Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
February 2, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Edge of Darkness, Mel Gibson's first starring role since...the unpleasantness, opened to $17.2 million. Is this a good enough result for an actor of his (former) popularity?
Josh Spiegel: If you take this result by itself, it's kind of a disappointment, in that 20th Century Fox was obviously positioning this movie to be a cousin of Taken. The fact that it couldn't do as well as Legion is just sad (though I've not seen Edge of Darkness, I really can't imagine it being worse than Legion). However, when you take into account that this is Mel Gibson's first starring role in eight years, with or without his potentially career-ending snafu from a few years back, the result is maybe not as disappointing. Gibson is certainly trying a similar tack from previous roles, but with his tabloid troubles, $17 million may not be too terrible a result.
Michael Lynderey: It's a respectable enough number, though I'm aware many were expecting more. Really, though, Edge of Darkness looked like just about an average January thriller - as critics have confirmed - and Taken probably clouded our minds about how well such a movie should perform. As for Mel's shady shenanigans, it's pretty much impossible to know the degree to which they hurt the box office on this one. My guess is, the numbers wouldn't have been all that different had the film come out on, say, January 24, 2003, just a few months after Gibson's last starring role (Signs) and before his off-screen exploits. Looking at Gibson's upcoming slate, he seems fairly determined to get back into acting, and Edge of Darkness will work itself out to a baby step in that direction, if not much more.
Jim Van Nest: Mel Gibson isn't MEL GIBSON anymore. $17 million for a crappy looking rip-off of Taken is a pretty solid result, in my opinion. Anyone expecting more probably had their expectations set a little high. Unfortunately, Mel has likely tainted himself for good. Hell, Tom Cruise's crazy has hurt his appeal at the box office and he hasn't really done anything as offensive as Gibson. If Mel wants the best shot at reviving his career, he might want to think about Lethal Weapon, part...um, whatever part they would be on now.
Jason Lee: I agree with Michael. This is a respectable and solid number . . . though in today's celebrity world, "respectable" and "solid" also means "boring" and "not interesting." This will be a profitable movie (but not in a big way), this will help Gibson prove that he can once again open a film (but not in a significant way) and might help some people forget about his little incident with the police (but not totally). I think this is the box office equivalent of "meh."
Reagen Sulewski: Honestly, I think this says a lot of good things about Gibson's star power - very few actors could essentially take eight years off acting and still opening something to a respectable number, especially when we're talking about something as generic looking as this, and given the numerous reasons that people could have for not wanting to see a Mel Gibson film. Ten years ago this would have starred Al Pacino and have done about half as much.
George Rose: Mel has found himself on the dark edge of his own career and I say, "JUMP!" He needs to put himself out of our misery already. Passion of the Christ was an epic final nail in the coffin (or is it nail to the cross?) and could have been a great way to end a career and retire. But no, a meltdown and career revival were needed first. What better way to revive a fallen career than to make a mock-sequel to last year's surprise hit Taken? Regardless, he was only as famous as he was prior to Passion of the Christ because he was everything women wanted and everything men wanted to be. I'm pretty sure he won't be able to find that level of success again with his new drunken lunatic image. Tom Cruise hasn't managed to shake that funk of his career either and it'll take more than Taken 2 for Mel to do it.
Matthew Huntley: No, this is not a good enough result. It's fair, but probably far from what the studio considers a success. Warner Bros. was aggressive with their marketing and public awareness of Edge of Darkness, and an actor of Gibson's caliber (or perhaps notoriety?) should have drawn a bigger audience, especially for older adults who already saw Avatar. Gibson's popularity has definitely peaked at the box office (I don't think we'll ever see Signs or Ransom-like numbers again), but he should be able to generate tickets sales similar to Payback. At today's ticket prices, that means Edge of Darkness should have made at least $25 million. I think Gibson still has some chances before studios start writing him off, but they might reconsider paying him his usual salary.
Shalimar Sahota: I thought this would provide some decent competition for Avatar, and instead it's rather mediocre. I'd like to believe that this result is more about the film rather than audiences being turned off from an actor because of his past mistakes. There was a similar discussion about if his arrest in 2006 hurt the box office for Apocalypto. The reviews are so mixed, depending on if you're after action or drama. One reviewer wasn't so keen on it because it was more searching for clues instead of action thrills. While another didn't like how it changes tact from intrigue to Mel beating everyone up! From that, I'd say it's a decent mix of both, so I'll likely watch it soon!
