Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
January 8, 2014
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Brett Ballard-Beach: It's good, not great. One might argue it's a little less classy than it might have been, but that could be because expectations were being set unreasonably high by those who wondered aloud if this might be a Spy Who Shagged Me/Meet The Fockers perfect storm scenario of a sequel cannonballing past its predecessor. Having read about how legendary the "months in the unfolding, outside the box" ad campaign was for this, that may have made the film seem less important and less inspired by comparison. Still, the budget was $50 million, which shows that the studio remained prudent and didn't let costs escalate.
I saw the movie for my birthday on the 2nd. I understand that the following statement will probably be taken as hyperbole and I have to accept that but here goes: I have never, for any reason, in any situation, and certainly not for any movie, laughed as hard and as extensively over the course of a two hour period as I did during Anchorman 2. It was full contact emotion slamming: My eyes stung with tears. I needed my inhaler because I could not catch my breath. My head felt like I had sucked down a slurpee by the time the credits rolled. I don't know what movie a lot of critics saw (even the ones who gave it a qualified recommendation) but this was not only a funny film, but jaw-droppingly inspired in its willingness to go to the farthest reaches of absurdity for its laughs, and for its pathos (baby shark is all I will say). The fact that a film this crazy-ass weird has made over $100 million is testament to the Ron Burgundy brand. I give Ferrell and McKay huge respect for not simply making the same film, and not simply doing the same gags again (although the ones that are chosen to be repeated are worthy), but doing everything on both a more epic and, simultaneously somehow, a more human scale. This makes my top 10 for the year.
Jason Barney: It had a solid opening. Comparisons to the performance of the original matter a little bit, but the main item in this equation is the sum total. Sure the opening could have been larger, sure it was a bit behind the original, but with the $50 million budget and the holidays, Paramount came out fine. They put out a good enough product at a smart time of the year, and will make money.
Max Braden: For a holiday comedy, it had a fine opening since these movies typically keep pulling in money well after New Year's Day. But considering how much effort was put into promoting this movie, I was expecting a much larger box office. It's doing fine over the long haul, but like Ron Burgundy, the marketing-to-opening performance was a lot of noise and not a lot to show for it.
Edwin Davies: It's pretty good, but not great considering the love for the original and the omnipresent marketing push. You can't help but wonder if the saturation put some people off the film, because there certainly seemed to be a point where the level of advertising went from funny to obnoxious.
As with other comedies released at Christmas, this one had a nice run. The really interesting thing will be seeing how it does overseas. The original made a paltry $5 million from international sales back in 2004, but it's become as much of a cult hit worldwide as it has in America, so the additional $35 million it has made so far in those venues is a considerable improvement.
Bruce Hall: I think the omnipresent marketing campaign is precisely WHY this movie has well surpassed the domestic haul of the original and (even more important) already beaten the first film's international take by a factor of nearly five. Anchorman is a true cult favorite, quoted as often by those who've never even seen it as it is by people who have seen it 20 times and regularly win at Ron Burgundy cosplay challenges.
Success on home video gave Anchorman a pretty enthusiastic core following not just in America but around the world, and it is for these people that this film is largely intended. Because of the very specific nature of this franchise's success, Paramount had a pretty safe bet on its hands. It didn't have to be a runaway hit, it just needed to be highly profitable.
Mission accomplished, and it's still got a fair amount of its theatrical run ahead of it. Then, it will clean up on home video. In every way imaginable, Anchorman 2 has already nailed it.
Felix Quinonez: I think it's good but not great. The fact that it's already doubled its production budget can't be ignored. And I'd say that it's still got some life in it. Because of this I'd definitely call it a win. But after such a huge marketing effort I feel like it should have done a bit better.
Matthew Huntley: Anchorman 2's box office numbers are certainly commendable, and I'm glad it's adding to the breadth of choices (and thus number of moviegoers) to keep the industry healthy, but the movie itself is not worthy of $109 million dollars three weeks into its run. It's a different kind of comedy, sure, but it's a misfire in my opinion, and one that's more bizarre than funny (and bizarre doesn't necessarily mean good). I'm not asking for the same gags as the original; I am, however, asking for something amusing.
Kim Hollis: I think this is a great performance, particularly as Ferrell's saturation on television (and every other marketing venue in the world) could easily have led to fatigue for the character. Heck, maybe it did. But Anchorman 2 has now outperformed the original and still has a little bit of gas in the tank before it shuffles off to become a massive hit on home video. As a huge fan of the first film, I was really worried about the sequel, but I really enjoyed it. It is unabashedly weird but by the time I left my face hurt from smiling. I don't know if there's much better praise I can give it.
Kim Hollis: American Hustle earned $12.4 million this weekend and has so far taken in $87.9 million. What do you think of this result? Where do you rank it amongst Oscar contenders?
