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

Joshua Pasch: When I went to the theaters Saturday night with my girlfriend, we were planning to see Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. And with an odd mixture of disappointment and pleasure, I learned that SPVTW had sold out already (disappointed I couldn't see it; hopeful it wouldn't have a steep second weekend drop). I then turned to the next unlikely candidate for movies I could convince her to see - Piranha 3D. Alas, I had no such luck. For starters, she wasn't keen on the entire schools-of-fish-regurgitating-human-genitalia concept, but sealing the "no way I will see that in a million years" deal was the 3D a the end of the title. For her (and for me to an extent) 3D has become a warning sign. It says loudly and clearly that you will certainly be paying more for your feature and you may even be receiving less. This being the giant theater in the middle of NYC, one might think that there was a Piranha gobbling man-parts in mere 2D on another screen, but alas, no such luck. Clearly this non-starter, date night situation played out in similar fashion in multiplexes around the country, leading to Piranha's disappointing weekend tally.

Reagen Sulewski: I don't know about you guys, but I learned my lesson from Snakes on a Plane. People don't really get tongue-in-cheek cinema, and the difference between a "bad" movie and a movie pretending to be bad doesn't exist to them. You have to explicitly hammer on the parody idea for them to get that (see: Vampires Suck). The real prize for this movie is in its future cult status.

No Colin Firth means no $$$

Kim Hollis: Nanny McPhee Returns earned $8.4 million. a little more than half of the first film's $14.5 million. How should Universal feel about this result?

Josh Spiegel: At the domestic box office, Universal just can't win this year. Part of the problem, in my opinion, is the very crowded marketplace the multiplexes have right now. Five new releases, even if none of them are monster hits, clog things up and people just didn't feel the need to see this over everything else. The first movie was cute, but it also opened in January, when things are always very quiet. Now, the movie's done great overseas, but why wouldn't it? Here, Nanny McPhee just isn't as big, nor was a sequel in such high demand.





Matthew Huntley: Even though Nanny McPhee Returns is a mid-level hit internationally, it has still grossed less than its predecessor in every major market so far. This is a fact many industry people believed would plague it domestically, and sure enough, they were right. So even though Universal should be disappointed by this result, they had to have seen it coming, which should soften the blow, but it still doesn't make it easy.

Why the less-than-stellar box-office? It's probably not the quality of the movie (I actually think it looks enchanting and wouldn't be averse to seeing it). I think the problem rests with the poor release schedule. Domestically, why would the studio choose to open it so late in the summer? They should know that kids are now preparing to go back to school and don't have as much time to go to the movies. Like the original, the sequel seemed better suited to open over a three-day school weekend instead. I feel Universal's domestic release department should have known this. I sort of pin the failure on them.

Continued:       1       2       3       4       5