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: Winter's Tale, a movie that is *not* an '80s remake but *is* based on a book that was written in the '80s, earned just $7.3 million this weekend despite a cast that includes Colin Farrell, Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly. What went wrong?

Matthew Huntley: I think a combination of factors led to this movie's dismal opening: 1) Intense competition (About Last Night and Endless Love were at least two other love-themed movies to open this weekend, and they were marketed more aggressively than Winter's Tale); 2) Banal title ("Winter's Tale" just sort of sounds plain and nondescript and probably didn't peak much interest [not that Endless Love is much better]); c) cheesy trailer/plot (I think even the most ardent romance fans might have thought a love story across time is too old-fashioned and stupid this day and age).

Edwin Davies: The trailers for this movie looked ridiculous and featured some of the most unintentionally hilarious lines you'll hear this year (Will Ferrell and Adam McKay need to rescue the line "I've had no memory as long as I can remember" and use it in a film that's meant to be funny). It wasn't just that the idea of a romance across time could be corny - and certainly looked corny from what was shown - but the ads did a terrible job of establishing who the characters are, what the stakes involved are and why anyone should care. It just looked like a mess, and that's before you get to Russell Crowe's truly astonishing attempt at an Irish accent, or the fact that he apparently works for the Devil. So much was wrong with the advertising for the film that it almost didn't matter that the reviews were almost uniformly terrible: they dropped the ball early and often on this one, and I can only imagine that what little money it scraped together came from people who couldn't get in to watch something else.

Felix Quinonez: I think it's a combination of things. First of all the movie looks incredibly bad. It's already been mentioned how bad some of the dialogue is but I'm just going to add that at parts, the trailer made the movie look like one of those spoof movies. Also the weekend was really crowded and I don't think any of the actors are actually box office draws. Russell Crowe was a long time ago but not anymore and he's not even the main actor of this movie.

Max Braden: I saw the trailer for this a few times and thought it looked like a mashup of some Victorian era and Russian novelist tragic romance. It turns out it's 1916 plus modern day, but that doesn't sway me an better. When you start messing around with multiple time periods, I think you're already limiting your audience. It just looked way over the top forced-fairytale romance. Not enough undead romance for teens, too much silliness for mature audiences.

David Mumpower: I consider this adaptation a missed opportunity. There is universal consent that people should read the book instead of watching the movie. The general rule in such instances is that there is a quality story available. It simply was not translated to film. To a larger point, the combination of director Akiva Goldsman and Russell Crowe is a decent starter list for the Five People I Would Meet in Hell.

Kim Hollis: This is based on a book that gets a lot of love critically, and I'm reading it myself right now. It's beautifully written and complex. It's also not a book that seems to lend itself well to movie format. When you get Akiva Goldsman adapting something that challenging, I sort of feel like it's almost bound to fail. The end result was a plot that made people roll their eyes and awkward, stilted dialogue.

Continued:       1       2