Brett Ballard-Beach: It's a stellar start. Stick five sexy Oscar nominees and winners in a film from just about the (both) commercially hottest and most critically acclaimed American director of the last couple of years and watch people flock to a film they might otherwise have had no interest in. I don't even care what the plot is. The very idea of that cast in those outfits sounds ridiculously entertaining. I think Hustle has to be considered one of the five sure shot nominees for Best Picture (I would include Gravity and 12 Years a Slave among those as well) and with the buzz still burning red hot, and pleasing audiences and critics alike, it definitely has a shot at Best Picture.
Max Braden: I'm seeing a lot of advertising for it, it's the kind of movie that can pull in multiple demographics, and Lawrence is hot right now (and in the trailer). Surprisingly, I've seen some mediocre reviews, which I attribute to a recent David O. Russell review where he all but dismissed the importance of plot or story in favor of character. That's reducing my predictions on a significant number of awards for this movie. I can imagine some acting nominations, writing, cinematography, and maybe picture, but I'm feeling less and less confident that the movie will win a lot. That's a decent box office result though, so clearly audiences are responding to the trailers.
Edwin Davies: This is a very solid result for a film which I expect won't find much traction at the Oscars. I think it'll probably get a Best Picture nomination if they have 10 nominees, and it'll probably land some acting nominations, but I don't think it'll end up sweeping the board when put up against 12 Years a Slave. It's an entertainingly messy film, but its slapdash quality prevents it from being great. It also doesn't help that it's opening so close to The Wolf of Wall Street, which does a very similar thing considerably better, and I'd expect that one to be a much stronger contender come Oscar time.
Felix Quinonez: When Oscar nominees are announced, American Hustle will get an even bigger box office boost. I thought this movie was excellent and had really strong performances all around. I don't see it winning best picture but I'm very confident that it will get nominated in that category and I think it will win something in the acting categories. If anything, I think this might have actually stolen some of the buzz from The Wolf of Wall Street.
Matthew Huntley: The box office numbers for American Hustle are so superb, especially given its $40 million production budget and the idea that its critical acclaim all but guarantees it has a lot more juice in it (I think it's safe to say it will end up with at least $140 million in total, if not more, thus continuing David O. Russell's hot streak). With that said, the movie itself is not as superb as its numbers or reviews might indicate. Don't get me wrong - it's good, but not exactly great. It's mostly a traditional Hollywood con-artist drama, if there is such a thing, and it doesn't offer much in the way of surprises. It's basically a showcase for the actors to dress up and play colorful characters with eccentric idiosyncrasies (something the Academy goes gaga over). That's not to say it's not entertaining, but there were far more ambitious films in 2013 worthy of a Best Picture nomination. Right now, American Hustle just feels like a "safe" choice, which is probably why people are seeing it.
Bruce Hall: David O Russell brings cachet to what in lesser hands might have been a tediously long, self indulgent period piece whose lack of payoff makes its complex plot machinations feel frustrating.
Actually it's all of these things, but it also has a great script. It's got some strong performances in it. And, Russell's ability to make me care about people that nobody should care about kept me riveted even when I wanted to tune out. This is an odd, leisurely paced, emotionally hollow film that somehow makes up for lack of substance with its uncompromising attention to quality craftsmanship on all other levels, particularly character development.
American Hustle boasted superb per screen averages in limited release, and since it opened wide it has been a strong performer. It's not a masterpiece but it's a big success and it's destined to endure. The timing of its release will keep it fresh in everyone's minds at the time of year it matters the most.
Kim Hollis: Considering the subject matter and the fact that this is a movie that has a very small, indie feel to it, I think you have to consider its box office results so far pretty amazing. Audiences are flocking to a movie that probably has no business being as broad a hit as it is. I think it will absolutely be in nominees for Best Picture when the Academy announces them, and we're probably looking at Amy Adams and Jennifer Lawrence being included in the actress categories, too. Bale is a possibility, but Best Actor is so competitive this year that I'm not sure it's guaranteed. I do think that American Hustle is already suffering a bit of backlash, so I don't think it's going to be our winner in the end.
Kim Hollis: Saving Mr. Banks earned $8.7 million this weekend and has accrued $59 million since its debut. What do you think of this result?
Max Braden: This was the kind of movie that families could go see together as a holiday movie, and was probably easier for older, less-theater-visited audiences to absorb than spectacles like Catching Fire or The Hobbit, and less in your face than American Hustle and The Wolf of Wall Street. But unlike a romantic comedy that feels forced, this felt like a forced feel-good movie without the romance. It looks to me like it neither ignites any romantic spark between Hanks and Thompson, nor tells a lot about the development of Mary Poppins. This movie looks more toothless than a typical Disney movie, giving me no reason to go ("But it has Hanks and Thompson" isn't enough).
