Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
October 14, 2008
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Quarantine, a horror film starring a bunch of unknowns, was the most successful new release this weekend with an estimated $14.2 million. To what do you attribute this performance?
Pete Kilmer: Zombies and the fact that it's "Cloverfieldesque" (TM Pete Kilmer) with its viewpoint. Also, has there been a scary movie in the last couple of months that a had a cool concept?
Scott Lumley: Halloween is bearing down on us like a freight train, and this is traditionally the time for scary movies to do well. Also, it starred the hot chick from Dexter (Jennifer Carpenter), so that's got to be an extra three or four hundred dollars right there...
Sean Collier: I'm always shocked that there isn't more of a Halloween release rush. Horror is cheap to make and easy to sell, and has a natural home in the month of October; while too many releases would tend to cannibalize each other, a lot of the smaller horror flicks that get scattered throughout the calendar would do much better in even a busy October, I think. Quarantine stood as the lone horror offering a mere three weeks from Halloween night; add in a relentless marketing blitz and a solid concept (and the Cloverfield bump) and I'm not at all surprised at the result. Now, if you'll excuse me, the one-screen house across town is doing a Cannibal Holocaust/Cannibal Ferox double feature that I really must attend.
Reagen Sulewski: It's sort of a myth that horror films do better in the fall - I mean there is a mood for horror films around Halloween, but it's more a boost to rental titles than theatrical ones. There have been a lot of really successful horror films in winter and spring lately. The most important thing to be for a horror film is innovative (if you're not a sequel). Quarantine is hooking into that idea that everyone is documenting everything these days, and the trailer had a fantastic level of paranoia.
Jason Lee: Frankly, I thought the commercials and trailer looked underwhelming. Horror films live and die by their ability to deliver a money shot - some crazy, scary, two-second shot that promises loads of unexpected scares. I didn't see that with Quarantine and so I honestly believe that teens came in based on the premise of the film alone (which isn't half bad) .
Kim Hollis: I think it's really a combination of a solid marketing campaign (it's not my cup of tea, but I do think it was totally hitting the sweet spot for teens/young adults) and the fact that we've had a bit of a dry spell when it comes to horror recently. There is a certain audience that will consistently come out for this stuff if they think it looks "good enough". This just seems to be one of those rare circumstances where the film actually delivers on its promise.
Brandon Scott: Teens continue to need movies to go to, to enact the yawn move with and hopefully make out during and after. Can't imagine many people over 20 would be contributing much to these sorts of efforts. That being said, the little marketing tagline implying it was based on true events was apparently effective.
Tim Briody: Somewhat related, when looking up what Cloverfield made, I had entirely forgotten that this movie happened nine months ago. I'm just not sure what it means.
C'mon. The Quick and the Dead was a massive hit!
Kim Hollis: Body of Lies, a Ridley Scott movie starring Russell Crowe and Leonardo DiCaprio, grossed only $12.9 million from 2,710 venues. Given its reported $70 million budget, how big a disaster is this for Warner Bros.?
Scott Lumley: This is nothing. This will make its money back in the long run, and Warner Bros will just try even harder to get Nolan and Bale signed for the next Batman movie. In short, it's a minor aggravation for them, and it's good for us.
Sean Collier: I'm going to digress for a moment, because I'm a new prophet, and haven't had a chance to voice an opinion of mine on the site as of yet. That opinion goes like this: Hey, you know who's really, really bad at acting? Russell Crowe.
That being said, the new rule for your international/geopolitical thrillers seems to be this: can you make a commercial that actually explains to us what your film is about? If the answer is "no," you're screwed. Audiences don't want to slog through a big political mess just because it has recognizable faces; we've seen dozens of examples of this over the past few years. Sell the film, not the actors.
Shane Jenkins: Yeah, good call Sean. I can't even make it through a review of this movie without becoming bored and confused. This is Ridley more in 1492 mode than, say, that of Black Hawk Down. You're very talented, Mr. Scott, but from where I'm sitting, it's been seven years since you directed a great movie, and I can't imagine your upcoming Crowe vs. Crowe Robin Hood flick is going to reverse the trend. Maybe it's time to stop answering Russell's calls.
Kim Hollis: Ooh, Sean. We are so sympatico on this. I have never liked Crowe much. I've found him acceptable at times (with LA Confidential being the only occasion where he really shines for me) but for the most part, if I see his name above the title, my first thought is "Pass." With that being said, though, I sort of love DiCaprio, so I'm at least a little bit surprised that their combined draw didn't mean more.
Jason Lee: I, for one, was extremely surprised by this. I thought that the trio of Scott, DiCaprio and Crowe would at least bring in $20 million opening weekend. I think John nailed it in his Weekend Wrap-Up by comparing the film to Blood Diamond, but the problem with using that film as a yardstick is that Blood Diamond didn't have anything else going for it other than DiCaprio. Here, you have two other bankable Hollywood names . . . color me surprised by its debut.
Brandon Scott: Reviews are critical to sell this sort of pic and there were too many poor ones given to help this along. The Middle East angle, though hidden as best as possible in the trailers, can't help either. How tired are pics based in war torn countries right now?
Tim Briody: I think the fact that this underperformed is a referendum on Russell Crowe. That's the only way to explain how this could miss that badly. On paper, this should have been tops for the weekend with ease.
What The Express really needed was Russell Crowe in the Dennis Quaid role
Kim Hollis: The Express, a Dennis Quaid movie about the first African-American player to win the Heisman Trophy, opened to only $4.6 million. Why do you think this sports movie failed when a number of other recent ones have succeeded?
Scott Lumley: When your only headliner is Dennis Quaid, you're not looking at a stellar opening weekend. However, when the only headliner is Dennis Quaid, it becomes a lot easier to make a profit. This is going to do about $18 - $20 million total and half of that (if not more...) will be profit.
Jason Lee: For myself, I blame the marketing of this film. If I had three words to describe the way it looked in commercials, it would be generic, generic, generic. There wasn't any clear hook to watching this film other than:
1. Race (first African-American guy to win . . . yada yada yada)
2. The guy, though very fast, never played a single professional game (insert suspenseful ominous music while audiences ponder his fate)
Those two are simply not enough for someone to plunk down $10 of their hard earned money nowadays.
Kim Hollis: Jason, I agree that an opportunity seems to have been missed with regard to marketing. I'm not sure what could have been done to make this look less generic, but there wasn't anything there that made me think, "Ooh! That looks interesting/inspirational/engaging."
Brandon Scott: This film had formulaic.com written all over it.
Sean Collier: Before you go check, no, formulaic.com is not a real website.
With exceptions few and far between, all sports movies are fundamentally identical. Underdog gets noticed and goes on to win in an unlikely fashion. That's it. Comedy, drama, whatever, that's pretty much it. You can't just make one and trust that it'll hit - there needs to be a star, a hook, or a recognizably famous story (more famous than this, anyway.) The Express just didn't have an x-factor.