Monday Morning Quarterback
By BOP Staff
August 30, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Takers, the poorly reviewed Screen Gems release that still wants to be known as this generation's Heat, earned $20.5 million and actually ended up winning the weekend. Are you more surprised by the reviews or by the fact that someone would actually consider this 2010? Also what to do you think of its box office performance?
Josh Spiegel: Screen Gems is acompany that triumphs in making relatively low-budget films for urban audiences, so they're likely thrilled with the result. Bad reviews aside, this movie had enough big names for African American audiences to be lured in. Is this movie worthy of any praise? No. Still, the distributor will be fine in just taking more and more money from unsuspecting audiences.
Reagen Sulewski: The question with Takers (they're not thieves, they just take things. Things that aren't theirs). was always going to be how well it could saturate its target demo, and the answer to that appears to be "entirely". It's a bit like The Expendables from three weeks ago (I said a bit) where the presence of so many actors swept up enough stragglers and fence-sitters to make this special enough. But for the love of... have some taste, 20-somethings! "Oooh, Paul Walker *and* Hayden Christensen in the same movie, bra!" The casting director must have felt like Oppenheimer at Los Alamos when he put this group together.
Matthew Huntley: Is the critic who blurbed Takers as this generation's Heat trying to suggest the latter movie is too old to be cross-generational? Heat is only 15-years-old and holds up very well, so I don't think it's a sound comment. As far as Takers' box office performance, I'm quite surprised by it. When I first saw the release date and the ads, I figured an opening of $13 million or lower was in the cards (I don't know, something about the project just felt half-as*ed), but clearly I underestimated the appeal of the young cast, especially, as Josh pointed out, with the urban crowd. I wonder if the ads had featured a woman on the posters and in the commercials if it would have made even more, thus securing the #1 spot for the weekend. Whether the movie is good or not, a $20 million opening during the last week of August is pretty good and may even challenge the notion that this time of year is a "dumping ground" for movies the studio doesn't have a lot of faith in.
Reagen Sulewski: Someone will be calling something "this generation's Takers" by next year. Now, if you'll excuse me, those kids on my lawn aren't going to shoo themselves.
Daron Aldridge: If it hadn't been for the several references to the film in news articles about T.I. getting out of jail, I would have told you this already came out because the only marketing I saw for this was a lobby standee months ago. After you informed me that it actually was being released, I would have pegged it with half this "take." (Sorry about that). This looked more like an urbanification of the Ocean's trilogy with 100% fewer Oscar nominees and acting ability, save for Idris Elba.
All this generation talk is confusing my old brain...where does the Me Generation end and Gen X begin and what about this Gen Y and OMG Generation (or whatever they are dubbig themselves)? [Sigh] I need a nap.
The Last and Final Exorcism Destination
Kim Hollis: The Last Exorcism, the Final Fantasy XIII of movie titles, opened to $20.4 million. What do you think of this performance? Will viewers just go see anything with "exorcism" in the title?
Josh Spiegel: Considering the apparently toxic word-of mouth the movie is getting (I don't usually put much stock in CinemaScore ratings, but this movie has a D, which is bad even by that company's standards) and the low, low budget, Lionsgate is, I'm sure, dancing in the streets. They've been making solid but low-budget performers for a few years, and it continues to pay off. One day, maybe they'll make movies people like, but for now, I bet they'll be happy taking teenagers' money.
Matthew Huntley: Interesting theory, Kim. Indeed "exorcism" has become a tried-and-true word when it comes to successful horror movies. In a way, it guarantees at least one of the following: contortion bodies, demon voices, blood, vomit and/or mysteries surrounding the church/Bible. Oh, and there's usually a helpless, virginal girl in a white nightgown breaking out into sweat and clenching her fists, usually in a creepy place like a barn. Why do moviegoers consistently flock to movies of this type? I think it's simple: after The Exorcist (1973), people are hoping a similar movie will come along that's just as effective and scary (we all know this doesn't just apply to "exorcism" movies, either, but to hundreds of other titles/genres). What many don't realize, though, is you can't relive a one-of-a-kind experience, which many would agree The Exorcist was. That's what makes it one-of-a-kind. Thus, it should be the challenge and goal of modern filmmakers to create a one-of-a-kind experience instead of merely imitating the great works of the past. I know it's hard, but can you imagine making a movie that sets such a high standard that the mere inclusion of the same word in subsequent titles urges people to see them? William Friedkin must be honored.
