Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
April 11, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Hanna, the thriller about a teenage assassin, earned $12.4 million. How should Focus Features feel about this result?
Brett Beach: Up until a few days ago, I didn't realize that Focus was going so wide with this. I was expecting low to mid single digits at that point. Considering that this wound up as the best-reviewed film of the weekend, this was a good call on their part. Comparing the per screen average for this with Arthur ($4,880 vs $3,731) provides the most succinct answer for how they should feel. A film that the trailers managed to effectively sell as an action film (but a weird action film) with a teen killer is off to a good start and, with a couple of weeks of modest declines, could come close to rivalling Atonement as director Joe Wright's highest-grossing film. Saoirse Ronan has officially arrived.
Shalimar Sahota: Those waiting for Hit-Girl: The Movie have to contend with this as the next best thing. It certainly looks intriguing, though the reviews suggest that the trailers and tv spots make it look more action packed than it really is. Nevertheless, this is a good opening. As the best reviewed film over the weekend, it'd be nice to believe that this will stick around in the top ten, but after seeing what happened to Source Code, I'm getting the impression that audiences aren't going for supreme originality and would rather see something they're comfortable with.
Josh Spiegel: I am genuinely and pleasantly surprised to see Hanna do so well, and I will also be surprised if it stays in the top ten for a couple more weeks. Why? This is easily the strangest movie I've seen since Black Swan, and I'd wager that it's even stranger than that. I loved it, and it deserves the praise it's getting, but I can see a lot of audiences being mixed on it. Still, what Hanna offers is something that's slightly different, but familiar enough to check out. Just be warned: even though there's enough action, this is nowhere near director Joe Wright's previous movies.
Edwin Davies: Focus should be really pleased with this result since Hanna has gone from being that weird action movie/arthouse hybrid that everyone was expecting to only do okay to a pretty solid result. They seem to have repeated the same trick that they managed with The American last September, admittedly on a smaller scale, by emphasizing the action elements in a film that is not a traditional action film.
David Mumpower: BOP's Dan Krovich mentioned recently that Focus Features was showing a lot of confidence in Hanna with that strong, largely out of nowhere advertising campaign that sprang up at the last moment. The numbers bear this out as the film was a blip on the tracking radar until recently, but it then started a quick ascension, eventually surpassing the most optimistic of expectations. For a film every bit as strange as Josh has discussed (if not more so), this is an epic triumph. Shalimar mentioned Hit Girl and (of course) so many people are comparing it to Leon aka The Professional, but I see it more along the lines of Donnie Darko, Assassin. It's that weird. There is absolutely nothing commercial about this project on paper. Given how I was just describing the distaste the studio system has for new products these days, the way that Focus Features went out on a limb for Hanna is exemplary.
Here, have a drink.
Kim Hollis: Arthur, the remake of the 1981 comedy, earned $12.2 million this weekend. What do you think of this opening? Also, how do you think this impacts Russell Brand's career?
Brett Beach: When I first heard this announced, I thought that Brand and Helen Mirren were ideal latter-day casting and I was excited for it, but I think this falls under the heading of remakes that are bad ideas from a marketing standpoint. The original was hugely successful financially, and depending on what you read, also one of the most beloved comedies of the 1980s. But it really has no resonance, I would imagine, with anyone under 35, and those who were at that age 30 years ago, well, I don't know why they would feel inclined to see a remake. Good reviews would be crucial to help this branch out above the 18-34 demo, and those were not forthcoming. Brand may have more of a continuing career with animation voiceover than acting, but maybe his future will lie in supporting roles rather than leads?
Shalimar Sahota: I can't understand why Warners thought this was a good idea to begin with. Was anyone really desperate for an Arthur remake? Still, in selling audiences a quintessential man-child, they've succeeded, since this is a total Russell Brand vehicle. But I feel that he'll have to do something completely out of character should he wish to open another live action film higher than this. That it cost Warner $40 million means that this won't be a total loss.
Josh Spiegel: I'm with Shalimar on this one. What did Warner Bros. think they were getting out of remaking this movie? I've seen the original, and while it's good, it's not a) dying to be remade and b) untouchable enough that a remake shouldn't have existed. Looking at this and Hop, we can see that Russell Brand isn't a box-office draw, at all. Hop may be doing well, but would it be doing any worse with someone else as the lead voice? I doubt it.
Edwin Davies: As others have said, the main problem with this remake was that there wasn't really any reason for it. Arguably, there are rarely any good reasons for films to be remade, but this one seemed especially pointless given that the original occupies a weird middle ground in the pop culture consciousness of being just well known enough that people are aware of its existence, yet not so well known that there is any great deal of brand recognition. It also doesn't help that the reviews have been pretty poor since a decent critical showing could have got more people interested.
I think this will relegate Brand to supporting roles for a few years, which may be the best place for him. I really like him as a performer (he's also a pretty good writer, and I'd recommend his [awfully titled] memoir My Booky Wook to anyone) but his schtick can get exhausting unless he is used sparingly.
David Mumpower: The decision Warner Bros. made with Arthur was based in pragmatism. Marketing costs for unknown brands have become so outrageous that anything with name recognition merits strong consideration for a remake/sequel. None of us like it, but this is the world in which we live. I agree with Brett that this project got the casting right, something of a rarity these days. Everything other than that has been the inevitable fallout from what Shalimar, Josh and Edwin have mentioned. What has to go hand in hand with name recognition is a sense of loss in the absence of something. Arthur did not have that in the least. In fact, this reminds me of another well cast remake of a (generally) British film, Bedazzled. Sadly, that Brendan Fraser release from 2000 opened better even before we adjust for inflation.
With regards to how this impacts Russell Brand's career, I think that we should focus on the fact that he is being given lead roles in movies, no matter how temporary that may be. Yes, this places him in the not-so-exclusive company of Dane Cook, Jimmy Fallon and Tom Green and these comparisons may be intentional. Still, he's been in three comedies, two of which have been well received. I think that buys him a pass here. In fact, I think that as long as Katy Perry stays hot, Brand keeps getting work.
To a larger point, Arthur is a good example of the madness of the movie making process. If there has to be a remake of that film, Brand is absolutely perfect casting and Helen Mirren is a masterstroke. And the people who made those decisions may get fired over doing their jobs perfectly.