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: While I certainly see this as a fantastic result, I have trouble characterizing Cinderella as the stroke of genius many are calling it. Recycling old stories for new generations has more or less been the whole point of storytelling since the dawn of time. So I'm not sure I understand all the breathless admiration over Disney remaking a story that was already a remake of something that technically wasn't theirs to begin with. And one of the reasons Disney originally began making animated adaptations of classic fairy tales was that there really was no way to make the films they envisioned as live action features. Now that the technology exists, it only stands to reason that they do so now.

The only part of this that I view as brilliant is to ramp back the production budget and focus on the story. When I look back at recent live action adaptations like Maleficent, Alice in Wonderland and Oz the Great and Powerful, I see films that were financially successful, critically underwhelming, and astoundingly expensive. I've never understood why these movies have to cost $200 million, especially when very little of that money seems to have been used as incentive to produce a decent story. And how can you not nail the story when your source material has existed for longer than any of us have been alive?

Cinderella is not just a natural extension of Disney's existing catalog; it is proof that a visually absorbing, narratively compelling film can be made for far less than the cost of a pair of surplus WWII battleships. Good word-of-mouth should ensure that Cinderella becomes one of the most interesting early success stories of 2015. Disney plans to generate at least a pair of live action features per year using this model, and if this is any indication, their brand revitalization should continue to be a success.

Max Braden: I was one - of a minority, it looks like - who thought this would open much lower than it did. Aside from Thor, which had a whole franchise to help sell it, Kenneth Branagh hasn't directed any movies that opened to much more than $50 million. Sure, this movie featured a Disney princess, but it's live action (vs. the more kid-friendly animation of Frozen and the visual effects of Maleficent or Alice in Wonderland), not a musical, not featuring actors who would be the strongest draw for kids and teens. To me, this looked like a movie that would appeal to Jane Austen fans and I expected a closer box office to that genre. I still wonder if the kids who flocked to Frozen went to see Cinderella; maybe high school teen girls thinking about prom joined couples out on dates? This is a strong result and demonstrates that the power of Disney princesses is showing no signs of waning.

Kim Hollis: I wasn't surprised by this result (I actually had forecast it at $75 million so it even came in under my estimate), but I still think it's a terrific result. We continue to see movies like Cinderella (and Maleficent, and Frozen) thoroughly appealing to the female demographic. This is an audience that is so under-served, and that has proven to be very weary of your standard Nicholas Sparks-style romances and romantic comedies. If you go to the Disney Store (or Disney World), you're going to see oodles of adorable girls dressed as princesses. At last, we had a movie that mothers and daughters could enjoy together, and it was beautiful and enjoyable to boot. No, it does not offer a new take on the story. Not at all. But it's as comfortable as a glass slipper and delightful escapist fun. I'd definitely agree that Frozen Fever contributed to the film's success.

David Mumpower: I always viewed Cinderella as a de facto sequel to Maleficent in addition to being a live action reboot of the beloved animated cartoon. It also features Frozen Fever, which is why I've jokingly been referring to Cinderella as Frozen 1.5. Look at those three marketing assets for the film. Now, try to think of how many films released over the past 12 months had this much going for them. Can you name 10? Five? The nondescript nature of the ads is the only explanation for this one opening to less than Maleficent. Yes, that film had Angelina Jolie cast in a perfect role while Cinderella was starless, but it's Disney remaking Disney. I agree with Kim that the shock here is that Cinderella didn't earn even more.

Continued:       1       2