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

Bruce Hall: The curiosity factor alone surely accounted for at least a third of ticket sales. Even I was intrigued, and I've been over Jackass for the better part of a decade. There's going to be all kinds of analysis on this one and you could make the argument that the inflated ticket price plus the draw of the 3D gimmick contributed to this. Fair enough, but if you ask me, over-analysis of a movie that revolves around people setting their balls on fire is pretty fruitless (pun absolutely intended). Purists and snobs can say what they want, $50 million is $50 million. Bottom line, most people get a perverse thrill out of watching other people humiliate themselves, and when they're doing it on purpose it becomes an almost irresistible draw. If Jackass the series didn't prove this, then the success of the first two films surely did. And when I first read that the third installment was going to be in 3D, I imagined Bam Margera making a three point shot from mid court, covered with ants, being attacked by monkeys.

Nothing but net. Total, absolute, unmitigated genius. The premise, the title, the timing...it is all according to prophecy.

Once the 3D fever hit Hollywood, this movie was inevitable - like peanut butter and chocolate. If you remember my comments when we discussed The Owls of Ga'Hoole, I mentioned that film's making effective use of 3D less as a gimmick and more as a way to enhance perspective and distance. In that case it worked well and in the case of Jackass, it's just a series of corny physical stunts married to a corny visual stunt. While I think this particular use of 3D will spur imitation, it will wear itself out quickly. But I have to admit that Knoxville and his crew struck while the iron was hot and made it work.

Well done, sir. Now put some ice on it and think about what you're going to call part four.

Brett Beach: To me, this seems like the type of story that might make our best of list at the end of the year. I find this as impressive if, if not more so, than Toy Story 3's triple-digit weekend back in June, both in terms of demonstrating an audience's pent-up demand for a third installment, as well as quite possibly, a case of adults bringing their slightly older but not yet 17-year-old kids. (Anyone back me up on this?) I can see in crunching the numbers that it shouldn't be all that astonishing but I haven't met yet this month's level of agogness so allow me to be slack-jawed.

I never saw the show, but did see the first movie - which is also the case with other adaptations such as South Park, Kids in the Hall, and MST3K - so I remain essentially out of the Jackass loop. In my mind, this was going to play out similar to last month's Resident Evil installment with a loss of audience being made up for by the 3D surcharge and coming in in the low 30s. Instead, we have a film that would have to improbably flame out to avoid hitting $100 million+ final gross. If they keep doing this every four years (which seems to be quite smart) we can look forward to installment number ocho when Misters Clapp and Spiegel and their cohorts near retirement age.

Shalimar Sahota: This is a total surprise to me. I think Bruce nailed it, in regards to the timing. With many films and franchises jumping on board the 3D craze, it wasn't going to be long before someone utilized the technology for stupid yet hilarious jokes. And clearly there's an audience for it. It bemuses me how the slightly similarly themed Piranha 3D can open small and fizzle out, but I imagine part of it is down to being part of a recognizable show and franchise. Even if you've only seen one episode on TV, it's easy for people to identify just what Jackass is. I just didn't think it would open as big as it did.

Continued:       1       2       3       4