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

Pete Kilmer: Jennifer Aniston (who I am HUGE fan of) is not a box office draw. She's proven that over the last few films she's tried to lead on her own. However, she is an outstanding utility player who can bring an "A" game against guys like Ben Stiller or Jim Carrey and can really support a project. I think she's going to have a much stronger career than Cameron Diaz, who dabbled in some of the same kind of movies that Jennifer has done. As for Owen Wilson, this was a smart, smart step after what happened to him awhile ago and I hope he gets the ball rolling for more projects.

Jamie Ruccio: I think Jennifer Anniston is the bigger draw. As has been mentioned, she's been on a media blitz for awhile regarding this movie. She's shrewdly manipulated the movie media by gently and subtly playing with the Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie gossip stories, posing provocatively in a magazine or two. None of this is bad by the way as she's done yeomen service to bring the movie to the forefront of people's attention. But I agree with Joel that the casting with Owen Wilson helped as well. It's an easy role for him given that I suspect it's not far from his own personality. The pairing of them seems to work. And I'm only half kidding that the dog deserves some credit too.

Kim Hollis: As much as I love Owen Wilson (and I mean love. He's on my laminated list and has been for years), I'm not sure that either he or Aniston were the draw here. I think the puppy is the draw, plain and simple. With that said, I think that it was important to have recognizable, established stars as the leads. It wouldn't have gone over nearly as well with cheaper stars like Matthew Perry and Lisa Kudrow in that spot, to name a couple of different Friends who could have slipped into the roles.

Once upon a time, there was a boy named Adam...

Bedtime Stories, the Adam Sandler family flick from the good folks at Disney, finished in second place and has earned $38.6 million in its first four days. Is this a good enough result?

Joel Corcoran: My question is "Good enough for what?" Good enough for Disney to make a profit? Probably, though not necessarily on box office take alone, and maybe not a big enough profit to make Disney executives completely happy. Was it good enough to keep Adam Sandler around for a while longer? Unfortunately, yes. Sandler isn't as popular - or as funny - as he was six or seven years ago, but he'll keep limping along after Funny People comes out next year. Good enough to turn around an otherwise dismal December? Definitely not. Not in the slightest.

Scott Lumley: To me, Bedtime Stories seems closest to Night at the Museum, a film that didn't exactly start off like a rocket either. Bedtime Stories actually outgrossed NATM for the first weekend, although it took an extra day to do so. The kicker here is going to be if this film can show some legs and I think it can. It's a funny family movie and those kind of films always seem to do well long term. Despite the fact that this film did not take the number one spot, I still think we'll be talking about this film for a while, and it sure seems poised to do a lot better than Yes Man or Seven Pounds appear to be.

Continued:       1       2       3       4