Edwin Davies: Depending on which of the central figures you're talking about, this is either pretty good, expected or terrible. For Kevin Costner, this is about as good as a film starring him is likely to do these days, and is only a couple million off what the (allegedly) more high profile Jack Ryan did a few weeks ago. For Luc Besson, this is right in line with his non-Taken works, all of which tend to open in the low-to-mid teens and tap out in the $30 to $40 million range, before enjoying a solid run overseas. I expect pretty much the same for 3 Days to Kill. For McG, this is the second worst opening of his career, and if it does conform to the Luc Besson standard then it'll probably shoot under the $43 million We Are Marshall earned, making it his worst domestic performer. Unlike his last film, This Means War, 3 Days to Kill was cheap to make, so it'll go some way to rehabilitating him as a commercial filmmaker, even though he doesn't seem to be getting any better at, you know, directing films.
Jason Barney: This is not a disaster. It is not going to set the world on fire, but as Kevin Costner continues to find a good amount of work, perhaps we should not be surprised. It seems like his film obituary was written by many years ago, and despite the critics, he is still getting screen time. There is not anything significant about 3 Days To Kill, however. This is one of those movies that will be out of the top ten within two or three weeks, and with the RT rating being so bad, deservedly so. For Costner, there is still life to his career. His role in Man of Steel helped propel that one to box office success. Jack Ryan Shadow recruit didn't catch on here in the US, but I have been shocked at how well it has played overseas. Costner is no doubt part of the reason for that. If 3 Days To Kill even approaches its budget stateside it could be pushed into profitability by foreign markets.
Matthew Huntley: Ultimately, I think the word that best describes this performance is "lackluster." As Edwin and Jason alluded to, it's not disastrous, but it's also nothing to write home about. If it had reached $16 million, I think we could have graduated the description to "decent," and $18 million or beyond would have been "exceeded expectations." But as it is, the movie's numbers more or less fell on the lower side of predictions. At this point, it will likely be able to cover its $28 million production budget but will need a lot of international help to recoup its marketing costs.
On a related side note, I think most viewers continue to like Kevin Costner, myself included. He was strong in Man of Steel and Hatfields & McCoys (not to mention Company Men from a few years back). He's still got talent but obviously not as much box office pull.
Felix Quinonez: I think the box office performance is as forgettable as the movie looks. Thanks to its low budget no one will be hurt too much by this. And with overseas grosses, it might actually make a little bit of money. However it is in no way a hit and no one's career will be ignited by it.
Max Braden: Lockout, a sci-fi action movie Besson also wrote and was released two years ago in April, only managed to earn $14 million in its entire domestic run, so by comparison this is a minor success. I've always liked Besson's projects (especially ones shot by cinematographer Thierry Arbogast, as 3 Days to Kill is, which is the foremost reason I want to see it) but I think for the most part they come across to American audiences as European knock-offs of Hollywood action. 3 Days to Kill does have an aura of made-in-Eastern-Europe to it. For example, Amber Heard is a knockout but come on with that ridiculous wig. This movie seems to have wanted to recapture the audience for Taken, but is missing something (a weak father-child element, maybe). And which fixer would you choose: Costner or Neeson? I think we're going to see significantly higher box office from Non-Stop when it releases this weekend and steals the remainder of Costner's audience.
David Mumpower: As I noted the other day, Besson's presence guarantees international revenue. Max mentions Lockout above, so I will note that it did better abroad with $23 million than domestically ($14.3 million). The same is true of 3 Days to Kill; ergo, it will be a moderate success story. Is it anything people should throw parties to celebrate? Of course not. Is it good enough to maintain the relevance of Besson and Costner as filmmaker and actor? Yes. I also agree with Mr. Huntley above about the talents of Costner. Sure, I mock him since that is what people seem to expect and want of him. I still say that there are few actors in this world who can claim a movie trifecta anywhere near the quality of Field of Dreams, Bull Durham and Dances with Wolves. He has also had a pair of sleeper hits in the 2000s with The Guardian and Open Range. Plus, he was in a couple of my favorite sports movies of the past 20 years, Tin Cup and For Love of the Game. I have always admired his ability to select scripts. He generally avoids clunkers, even if their box office is clunky.