Jason Lee: Like it or not, I think that Eli Roth had a lot to do with the success of this film. Between Cabin Fever, the Hostel films and his relationship with Tarantino, I think he's a pretty well known commodity among people who would be actively interested in seeing something like The Last Exorcism. Put his name down as producer and you've got a draw.
Bruce Hall: Matt, you took the words right out of my mouth. Even my mother called me yesterday, thinking that this was a sequel to The Exorcist and wanting to know not only if I'd seen it, but if I understood that only God can defeat the Devil. I do think a lot of people were confused, and found themselves expecting something other than what they received. The poor word-of-mouth seems to suggest that most of them didn't appreciate the bait and switch, whether it was intentional or not. The Last Exorcism takes something of a "Blair Witch" slant on the genre and while I suspect the filmmakers felt they were breaking new ground in that regard, what they accomplished was closer to a cinematic Taco Bell - they found yet another way to mix the same handful of ingredients served up by the most successful horror titles in recent memory. The unfortunate thing about this film is the wasted opportunity. Whatever we believe individually, there are without a doubt forces in this universe yet to be understood and the possibility of coming into contact with them is what usually drives the very best of science fiction and horror. The idea of a doubting priest alienated from his faith is hardly new, but the concept of a cynical huckster potentially re-energizing his belief by biting off more than he can chew is definitely intriguing. But in falling back on well worn, secondhand ideas as a crutch The Last Exorcism hits wide of the mark. Maybe I'm over analyzing here because all things considered this was without question a successful opening. But I don't blame even the least discriminating of moviegoers for feeling cheated by this one, and I question the kind of longevity this movie will have.
Reagen Sulewski: What we've seen in the past few years is that moviegoers are really looking for a different kind of experience than they've previously had. The same old just simply doesn't work anymore, and even new and improved only works for so long. While documentary style horror isn't exactly fresh as a daisy, relative to the rest of the shlock that's been put out over the last few years it might as well be [insert instantly dated reference here]. What's surprising to me is that it works this well.
I definitely think there's something to the idea that The Exorcist is still paying dividends almost 40 (!) years later but I would caution filmmakers against going to the well too many times. It doesn't take too many trips to the well before something that is hot is not. And like The Exorcism of Emily Rose, the lifespan of any one particular horror movie is measured in days, not weeks.
Daron Aldridge: I expected this to win the weekend but with a performance that was along the lines of The Expendables last weekend with around $15 million. Maybe I am giving people too much credit for being more discerning about their film choices than flocking to a word in a title but Matthew may be onto something. Kind of like hedging your bets that you are on the cusp of something that may be cinematically special, like The Sixth Sense and The Blair Witch Project. But, wow, a D CinemaScore rating? If you can't get this audience that is predisposed to like your film to give it a better score, then your film will just have to enjoy its one and done box office performance. I will be surprised if it sustains anything better than a 70% drop next weekend.
James Cameron says, "Pay attention to meeeeee!
Kim Hollis: Avatar returned to 812 theaters in director's cut format, adding another $4 million to the pile of cash it has earned so far. Its grand total at the domestic box office is $753.8 million, which is $153.1 million more than any movie had ever earned before it. As you reflect on what the film has accomplished over the past nine months, what impresses you the most?
Josh Spiegel: James Cameron's ego impresses me, because it is far bigger than I could have imagined. I saw Avatar on Blu-ray for the first time since its original release last weekend, and he managed to once again blow my mind away in terms of the visual elements. Even on a television, this movie is breathtaking to watch. It is, however, a lot more painful to my ears than it was in December. My point is, as big as his ego is, it isn't always matched by demand. I wasn't expecting this re-release to do as poorly as it did, but I also didn't see it doing more than $10 million. The amount of money the movie has made is staggering, but it's movies like Toy Story 3 and Inception that have done well this year and deserve to do well.