Edwin Davies: It's a decent film, but films about filmmaking - even a film as beloved and iconic as Mary Poppins - tend not to do too well with audiences. While the advertising correctly pitched it as a culture class comedy, I think they didn't do a good enough job to sell it as a family picture, rather than as something for people interested in the story behind Mary Poppins. (It also didn't help that Disney also put out Frozen, which is a much clearer family viewing option.) It probably won't get much love from the Academy, which seems to be what Disney was hoping for to bolster its long-term prospects.
Felix Quinonez: I think the movie started out just ok but it has since recovered quite nicely. The movie has a small budget so it will scrape out a profit and no one will be hurt by its performance. But as far as Oscars go, I do think this one will be overlooked.
Matthew Huntley: This is more or less in line with expectations I'd say. I don't think anyone, including the execs at Disney, ever thought Saving Mr. Banks would be a blockbuster, but it's turning out to be a formidable performer, surpassing its modest $35 million production budget and eating into its marketing costs. I don't think it will show a profit until it hits the home market, but given its somewhat slow start, it was nice to see it bounce back. Seems like everyone is in agreement on this.
Bruce Hall: I think that when it comes to the Academy Awards conversation, Saving Mr Banks has been overshadowed somewhat by all the buzz surrounding American Hustle. Banks performed quite well in limited release and has since posted a tidy financial profit. But I don't see it breaking out of the pack when it comes time to hand out statues. This means that too narrowly focused marketing campaign everyone's talking about might be biting Disney in the ass right about...now.
Kim Hollis: I think the box office performance to date is fine if unexceptional. Considering the fact that it's highly suited to an older audience, I'm a little surprised it hasn't been a bit more significant. I get a vibe that people are weary of Tom Hanks even though his 2013 films have been top-notch with regards to reviews and word-of-mouth. I do think Emma Thompson is likely to be an Oscar contender, which may help propel the film to some extra box office it wouldn't have otherwise attained.
Kim Hollis: Walking With Dinosaurs, an animated film based off the documentary series from the BBC, earned $3.7 million this weekend. Its total so far is $31.3 million. Why wasn't there any interest in this project?
Brett Ballard-Beach: Hmmm. As a parent do you take your kids to Frozen for a second or third time (a film whose songs you're still humming by the way) or to a critically reviled feature where majestic looking creatures talk in anachronisms and make poop jokes?
Max Braden: I think it's similar to an uncanny valley thing. Animal adventures like Ice Age can pull kids in, but if the animals look realistic, it will just look like a nature documentary. Animated adventures can show the animals sliding down mountains and being chased in unlikely scenarios, which give at least some sense of the adventure. I didn't get any sense of the plot or a reason to get excited about the movie from the Walking With Dinosaurs trailer.
Edwin Davies: The Walking with Dinosaurs series was rightly celebrated as a groundbreaking attempt to recreate life before humanity existed, and the stage show has been thrilling people for years by giving them the chance to experience the sight of realistic dinosaurs in the flesh. Trying to make an animated kid's movie, complete with celebrity voices, from that material suggests that the people involved completely misunderstood the appeal of the brand. That they made a bad film doesn't help, and that they opened against a behemoth like Frozen only makes it worse, but I think there was a terrible miscalculation somewhere down the line which was never corrected.
Felix Quinonez: I think they misunderstood what made the documentaries popular in the first place. I haven't seen the movie but it looked terrible and judging by the reviews, it is. Because of this I think they helped make Frozen the go to family movie for the holidays. That had already been out for a while and Walking with Dinosaurs should have been a real challenge for it. Instead audiences caught on that dinosaurs was a stinker and stuck with Frozen.
Bruce Hall: Not only did someone misjudge the brand when they made this movie, but they also misjudged their audience. When it's all children, remember that when we're that young, we have the attention span of a fruit fly. An irresistibly compelling story with irresistibly compelling characters is absolutely essential. But some people think that kids will watch anything as long as its brightly animated, scatological humor marks the narrative highlights and (for some reason) all the talking animals are voiced by B or C list celebrities even their parents can't identify.
More than any audience on the planet, kids need to buy what you're selling or you're simply toast. Their parents will (rightly) blame you for the experience and before long, Facebook and Twitter will be aflame with curses to your name. Also, take a look at the theatrical posters for this movie, and then take a look at the ones for Frozen. Which would YOUR kids pick?
Kim Hollis: I actually wonder if someone at Fox thought something like, "Hey, Ice Age was a big hit, so why not do an adaptation of Walking With Dinosaurs but make it stylistically similar?" That someone entirely missed the point of why people liked the documentary mini-series in the first place. To me this movie feels like a cynical attempt to reach kids and parents by showcasing dinosaurs and poop jokes, and I'm glad that people saw through it for the most part.