Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
October 5, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Case 39, the relatively unheralded Paramount release starring Renee Zellweger and Bradley Cooper, opened to $5.4 million. What do you think of this result?
Brett Beach: It's about two million more than I was expecting. This will be out of theaters before the end of the month and I doubt it will inspire much in the way of DVD business down the line (unless Zellweger and Cooper remain an item and their most ardent fans seek it out). This was on the shelf for a long time, has already played on an international scale, received almost no publicity, got dreadful reviews, and still managed to pull ahead of a rapturously reviewed competitor in the same genre. Paramount Vantage has nothing to be proud of per se, but somebody there obviously did something "right."
My question: Does this indicate horror fans are holding out for the goods at the end of the month, or is this indicative of a lukewarm October in the making?
Josh Spiegel: Brett, I'm guessing we're looking at a lukewarm October. There won't be a lack of horror movies coming out, but my wife was the one to audibly groan at the ad for the billionth Saw film - and she LIKES horror movies. And I'll go you one better: Case 39 made about $5.3 million more than I expected. I know that Let Me In was a unique sell to begin with, as the cast isn't made up of huge stars and the concept's still a little odder than Twilight, but as you said, there was NO marketing for this movie. How does Case 39 get nearly, what, a million tickets sold in a weekend? Honestly, this is a head-scratcher.
Matthew Huntley: Am I the only one on this thread who thought Case 39 had a decent trailer? It made the movie look formulaic, sure, but also creepy, and I liked that it garnered an R rating, so at least it wouldn't skimp on gore. Because I thought the trailer was effective, and because it's a horror movie being released in October, I guess I assumed other people besides me would be swayed to see it. I thought a $10 million+ was in the cards for sure (if Devil could do it, certainly Case 39 could). I agree with Josh that this is a head-scratcher, but not because it made $5.4 million, but because it only made $5.4 million. I was expecting more. Horror movies get awful reviews all the time but still manage to make money. Why was Case 39 an exception?
Reagen Sulewski: The story on this one is a little more complicated than the usual movie release. It's a four (!) year old movie from the indie wing of Paramount that probably wouldn't have seen the light of day in the U.S. were it not for doing well in Mexico and Spain. Because studio executives are, as the Simpsons so wisely put, often just chimps in suits, they decided this meant they needed to target Spanish-speaking people (Mexicans love Renee Zellweger, apparently). Do you see the logic? Neither do I.
Edwin Davies: I thought this movie had been released quite some time ago (its ridiculously long release schedule would explain that) so "surprised" would be the best way to characterize my initial feelings about it. Beyond that, I made a bit more than I would have thought given how little advertising there has been for it; if Bradley Cooper and Renee Zellweger had been out on the talk-show circuit selling this movie, I think it'd probably had made a good deal more, but I think they may have forgotten that they made it.
If a horror movie opens in theaters, and no one goes...
Kim Hollis: Let Me In, the well-regarded horror remake of a popular but little-seen Swedish film, made $5.1 million over the weekend. Why was Overture Films not able to deliver a stronger box office result?
Brett Beach: Horror is indeed the critic-proofiest of genres - generally meaning no matter how bad the reviews, people will still show up - and Let Me In shows (along with say, Drag Me to Hell) the flip side of this: how critical hosannas can't help push a horror film past a certain point unless there is a Blair Witch/Paranormal Activity type hook. I think there were other factors as well: It is a serious horror film (no tongue anywhere in its cheek); fans of Let the Right One In were probably suspicious of its merits and/or if they heard it was a slavishly faithful remake, wondered why they should spend dollars in the theater this time around. Maybe people want their vampires chaste and abstinent (Twilight) or having nothing but hot dirty sex (True Blood) and a tale of two lonely youngsters - well, one at least - who are definitely not having sex but are trapped in a tragedy and not a melodrama, isn't either party's cup of tea (er, blood).
Josh Spiegel: As much as I'm skeptical of this film (yep, I'm one of those who love Let The Right One In and don't know why this film should exist), I'm sad that it did this badly. I'm not exactly surprised - I think if this movie had made $15 million over the weekend, it'd be shocking - but disappointed. The filmmakers clearly have their hearts in the right place, and there was some marketing for the film, but the solid reviews weren't enough to sell the film on (nor was Hit-Girl).
Matthew Huntley: Let the Right One was praised by critics and well-liked by those who saw it, but, as Kim said, it was hardly seen. So right away, we know the original version wasn't going to play a major role in any mass audience deciding to see the remake (how can it when the audience doesn't know the original exists?). And because the ads for Let Me In don't clearly state the little girl is a vampire, many people who saw the (limited) advertising were probably confused by who (or what) the little girl is. When you combine unawareness with nebulous marketing, the result is never strong, and, unfortunately, Let Me In is an example of this. I think its box-office failure is mostly cut and dry.
Shalimar Sahota: For this to lose the weekend to Case 39 is a shocking embarrassment and rather baffling! After what Brett said, I guess I can only conclude that America prefers to watch bad horror films. I can't really comment on the advertising, but in the UK I'm already seeing bus posters for this and it's not out here for another month. I have seen, and liked, the original Swedish film, but I have not read the book. Despite overwhelmingly positive reviews (better than I was expecting, some saying that this trumps the original), internet forums seem to suggest a backlash before it was released, with fans of the original holding it up like it's some sacred text not to be messed with, therefore refusing to see or support the remake because it's a cash grab job. It's a case of why bother remaking a good film. Maybe this rubbed off on those that knew nothing about the film(s) and they decided it would be cheaper to hire out the DVD of the original. I know it's looking crowded, but maybe playing it closer to Halloween could have helped.
Reagen Sulewski: I doubt crowding really had anything to do with it - Yes, there were two horror films this weekend, but $5 million a piece is hardly stretching the horror audience to its brink, and there would have been plenty of people left over to see either film had they shown the slightest interest. This may just be a case of producers underestimating who was left to see an English translation of this film - many fans of the original seemed to take personal offense at the idea of a remake, even if it did get positive reviews.
This should probably serve as a warning to Fincher with The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo - throw us a change up, or you're risking disaster.
Kim Hollis: I do think The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is a little different. The books on which it is based are wildly, wildly popular in the US, while Let Me In (also a Swedish translation) is not that well known in the book world (it's great, though. Read it). I think worst-case for Tattoo is a Da Vinci Code trajectory, opening huge and tailing off if it's awful (but if it's good...).
Edwin Davies: Just to echo what everyone else has said, a lack of awareness of the original (I'd urge anyone reading this to seek it out, it is a really fantastic film) combined with a marketing campaign that made it seem to be a very serious, melancholy and ambiguous film (i.e. adequately reflected what it actually is) probably prevented it from appealing to a wider audience. It's potential audience was also shrunk by the fact that a large proportion of the people who have seen the original took against the idea of a remake and so didn't turn out to see it.
I'm of two minds about this result. Part of me is delighted that a remake that I've considered unnecessary since it was announced has not broken out (though the opening weekend of Let Me In is nearly three times the domestic total of Let The Right One In, and its final domestic total only has to be higher than $11 million to beat LTROI's worldwide take), yet I'm also a little disappointed that it didn't do better since it is a really faithful remake that keeps a lot of what made the original one of the best films of the last five years; it's beautifully shot, intelligent and ambiguous, all qualities that are lacking from your average horror film. It's not a patch on the original, in my opinion, but it is a really good film, and the failure of good horror films just drives studios to plow more money into bad horror films.