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

David Mumpower: I think Matthew answered the question even as he was stating he didn't completely understand the film's continuing appeal when he said: "(it) reminded me of my dog". What How to Train Your Dragon is doing very, very effectively is appealing to people who have experienced a connection with a pet. I had a cat for 18 years and the dragon's mannerisms forcibly reminded me of him at several points, particularly at the end of the film. As we were walking out, my wife commented that its overall behavioral pattern is eerily similar to our most recent kitten. The fact that dog owners are making similar comments is telling.

DreamWorks Animation has managed to create an animated character so endearing that it is causing some of us who have had that Perfect Pet to overly identify with Toothless. That's why they're getting business later in the film's life cycle than is ordinarily the case. Consider that their most recent RealD release, Monsters vs. Aliens, earned $22.9 million in days 18-24 of release. How to Train Your Dragon is at $24.8 million, a full 8% better. If we look at other recent releases of theirs, Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa was at $22.0 million while Kung-Fu Panda, their most successful non-Shrek film, made $23.5 million. It even approaches Shrek the Third's $25.6 million in its fourth week and that's a $322.7 million performer overall. How to Train Your Dragon clearly has more later release appeal than other recent DreamWorks releases.

Bring back Everybody Hates Chris!

Kim Hollis: Death at a Funeral, the ensemble comedy featuring Martin Lawrence and Chris Rock, opened to $17 million. What do you think of this result?

Josh Spiegel: I think that, for a movie that is one of the most unnecessary remakes, this is not a bad result. The cast is obviously impressive, but I'm sure that if Tyler Perry was involved, the movie would've done even better. That said, considering the odd combination of cast, director, and concept, 17 million isn't that terrible. But it's modest, nothing more.

Matthew Huntley: "In line with expectations" seems to be the perfect phrase to categorize this result. This is another win for Screen Gems since the film was reportedly budgeted in the low 20s. Even with less-than-average legs, it should be able to make $40-$45 million overall, which isn't mind-blowing, but enough to be considered a success.

Michael Lynderey: That number does seem on the underwhelming side, even if it's not a bad result overall. Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, and Tracy Morgan are all certainly mid-size stars, so I'd have thunk Death at a Funeral would have cracked the $20 millions, if not much more than that. But it's been a busy month for comedy, and the reviews didn't particularly help to distinguish this one. So, like a lot of recent films, it's a draw.

Tom Macy: I'm not surprised by this result although I could have seen it doing better. Given the success of the Tyler Perry empire, I thought "urban" comedies - what a weird, PC phrase, urban comedy - were an over $20 million lock. But you can't complain. This movie will make dough.

Reagen Sulewski: The $9 million gross of the original has the producers angrily disagreeing with all of you who call this remake "unnecessary".





Max Braden: I was expecting this movie to win the weekend in the mid $20s or above based on the market that Tyler Perry has been able to cultivate, and the slew of comedians in the cast. Maybe it needed Mo'Nique or Queen Latifah?

Eric Hughes: It's funny to me that Tyler Perry has nothing to do with this movie, yet his name appears plenty of times in our discussion of Death at a Funeral. I think we need to remember that his hand doesn't touch every movie with a (mostly) black cast. With that said, I was expecting a little more from the remake. The advertising, though at times gross and in your face, was funny. It seemed as if dudes like Chris Rock and Martin Lawrence hadn't been in a movie in awhile, and with 30 Rock's Tracy Morgan in tow, you'd expect audiences to follow. Given that the title *only* made $17 million, I wonder about Rock and Lawrence's star power. Morgan may not have any (yet) thanks to Cop Out's numbers. We're only talking about one movie here, but does the same hold true for Rock and/or Lawrence?

David Mumpower: I am of the opinion that this debut is a pure draw. The final success or failure of the project will be determined by this one's legs. Ordinarily, I would be definitive on the point, but this one is tricky. A lot of films that primarily target African-American audiences are front-loaded, which is why we are always discussing the way that Tyler Perry's films always open well then fade fast. Martin Lawrence's movies are cut from a different cloth as the popularity of the comedian seems to lead to people recommending his movies, even when they cannot explain exactly why. Chris Rock doesn't have a discernible pattern to determine a trend. If we wind up evaluating a $50 million performance for a title that cost $21 million to produce, it's an obvious winner. If it winds up right at $40 million, we have to downgrade it to low to moderate winner instead. My gut instinct is that falls short of $50 million, but my answer is dependent on exactly how short.

Continued:       1       2