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

Brett Beach: I would think that the disappointment of it not hitting double digits should be countered with the inexpensive nature of the project and the realization that it was always going to be a risky and uncertain proposition given the subject matter. Although it is unlikely, maybe some on-the-fence potential viewers might be up for checking this out now that the word-of-mouth mirrors the pretty incredible critical reaction, and it won't fall off entirely next weekend. I applaud Summit for giving this project the push they did and for selling it exactly as it is: as a comedy drama about cancer.

Reagen Sulewski: This isn't as dramatic a swerve for an actor as when Adam Sandler did Punch-Drunk Love, but it's close, and relative to the actor's status, perhaps more significant. I'm speaking here of Seth Rogen, who, let's face it, as great an actor that Joseph Gordon-Levitt is, the film was really being sold on. People aren't thinking "Hey, let's go see that Seth Rogen film about cancer! That sounds funny!" Looking at it in "guyjerker" terms, it's about a middle of the road result. You'd hope that the actors would count for something, and they do (that the film even got a wide release is something), but not as much as they would in their wheelhouse.

Bruce Hall: I generally agree with the consensus so far. Even with Seth Rogen in the cast, a story about a guy having cancer will usually drive away more people than it will attract. But it took courage to make this movie with the actors they did, and to sell it for exactly what it was, rather than try to hide it. And as has been pointed out, the movie made back its budget already. Like they say in Vegas, not losing is still winning. Anything this film brings in from here on out is gravy, and the fact that it's getting very good reviews should only enhance the careers of Seth Rogen and Joseph Gordon-Levitt down the road.

Max Braden: Speaking of Adam Sandler and Seth Rogen, this opening pales in comparison to their kinda-cancer-comedy Funny People, which opened to $22.6 million during the summer of 2009. That movie had a fairly weak trailer from my memory, but did at least feature an established actor and rising star. I've admittedly been away from the TV most of the last 10 days, but I think I saw one trailer for 50/50 (sidenote: as I was typing this I actually had to scroll up to remember the title of the movie we're discussing) and I can't recall anything about it except that it's a comedy about cancer. I think you generally have an easier time selling disease coupled with romance and angst, but then you could this opening didn't suffer much more than Love And Other Drugs did last November. Still, I don't think this result is a surprise much either way.

David Mumpower: Obviously, Seth Rogen connects the dots between Funny People and 50/50, making me wonder why he's so drawn to scripts about people dying. What 50/50 did not have is Adam Sandler and even with him, Funny People was a box office disappointment. This circles back to the topic we broach a few times a year about the nature of the movie going experience. One of the fundamental laws is that going to see a movie is intended to be a form of escapism. A distributor automatically alienates the overwhelming majority of their viewers by releasing titles with morose themes. It's not a totally debilitating scenario all of the time but there has to be enough added incentive in the ad campaigns to coax viewers to overlook the (cancerous) elephant in the living room. I thought 50/50 had a chance to earn box office in the range of $12 million, but I am not surprised by this lower result. This is the sort of film that most people want to enjoy in the comfort of their homes where they have the ability to parachute out if it's too depressing.

Continued:       1       2       3