Kim Hollis: Pompeii, a disaster film/romance (disaster romance?) from director Paul W.S. Anderson, finished with $10.3 million over the weekend. It had a budget of at least $100 million. What went wrong here?
Edwin Davies: Other than that Volcano movies, like flannel and Kurt Loder, went out of style in the '90s? Most likely, I think that the human element was lacking here. Disaster movies are primarily an opportunity for exciting spectacle, but the successful ones always have a central relationship worth caring about that makes the destruction mean something. The best example is, of course, Titanic, but even utterly, utterly terrible movies like The Day After Tomorrow and 2012 emphasized that the central characters had families that they wanted to protect, and whether they lived or died (supposedly) mattered more because you (theoretically) cared about what would happen to them. The romance in Pompeii was played down in the ads in favor of explosions, and I think that turned people off because it then just became Kit Harrington vs. The Volcano. (Tagline: You know nothing about geology, Jon Snow.) The lack of any big names didn't help, but I think the bigger problem was that nothing about the marketing made Pompeii seem compelling.
In the long run, I don't think this will be a total disaster. Paul W.S. Anderson's got a proven track record of making films that appeal to a worldwide audience, even if they don't do so well in America (all of the Resident Evil films did spectacularly well internationally, and even The Three Musketeers made over $100 million worldwide). Pompeii, with its emphasis on 3D and destruction, won't be an out and out failure, though the best it can hope for is a heavily qualified minor success.
Jason Barney: Early on the trailer turned me off to this one. When I first understood what the ad was introducing I had a glimmer of hope. I do believe that Pompeii represents an historical and scientific curiosity, which could have been really successful. However, everything about it screamed overdone Hollywood stupidity and it kept fans away. The timing to open this one up in February is somewhat odd, as even if it is terrible, it seems like more of an attempt at a summer blockbuster.
As far as recent movies that end up being total disasters, this one will go near the top of the list. This joins the camp of I, Frankenstein, The Legend of Hercules, and 47 Ronin as the most recent HUGE misses.
Felix Quinonez: I think the central disaster of the movie isn't widely known enough to be a draw in itself. And the fact is the trailers failed miserably at giving us a reason to care. Allegedly there is a romantic element to the movie but it was not highlighted by the ads. There was nothing for viewers to connect to and the movie just seemed like a brainless special effects display. And at this point, no matter how much money was spent on it, disaster movie special effects are common place. They are not enough to get people to the theaters.
Matthew Huntley: Agree with everyone's analyses on this thread and the only thing I'd add is that this story has actually been told numerous times (the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius that is), so I think another factor to consider is the redundancy of the disaster plot.
Max Braden: These ancient civilization stories are such long shots. Unless you've got a runaway hit like 300, or appeal to the young adult audience as in the Percy Jackson series, or actually put some effort in to make it a solid production like Gladiator, they just come across as very niche action flicks that make far less than anyone wanted on a budget far higher than anyone should have spent. This movie's opening is a totally unsurprising repeat of The Legend of Hercules (which only opened six weeks ago but feels like months and months ago).
David Mumpower: Regarding Edwin's point, the only successful project involving lava was The Last Days of Pompeii, a mini-series we were shown in entirety during Latin II class one semester when my teacher was going through an especially bad break-up. The other notables were all either disappointments or bombs. Volcano grossed only $47.5 million against a $90 million budget (unconscionable for 1997). Joe Versus the Volcano was poorly regarded and earned what was considered to be a least case scenario result of $39.4 million. For perspective, consider that the other two Meg Ryan/Tom Hanks projects were You've Got Mail and Sleepless in Seattle. They grossed $115.8 million and $126.7 million respectively. Joe Versus the Volcano was a project mocked for its quirky title and little more. Finally, Dante's Peak was even more expensive than Volcano, costing $115 million to produce. So it was a bigger bomb in earning only $67.2 million. Lava films have historically done poorly and I was surprised not only that this title was produced but that the marketing failed to highlight the one great selling point: 3D lava. When I watched National Geographic in HD for the first time, that was the most gripping visual. Why, then, have the Pompeii ads done a poorer job of highlighting it than the movie poster? Pompeii was a mistake from start to finish. It's that simple.