Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
August 30, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark opened to $8.5 million. What should rising distributor Film District take from this result?
Brett Beach: Well, I for one am impressed that Film District got a decent start for a biopic on blues singer Robert Cray and... oh, this is something else entirely? Whoops!
In my mind I am trying to crunch the numbers for what Guillermo del Toro's name prominently featured adds to the kitty vs. what "based on a 40 year old television movie that most people are unaware of" takes away. I never thought the initial trailer looked all that scary and aside from the goodwill generated by his involvement, couldn't see any reason why this was a must see. Plus, FD already came out of the gate with a well-reviewed surprise hit supernatural tale this spring. Some consumers may have asked, "why should I pay for second best at summer's end?" This will throw under Insidious and Soul Surfer and be their lowest grosser to date.
Matthew Huntley: I remember seeing the trailer for Don't Be Afraid of the Dark a long time ago - so long, in fact, that I can't help but wonder if it was pushed back due to poor test screenings. I saw the movie and it was, in fact, poor, which comes as an unwelcome surprise since Guillermo del Toro was attached to it. He also helped bring The Orphanage to the U.S., and that was a great film, so you can see why my expectations for Dark would be high.
Criticism aside, given the movie's release date, Film District is probably not too surprised by the $8.5 million opening, and with a budget of less than $13 million, they'll probably see a profit from the movie eventually.
Max Braden: With this and Fright Night, perhaps everyone in Hollywood should take away that the interest in horror remakes has been exhausted.
Reagen Sulewski: Not only has it been a bad couple of weeks for horror remakes, it's been a bad week for prolific Mexican cult favorites. Although I admittedly watch very little network TV in the summer, I saw basically no promotion for this film, which to me is the biggest factor. There was nothing out there to let people know this was out there, and this was compounded by there not being much in the little that people saw to entice them. Creepy-crawlies in a haunted house seems pretty played out to me.
Edwin Davies: They should probably take from this that picking up Miramax's cast-offs isn't the best idea, regardless of whether or not the people involved are good people. Considering the trouble this film had making its way to theaters this has to be considered better than a worst case scenario, if not much better. Del Toro's name might help sell it more overseas, but it's clear that FilmDistrict didn't have that much faith in it, as evidenced by the late August release date and the lack of visible marketing, so this'll probably be a wash for them when everything is said and done.
Kim Hollis: I think it's an okay result given the low investment and the fact that everything was deflated this weekend due to Irene. This is the kind of film that will have some endurance on video, and the theatrical release of Don't Be Afraid of the Dark will essentially play out like an extended commercial for when that time arrives.
Jason Lee: On one hand, anything del Toro does is going to have me very interested. On the other, this isn't simply a remake of an old horror film - it's a remake of a made-for-TV movie. Del Toro's participation aside, I think a lot of people simply questioned the quality of the film, given its inauspicious roots. I know I did.
Won't someone please think of the idiots?
Kim Hollis: Our Idiot Brother, presumably the one who scheduled a film for Hurricane Weekend, opened to $7 million. Why do you think Stupid Paul Rudd failed to appeal to mass consumers?
Samuel Hoelker: I'll place as much blame as I can on the weather, but I'll also blame the fact that advertisements made Paul Rudd seem to be more of an idiot than he actually was. Being nice and good-natured without being socially awkward (like Dinner for Schmucks) can only go so far.
Brett Beach: Well, I think this is actually Beatific/Jesus Paul Rudd, and not the sort of character people have come to expect from his latter-day roles in Role Models, I Love You Man, Knocked Up, Dinner for Schmucks, The Ten, etc. I am glad that he is stretching outside his comfort zone/comic archetype for something a little different, but I was never greatly enthused and never thought this would catch on in any way like the first four mentioned above. Plus, apparently the Weinstein Company bought a film that had some goodwill from Sundance and people liked, paid an outrageous fortune for it and then proceeded to tinker with it and product test the ending in order to bland it down so everybody can like it. I could be snide and say "well, no surprise, they've been doing that for 20 years re: Happy Texas, Shanghai Triad, Nightwatch, etc" but I'll go esoteric for the win and call this The Spitfire Grill syndrome.
Still, it's got Mrs. Ben Gibbard playing a woman who likes women, so I think somewhere down the line, I will be seeing it.
Reagen Sulewski: It's actually a pretty appropriate opening for what kind of film it is, which is way more You Can Count On Me than it is Role Models (though it's not nearly as good as the former). I think this continues the theme of the Weinstein Brothers, who have never really regained their mojo since leaving Miramax. Now, if the budget is really $5 million as reported, everyone's doing fine. I think the P&A have to have pushed that north of $25 million, but even that's not so bad with an opening weekend like this.
Edwin Davies: Paul Rudd has carved out a niche for himself by playing likable, relatable characters who get themselves into situations a little outside of their control. You can see this in Role Models, I Love You, Man, even Dinner With Schmucks, to an extent, and his natural charm helps carry those films. This film, from the trailers, seems to have him playing against type as far more guileless character than usual, which is a good thing for him to do, artistically, but as with any actor who tries to stretch the boundaries of what people of expect from them, you have expect some drop off as people who like Paul Rudd to be one thing are unwilling to see him try to be some other thing. (See also: Will Ferrell in films Melinda and Melinda and Everything Must Go.) Considering that this is the first film he has made since becoming a reasonably big name in which he doesn't play The Paul Rudd type, and given how cheap the film supposedly was, $7 million isn't bad, and I think this has to be considered the best result of any of the new releases, even though it is the one that opened lowest.
Kim Hollis: I don't suppose it's a disaster, but it just reminds me of any number of poorly received (by the public) late August/early September comedies. It pretty much follows a similar trajectory to The Switch, The Goods, Extract, Idiocracy or The Rocker. Honestly, it did better than some of those, so I guess it could have been worse. I don't think this significantly impacts Rudd in any meaningful way. The movie was a Sundance darling, so at least it has that feather in its cap.