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

Kim Hollis: I'm actually pretty surprised that it didn't pull in closer to $25 million. With the combination of Heigl and Kutcher, I really believed their drawing power was better. Granted, the movie looked terrible, but so did all of Heigl's other films. I'm actually wondering if a different studio might have been able to market Killers better. Lionsgate isn't really all about the romance or action comedies, after all. I guess a dog's a dog, though.

Matthew Huntley: This figure was pretty much in line with all industry expectations and the fact the movie lived up to it means people were willing to give it a try but not probably not willing to go out out of their way too much. That it made $16 million can attributed to lack of better films in the marketplace.

Kutcher and Heigl can obviously pull in a decent audience, but I don't think Killers will go too far north of $40 million. The movie is generic and derivative of so many other movies that before long it will only be a memory that performed okay at the box-office. Given the opening, I don't think it will be put at the top of either actors' resumes and won't justify LionsGate spending more than usual on the production budget and marketing.

Michael Lynderey: When I first heard about this project - and keeping David's stats in mind - I thought it was intended to be a $100 million earner, especially because of the release date and more action-oriented plot. But since then, it's been getting gradual downgrades in my mind: first, I saw the trailer and realized that a three digit total was pretty much out of the question; then, the release date approached, critics were shooed off, and this went from a $20 million opener to what it has now become - a modest disappointment for both stars. But listen, I saw the movie, and the low numbers make perfect sense, especially since the film's plot does not. The blame here lies with the quality of the picture, all the way. Heigl and Kutcher will recover.

Reagen Sulewski: Judging the quality of a Katherine Heigl project post-Knocked Up probably does feel a bit academic, but this did seem noticeably worse, and I think the general public is starting to take notice when studios pull stunts like holding their films back from reviewers. For G.I. Joe, it's probably not going to bring questions - because who's expecting G.I. Joe to be good - but for a star-driven action-comedy, people start to smell a rat. Also, can I hope that Heigl's "strident bitch" routine is going out of style? Why are we supposed to like her?

Josh Spiegel: That this movie made as much money as it did this weekend baffles me. Then again, Katherine Heigl and Ashton Kutcher in a movie is akin to nails scratching a chalkboard. People seeing this movie is just...there are no words for my confusion. Compounding my confusion is that this movie cost $75 million. Yikes.

Brett Beach: I'm in line with the general consensus here: $75 million budget?! That's especially shocking when the reviews for this keep mentioning how ineptly it is shot, edited and directed. Heigl inherently rubs me the wrong way too. Not many actors or actresses have such an effect upon me, but there are a few. I keep hoping Anne Hathaway will steal her roles and her mojo (not to compare lemons to lemon Pine Sol, but give me Bride Wars over The Ugly Truth any day). I think Ashton is following in Demi's path and becoming less interested in making movies. I wish him well with the photography sideline.

Continued:       1       2       3       4