New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Are you afraid of the dark?

Kim Hollis: 30 Days of Night finished in first place as expected this weekend, albeit with a lower than expected take of $16.0 million. What do you think of this result?

Tim Briody: I think everyone is saving themselves for Saw IV next weekend. Until one of them proves otherwise, it's kinda silly to throw any other horror film out there this time of year.

Reagen Sulewski: This is a pretty respectable result - it's a brand new horror property and its stars haven't blown off the doors lately. Basically it establishes it as a non-dud for people to check out on video.

David Mumpower: I'm of the opinion that this is a worst case scenario result. Given how hot the trailer was, a stronger marketing campaign down the stretch would have brought in more money. I'm just not sure Sony ever completely believed in this project, which is unfortunate because it's a strong horror outing. At 54% positive at Rotten Tomatoes, reviews border on glowing for a goth genre title in 2007. I guess it lacked the hook that Resident Evil: Extinction's destruction of Las Vegas offered. As Halloween approaches, I have to believe that word is going to get out that 30 Days of Night is a lot of fun, though.

Kim Hollis: I tend to agree that it borders on being a disappointment. I was really thinking mid-20s for this movie given the trailer and the subject matter. With all the gorno lately, this was a unique horror outing with vampires at the center. I guess goth just isn't as cool as it used to be.

I'm also thinking that word-of-mouth might be good for the movie, like David said. It's mostly very good (I have a few complaints, but overall I thought it was a scary, intense film) and our small audience was pretty actively reacting to it.

Joel Corcoran: I wouldn't call it a "worst case scenario," but I think the box office fell short of its potential due to some sub-par marketing. The trailer was excellent, the movie has a good storyline with a couple interesting twists, and all the elements were in place for this movie to hit a box office opening around at least $23-$25 million. However, the marketing -- and especially the TV advertising - completely skipped over the interesting elements of the film.

Heck, most of the time, I couldn't tell if the bad guys were zombies or monsters or both, and only in the theatrical trailer did I see any explanation for the "30 days of night" aspect, which is the most interesting part of the story in my opinion. The idea of vampires cavorting around above the Arctic Circle where they can enjoy weeks of perpetual night is imaginative and inventive, perhaps even as inventive as the "fast zombies" of 28 Days Later. Unfortunately, the marketing behind the movie did a poor job of bringing this point to the forefront.

Max Braden: I swear I saw this trailer on TV (yes, I watch live TV while another program is recording) more than any other this year. For all that marketing, and the horror theme this time of year, $16m is decent but not great. But the fact that it landed the number one box office spot says more about its competition this weekend. Everything out right now seems to be mostly dark and dramatic. If a studio ad delivered a decent comedy this weekend, I think the comedy would have won.

And this may be an odd statement, but I don't think movies based in winter perform that well at the box office. The Empire Strikes Back excepted.

Pete Kilmer: I believe that Sony failed to really push the film in the final stretch and so it fell a little short of the mark. While $16 million is respectable for an unknown horror franchise with no real stars, I was hoping for at least $22 million out of it.

I'm hoping word-of-mouth is strong on it, as the second and third books are much stronger in terms of story than the first one.

Now it's Casey's turn to shine (in Ben's movie)!

Kim Hollis: Gone Baby Gone, the directorial debut of Ben Affleck, opened to $6 million in 1,713 exhibitions. Reviews have been nothing short of rapturous for the production, but this translated to a per-venue average of $3,503. Are you focusing on the positive of it being a good movie or the negative of it not earning much this weekend?

Tim Briody: I would just like to mention that while I was quite aware of this movie, I had no idea it was directed by Ben Affleck until the local paper's review headline was "Bravo Ben!" and my first thought was that someone should be fired for referring to the wrong Affleck.

David Mumpower: This is a project with a budget of $19 million. It was never expected to be some sort of box office juggernaut. $6 million would feel like a win even if the reviews didn't sound like they came from Ben and Casey Affleck's parents. Ben Affleck has always struck me as an intelligent man, and I am not surprised that he figured out a way to reinvent himself while breathing new life into his career. At this point, I believe Gone Baby Gone to be the frontrunner in the race for Best Picture. If it sustains that momentum throughout awards season, it will be a huge financial winner for Miramax while Affleck's career will be resuscitated. The fact that he found a way to also make his brother, Casey, a much bigger force in the industry is just icing on the cake.

Reagen Sulewski: Without a doubt they were afraid of putting his name on it. I'm betting there were thousands of cries of "whaaaaa?" around the country when that credit popped up. That, or the reason this didn't do that well is that people did figure it out.

Kim Hollis: Miramax would likely have been better off platforming it rather than having it on so "many" screens. I think it will be a film that gets continued attention through the awards season with a potential re-release in the offing if it gets major nominations. I think the weekend total is fine for a start - what is more important is the positive critical attention at this point.

Joel Corcoran: It's a great start, and I completely agree with Reagen - there's no way Miramax wanted Ben Affleck's name feature prominently in connection with this movie. So, I guess I'm focusing on the positive aspect. It didn't earn a whole lot overall, but that per-venue average is very solid and bodes well for the future.

Max Braden: I think it's positive for everyone involved. I wouldn't expect Affleck to direct as frequently as George Clooney, who doesn't direct much, but the solid delivery boosts Affleck's credibility which has traditionally suffered from a popcorn reputation. And five years ago I wouldn't have believed Casey Affleck would amount to much. But this film and his performance in Jesse James both boost his credibility tremendously. I really wouldn't be surprised if he nabs at least an Oscar nomination sometime in the next ten years.

Continued:       1       2