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

The dogs are probably more polite than most society members

Kim Hollis: Hotel for Dogs, the latest canine family outing, was the weekend's fourth hit with $17.7 million over three days. Should DreamWorks be pleased with this result, or should they feel like their friends at Dogster have let them down relative to Marley & Me and Beverly Hills Chihuahua?

Joel Corcoran: DreamWorks has to be pleased that the third "dog movie" in four months - and the second one in the past three weeks - earned anything at all. Beverly Hills Chihuahua opened on October 3rd and earned $29.3 million; Marley & Me opened Christmas Day to $36.4 million; and the fact that Hotel for Dogs opened to even half of what the two previous films did is astounding, really. This film had everything going against it: opening in January, opening on a holiday weekend before the Presidential Inauguration, unabashedly marketed as a fluffy kids movie, and no real star power (with the exception of Don Cheadle ... but who's going to go see Don Cheadle in a Nickelodeon movie?). And I don't think I saw a single ad anywhere for this film. Honestly, I just don't get it...

Scott Lumley: If I've learned anything about box office results recently, it's this. Any time a cute dog is a centerpiece in a film, that same film will do about 200% more business than it actually should. I call it the "Awwww...look at the puppy!" effect. I've also learned that pandas can be surprisingly good at Kung Fu, but that doesn't really relate to box office theory.

Brandon Scott: Joel, did you say Cheadle was in this? I had no idea. I love the guy immensely...but I still won't see this. It's a pretty good result in a crowded marketplace. Remember that this figure could have easily held the #1 slot in a normal January weekend. This was a surprisingly powerful box office weekend. Historic, I believe.

Joel Corcoran: I had to look it up myself, but yes, Don Cheadle is in the film (playing "Bernie"). And I agree -- it's an astounding performance. But for the life of me, I can't figure out a single reason for why Hotel for Dogs made more than $10 million, other than we must be hitting a "dogs are the new black" era of film-making.





Daron Aldridge: I am amazed that Joel said he didn't see any ads for this because I saw them quite regularly for months. Therefore, I think that DreamWorks has to be a bit disappointed. I think that someone might be in the doghouse for this one (Wheee!!!!). It will possibly recoup its $75 million budget, which sounds astoundingly high, but they pushed this thing hard in hopes of duplicating Beverly Hills Chihuahua and it didn't.

David Mumpower: That reported budget for Hotel for Dogs is one that made me do a full-fledged triple take. If not for that, I would be thinking this is a solid hit. At a cost of $75 million prior to the advertising phase, this title is going to be lucky to be at a break-even point by the time it leaves theaters. Budgets like this for films this slight are why DreamWorks is having to ask Steven Spielberg to pay for his own films right now. It's the very definition of bad business. Did they accidentally give Emma Roberts Julia's salary or something?

Max Braden: Marley and Me benefited from the couples on a date demographic, while BHC targetted the under 10 crowd. Hotel For Dogs looks like it was aimed a little in between, so $17 million is a good result.

Tim Briody: Really? That much? The opening figure is suddenly not so great in my eyes. It better hope for uber-kid legs over the next couple of weeks.

Kim Hollis: Yeah, I think this has to be disappointing. MLK Jr. weekend is pretty darned family-friendly if you think about it. I always kind of suspected that this would be the least of the dog movies.

Continued:       1       2       3       4