Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
February 7, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: The Roommate, the Screen Gems release starring Minka Kelly and Leighton Meester, opened to $15.0 million. Do you think they should be pleased with this result?
Josh Spiegel: As counterprogramming, sure. Screen Gems does not specialize in big movies, movies that are meant to be blockbusters, so The Roommate is in line with that. However, I'm not sure that any movie where a cat gets killed (apparently) should be getting anyone's dollars, especially if, as in this case, the death is clearly exploitative. From a financial standpoint, of course, Screen Gems will be pleased, though they might have hoped for a slightly bigger number.
Edwin Davies: I'd say so. The film, dubious though its quality undoubtedly is, cost next to nothing to make, opened higher than any expected, and essentially stole the weekend through sheer lack of competition. It was a very canny piece of programming that paid off handsomely. Well, not handsomely. Sort of okay-looking, maybe kind of attractive after a few beers-ly. Sure, no one will remember it by the end of the year (or possibly after leaving the theater) but it'll recoup its costs soon enough.
Reagen Sulewski: I'm somewhat shocked that this film snuck through with this much - even teens should have better crap detectors than this. I suppose the "well, I gotta see *something*" crowd is bigger than I would have thought. The truly depressing thing is that yet another film has managed to escape relatively unscathed from withholding itself for reviews. But as mentioned, this is pretty much instantly profitable. Maybe they'll try to remake all of Bridget Fonda's films with Minka Kelly in the lead role.
Bruce Hall: Lucky for Screen Gems, there are still plenty of people who'd rather sit through a bad movie than read a good book. I guess J.K. Rowling had better get back to work.
Jim Van Nest: I think they should be ecstatic with that result. Seriously, was anyone clamoring for a Single White Female remake? I would have thought this would have been recognized for crap and left to die a $6-7 million opening death.
Daron Aldridge: I am of the Jim Van Nest school of thought on this one and it pulled in twice what I was thinking it could. Reagan, as intriguing as a remake of 1996's City Hall with Kelly, Shia LaBeouf and Kevin Spacey would be, I think we'll have to wait with her being cast in the remake of Charlie's Angels.
Kim Hollis: It's almost made its budget back already, which is plenty good at this point. It's about what I would have expected, honestly, given the marketing behind it and the fact that teens just seem to like these lame thrillers.
David Mumpower: I concur that this is a solid result, one that reinforces my belief that Screen Gems is one of the distributors in the industry in terms of knowing their target audience and catering to them effectively. They are rarely guilty of overreaching, instead focusing on these slight but intriguing premises that have low risk and make money. Screen Gems has some of the best decision makers in the industry, year in and year out.
James Cameron doesn't know anything about this movie. Stop asking him.
Kim Hollis: Sanctum, the Universal release linked with James Cameron, opened to only $9.4 million, with Cameron actively running away from the project. Are you surprised by the sub- $10 million opening?
Josh Spiegel: There's a really great episode of Planet Earth called caves, and from the reviews for Sanctum, my guess is that the documentary has better dialogue than this film. Moreover, as Roger Ebert pointed out, why do I want to watch a movie set in dark places in 3-D, which automatically dims the picture? Still, considering that Sanctum is the rare 3-D movie that was actually shot to be seen in 3-D, I wonder if the studios might get the message that any movie in 3-D doesn't mean they'll make a boatload of cash.
Tony Kollath: "What could possibly go wrong, making a movie about diving in caves?"
Edwin Davies: I guess I'm surprised, given that the dearth of new releases and James Cameron's name being plastered all over the film suggested that it might do moderately okay, but I didn't think that it would be a runaway success or anything. The horrible reviews and lack of any hook other than "Oh, look at all these caves and all the terrible actors in them", not to mention some sports thing that a lot of people are apparently excited about, probably didn't help.
Reagen Sulewski: Not surprised at all at the sub-$10 million mark - I'm more surprised that it got as close as it did. I guess Cameron's name fooled some people but you sort of have to wonder who goes into a movie saying "James Cameron totally got all the money for this and gave input on the dailies! It's gonna be awesome!"
Bruce Hall: When the best marketing you can come up with for the film is "loosely associated with that guy who made Avatar", that shuffling sound you hear is me already running for the door. So, anybody who was lured into the theater by THAT has only themselves to blame. At least those of you who can't get enough of Ioan Gruffudd probably came away happy.
Daron Aldridge: I suspect that they owe at least half of this haul to the Cameron name. Who actually knows who the real director was of this one? I do give it credit for making my adolescent self laugh with the tagline "The only way out is down."
Kim Hollis: If anything, this movie has really done better than I expected. I didn't believe audiences were going to be tricked into seeing it just because it was 3D, nor because Cameron's name was all-too-loosely affiliated with it. Competing against the Super Bowl made me think it had no shot whatsoever. Getting this close to $10 million should be a pleasant surprise for Universal.
David Mumpower: I had viewed this all along as a big budget rip-off of The Descent, so I'm mollified that it hasn't done much better than that (vastly superior) movie's $8.9 million debut. The fact that Sanctum may not match its $26.0 million pleases me to no end. In terms of the James Cameron effect, let's be honest about the fact that you can say "James Cameron" until you're blue in the face; consumers aren't that stupid. They can tell from looking at the product whether it has any semblance to the works of Cameron. This has as much in common with Avatar as Cliffhanger does.