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

Felix Quinonez: This is a great result and is definitely a big win for everyone involved. Its strong reviews and audience reaction should ensure very strong legs. Also, I believe that audiences will embrace this more than Interstellar. I think it has a very strong chance of out-grossing Christopher Nolan's movie when all is said and done. However it would need some really strong attention from the Oscars to rival Gravity.

David Mumpower: This actually fell a bit below my projections, which indicates I was too boisterous more than anything. What always stood out to me about The Martian as a concept is the purity of the undertaking. Gravity contains a similar turn of events, a person strategy in space, but its story arc is vastly divergent. It’s a film about isolation and the impending struggles stemming from such abandonment. That brilliant release is an 80-minute, hold-your-breath thrill ride.

The Martian goes the other way. Rather than focus on the botanist stranded on Mars to the degree that the book did, the cinematic adaptation celebrates community. It’s a story about the efforts complete strangers will undergo to save someone they don’t know. That’s a rare burst of positivity in 21st century cinema, and I welcome it. I’m thrilled that the film was received so positively by so many people, because this is the kind of release I want to see more often. It’s a fresh perspective among a slew of generic horror titles and interchangeable dystopian sci-fi outings.

Kim Hollis: Where do you rank Matt Damon amongst box office draws?

Edwin Davies: His name brings attention to projects, but his record of late has been pretty low on hits. His biggest successes since 2007 have been True Grit and Interstellar, neither of which can attribute their success to his involvement (in fact, Interstellar hid his presence from much of its marketing due to plot reasons), and the rest is made up of modest successes like We Bought A Zoo, costly misfires like Monuments Men and Green Zone, and failed Oscar contenders like Promised Land and The Informant! However, I feel like he brought something to all of those films, box office wise, and that far fewer people would have seen them if he wasn't involved (Elysium, for example, would probably have been an even bigger disaster without his face on the posters). He's worked a lot in projects that didn't catch on with audiences, and it seems that all he needed was the right project. Clearly The Martian was that project.

Felix Quinonez: I think he definitely brings credibility and attention to the movies he's in but I wouldn't consider him a huge draw. Usually when his movies are really big, there are other aspects that draw in the audiences. And like with the Martian, it'd be unrealistic to place all of the success on Matt Damon's shoulders.

David Mumpower: What I find interesting about the question is how open-ended it is in this instance. As Edwin notes, his box office results are eclectic. Critics could point to them as an indicator of his struggles to sell tickets. I view it more as what Damon chose to do in the wake of the Bourne Trilogy. He eschewed potential blockbusters to do more captivating stories, a similar tactic as Johnny Depp. The difference is that his name carried enough heft to lift most of those titles to better than expected revenue despite their lack of widespread appeal. That’s one of the hidden but critical definitions of a box office draw.

Damon’s career isn’t where it was five years ago, but that’s by choice. If he took three consecutive commercial titles in the wake of The Martian, all of them would do better due to his presence during the marketing campaign.

Continued:       1       2