Max Braden: He's been here before with varying results, and I think it has to do with subtle variations in the plot and tone of the projects. With Ransom he was a father out to save his kidnapped son with a very controversial "bring it on" approach. With Edge of Darkness his character isn't out to save anyone, he's just seeking revenge. At the time of its release in November of 1996, Ransom was Gibson's biggest opening weekend to date (unadjusted) and actually held that position until Signs. Eleven years ago he released Payback in the beginning to February with a $21 million opening. That did have a cooler vibe to it than Edge of Darkness does. Keeping in mind that he's an aging hero in a non-heroic role here and has been off camera in wide release since Signs, it's a decent opening.
Tom Macy: Good enough, not so bad, somewhere in that realm. A $17 million opening for a film with an $80 million budget starring Mel Gibson and directed by Mr. Casino Royale may sound like a disappointment. But there aren't too many actors out there who could go a full eight years between headlining films - with some seriously bad press in between - and still bring out a respectable crowd. Going a decade between films usually doesn't go well. Can anyone else remember a time when someone had successes a decade apart? Wait....
We used to be friends, a long time ago...
Kim Hollis: When in Rome, a Disney romantic comedy starring semi-famous Josh Duhamel and Kristen Bell, opened to $12.4 million. Is this win, lose or draw for the studio and Duhamel/Bell?
Tom Macy: Can I add a fourth option? Yawn. I mean, it's better than Leap Year a couple of weeks ago, which had equally bad reviews. How much do you wish this were a sequel to Anchorman?
Matthew Huntley: Disney should be happy with this result, but only because it could have been a lot worse (e.g. Did You Hear About the Morgans?). Duhamel and Bell are no box office draws, and it seems audiences only decided to see this because of the lack of competition, but the movie probably had a relatively low production budget. And it could show decent legs next weekend since women tend to find the Super Bowl less appealing than men, and females are the primary audience here. Because a movie like this won't be remembered for very long, I think it'll be considered "just another movie" for Duhamel and Bell - it won't help them or hurt them. Overall, call it a small victory, but a victory nonetheless.
Josh Spiegel: I would say somewhere between lose and draw. Granted, Bell and Duhamel aren't known as box-office stars (and a pity for the lovely miss Veronica Mars, I'd say), but this movie has been advertised heavily for the past month, with a specific push on social networking websites, so the fact that the potential word-of-mouth didn't help out When In Rome is disappointing. Still, looking on the bright side for Disney, this movie could have done a lot, lot worse. Also, When In Rome did better than Leap Year in its opening weekend, something not to ignore.
George Rose: This is better than I expected but still disappointing, so I say it's a draw. Neither are proven A-listers and have only played supporting roles in their previous hits, so it's not as if anyone should have expected a $25+ million opening weekend here. But I like both actors and would rather not twist the knife in this poor decision. I'll leave this one alone with a shake of the head and a tisk-tisk.
Michael Lynderey: When in Rome's a classic case of a draw. It's not an outright bomb, nor is it now (nor will it ever be) a breakout hit. And that's a surprising development, because the film spent the past several months looking like a potentially very successful attempt to recreate what Katherine Heigl did for herself in 27 Dresses. Rome had an appealing enough premise, the trailer did the job (or so I thought), and Bell's last two big roles set her up nicely for a solo hit. But then the whole not-screened-for-critics factor came in and helped slow down the momentum (of course, the reviews themselves were pretty harsh, so this may have been a case of no good options). In general, the last batch of romantic comedies (Leap Year, the Morgans) hasn't done very well, so maybe the genre has finally worn out its enthusiasts, especially since the earth-swallowing numbers for The Proposal and The Ugly Truth probably represented the high point - and there's only one direction to go from there. Anyway, Kristen Bell has another one of these coming out in September, so she'll get her second chance to out-Heigl Heigl.
Jason Lee: I think Kim hit the nail on the head when she used the words "semi-famous.' You have Fergie's eye candy and an actress who's better recognized by the title characters that she's played (Veronica Mars and Sarah Marshall). You have two B-level stars, a tepid trailer, and a rom-com opening two weeks before Valentine's while big parts of the country got hit with ice and snow. Not exactly the best ingredients for breakout box office success.
Reagen Sulewski: To me this is more a case of a studio successfully polishing a turd. It's about as hackneyed a plot as romantic comedies get, so score one for Bell that it wasn't an outright bomb like Amy Adams' Leap Year.
Max Braden: My mental comparison for crappy comedy first went to Matthew McConaughey's Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, which opened to $15 million last May. There was no chemistry or plot in the trailer for When in Rome, so they should feel lucky to have broken into double digits.
Tim Briody: Kristen, if you're at all distraught over When in Rome's performance, please feel free to call me.