Bruce Hall: I agree with Josh. I respect James Cameron immensely but he reminds me more than a bit of George Lucas in that they both think they're better storytellers than they are. Lucas dotes over his creation as though he's crafted something artistically on par with Orson Welles or Stanley Kubrick. In reality, while the Star Wars franchise undeniably changed cinema in innumerable significant ways it wasn't by virtue of them being great movies. Let's face it, what we had was a kid with daddy issues, an old man, a pirate, an ape and a couple of robots rescuing a damsel in distress - all utilizing some of the worst dialogue ever recorded. Empire was the high point, and I still have difficulty sitting through that one now that I am no longer nine-years-old. I will be excoriated for saying that but I stand by my opinion wholeheartedly. Cameron's achievements are equally significant and I certainly don't begrudge him - or Lucas - his success. But let's keep this in perspective; Avatar is indeed the Star Wars of its time, a great looking and technically amazing movie that will likely change the way these kinds of films are made forever. But basically this is Dances With Wolves in space, along with the requisite cornball dialogue we've come to expect from the all time box-office leader, not to mention the ham-fisted social commentary we apparently can expect to see from James Cameron from here on out. Like Lucas, Cameron seems to be under the impression that by re-releasing his work he is exposing us to some sort of hidden creative gem we all missed out on the first time around, making this version of the movie "as it was meant to be seen." Avatar is without question a beautiful looking film, and I'd have to concede that as unimpressive as the story was to me, it clearly resonated with audiences on some level, because there's no way a movie earns $750 million just by being pretty.
But for me, this comes across as a money grab. The movie made a mint during its run in the theaters, it is killing on DVD and Blu-Ray, and no doubt this will be a hugely profitable franchise for years to come. But I have a hard time buying the argument that this re-release is artistically significant or necessary in light of the fact that the film is already available for purchase. This is just a powerful man doing something simply because he can. Without a doubt, Cameron's incredible sense of self-importance is the most amazing thing to me about the Avatar story.
Reagen Sulewski: I'm bit less cynical about this than the rest of you, apparently, since this does at least have the 3D factor, which presents something that can't be achieved at home.
The thing that really does impress me about Cameron is his ability to talk a big game and then follow up on that. It's one thing to sneak up on people with a blockbuster - it's another entirely to say you're going to change cinema forever ... and then do it. This is three in a row for Cameron when the entire world was rooting for him to fail.
Matthew Huntley: Bruce, you will get NO excoriation from me on your points about Star Wars. I'm glad someone finally said it on MMQB threads. I too am tired of people telling me how great those movies are (dialogue and all) just because they saw them as a kid and the experience has stayed with them. Yes, the movies are technically superb (and Empire is a masterpiece on many levels), but story wise, no one wants to admit how simple-minded they are. Thanks for opening that can of worms.
On Avatar, though, Reagen makes a good point and even though James Cameron's ego is bloated and he lacks a certain humility, for him to be the filmmaker behind the two highest grossing movies of all time is undeniably impressive. That much is certain. However, even though I have great respect for Cameron (in my opinion, Terminator 2 remains the greatest action/special effects extravaganza of all time), I still long for a box-office champion that's more narratively challenging than technically innovative (it'd be great to have both, but narrative is more important).
With that said, what impresses me most about Avatar is no matter how much it was criticized for its lack of story, people still went to see it. The movie became part of our collective consciousness and it's something everybody wanted to be a part of (and I'm not talking about conformity, but just being in the know). For a movie to carve such a formidable place in our culture, whether or not it's justified, is amazing.
Daron Aldridge: With this re-release, I think that Cameron just wanted to cross the $750 million mark. It probably just irked him that he was a hair shy of being able to tell people that Avatar made three quarters of a billion dollars. But Reagen has a point, Cameron has an uncanny ability to defy the near-universal chorus of people calling for him to flop. Most impressive to me is Cameron's follow-through and the fact that you could fill the distance between Avatar and Titanic with the domestic haul of Nolan's The Prestige three times over. (The Prestige reference isn't too left field for me because it is fresh on my mind after re-watching it this weekend.)