Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
July 16, 2014
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Matthew Huntley: Unfortunately, I think this would-be "small film that could" made a break for audiences too fast. Its per-screen-average (less than $4,000) is too sub-par to probably warrant further expansion and I have a feeling it might not get far beyond $10 million in total. I'm still curious to see it, but I think the Weinstein Company should have let word-of-mouth build more before releasing it into nearly 1,000 venues. Has anyone on this thread seen it?
Jason Dean: I have just seen it and I think most viewers will find it an entertaining meet cute (of sorts) set against the backdrop of independent music and NYC. Mark Ruffalo and Keira Knightley do well. Adam Levine makes a fine villain. Hailee Steinfeld and Catherine Keener are their usual fine selves in smaller roles.
At the same time, I don't think that I can give an objective review as I watched it with laughs through the tears. So I guess there's a vote that it made at least one viewer feel something.
Edwin Davies: I watched it last night and I enjoyed it, even though I spent the whole film thinking either a) this is reminding me of how much better Once is, b) Adam Levine is a terrible, terrible actor, or c) is Haillee Steinfeld really tall or is Mark Ruffalo really short? (Judging from the film, he's shorter than Cee Lo Green!) It's a charming, funny film and I think it has a chance of being a sleeper hit in the way that Chef has been, but like Matthew I think it might have opened too wide, too early, since there hadn't been much buzz around it before this weekend. Even if it doesn't break out in a huge way, I still think it has the right mix of crowd-pleasing polish and genuine heart to connect with audiences, and it'll probably end up being one of the more successful art house films of the summer.
Felix Quinonez: I think it is doing fine, not spectacular. But it doesn't feel, to me, like it has much buzz amongst general audiences. I would say that most (or a lot of) casual viewers don't even know about this movie. And its performance so far isn't gonna grab anyone's attention. I think it will do decent business but pretty much come and go without making a lot of noise.
Max Braden: I don't think the box office is quite living up to the positive perception of the movie, which is a bit of a 'better to be asked why there's no statue of you than to be asked why there is one' victory. I imagine home video business will be stronger, and we may see it among top ten and nominees lists at the end of the year. I do think it is a decent enough performance to keep writer-director John Carney in business for the future. Even if the numbers don't add up, the perception I have is that it's similar to a Woody Allen project. That's not terrible company to be in when it comes to establishing a fan base.
David Mumpower: What I would also note is that for all of our collective praise regarding Once, that movie earned under $10 million domestically. The expected bump for Begin Again primarily stems from the leads, franchise co-leads in The Avengers and Pirates of the Caribbean. Neither of them has ever demonstrated that sort of box office pull, though. What we have left is a good movie with a solid cast, and it is directed by the genius who crafted Once. That is a wonderful recipe for quality entertainment. It does not move the dial much on the box office upside.
Kim Hollis: It reminds me vaguely of Chef, but I’m not sure it can maintain the sort of momentum that film had, hanging around at either #9 or #10 for several weeks. I think $5 million so far is really solid considering the subject matter and the fact that it has a small feel to it anyway. As Max mentions, it should find an expanded audience on home video.
Kim Hollis: Two weeks after its initial North American theatrical release, Snowpiercer expanded into 356 theaters while simultaneously debuting on home video. What are your thoughts on this style of release pattern? Also, given your choice, would you prefer to see Snowpiercer in a theater or at home?
Matthew Huntley: I really don't understand the cost-benefit reasoning behind a release pattern like this. In most cases, I can't imagine the cost to make prints eventually gets outweighed by its box-office and simultaneous home video release. I understand it raises additional awareness for the movie, but does it actually lead to a greater profit? It seems wasteful to me when the window between theatrical and home video release is this short. Perhaps a marketing expert can justify it.
With that said, I actually did see Snowpiercer in the theater, and because it is so cinematic, I'm glad I did. The home experience wouldn't have been the same. However, I did just rent Life Itself on iTunes, which I think is more appropriate for home viewing. Generally speaking, I'll always opt for the theater over my own living room, but I can't make a blanket statement over which I prefer; for me, it has to be taken on a case by case basis.
Edwin Davies: I would prefer to see Snowpiercer in a theater, and I would have seen it in one this weekend if the cinema I had planned to see it in hadn't pulled it from their schedule at the last minute. (It may very well have been that it was incorrectly advertised on the website, but either way I was pissed.) So instead I'm going to rent it from iTunes because as much as I would love to see it on the big screen - and I very well might see it if I love it and it actually does open by me - I'd much rather see it sooner rather than later.
As far as this particular strategy goes, I can kind of see the logic in that it definitely raises awareness (Snowpiercer is currently the top rental on iTunes) and allows people to see a film that they might not otherwise get a chance to see before it hits home video. What I don't understand about it is why they would do it so soon after a great opening weekend, rather than letting it expand and then putting it on VOD as a way of drumming up buzz for the film once it goes into a wide release. Maybe this is the Weinsteins’ way of putting off a wide release, either because they don't have the funds to push it or because Harvey is still angry about losing his battle with Bong Joon-Ho to release a shorter cut of the film theatrically.
Max Braden: I swear I've heard so much reverence about this movie from my friends or friends of friends that it has reached godlike “best movie in a decade” status and I still don't know anything about it. It sounds weird enough ("no, it's good, trust me") that I feel hesitant about going to see it in the theater. And a couple hundred sites is still pretty restrained for the entire country, so I do think this strategy makes sense for this movie, in that home viewing allows for more people to see it now and spread the buzz which will get more people to go see it in theaters. Without the home release, it's more likely to become one of those movies that you've heard about but nobody's really seen by the awards season.
David Mumpower: As someone who is in an area of the country that frequently has to wait several weeks for platform releases, Snowpiercer is a first for me. I had planned to see it in the theater, but I still did not have any local options this past weekend. So, I bought it off of Vudu instead. Owning the film required a financial outlay of $22.99, and I have it forever. A pair of movie tickets that evening would have been $26 plus Fandango fees. The value side of the equation speaks for itself.
I am someone who has previously stated in this forum that I would prefer to watch movies in the comfort of my own home. Snowpiercer bordered on being an exception because I had heard that the cinematography is great (it is) and that the special effects are good (they are fine but not worth any special effort to see in a theater). This type of film is right on the line for me in terms of wanting to see in a theater. I am glad I watched it at home because there were a couple of moments where I became squeamish. I was relieved that did not occur in a theater. If Hollywood does move in the direction of next month release for major movies, I will consume most cinematic offerings that way simply because of the ease of the process.
With regards to the film quality of Snowpiercer, I think Max should dial his expectations down. It is a solid movie that overreaches somewhat. Its ambition is its undoing during an extended third act. Overall, it is a damn good movie that I highly recommend to everyone, though. I would give it a solid A- and look forward to extended discussions about the film in the coming months and years.
Kim Hollis: I absolutely would have seen Snowpiercer in theaters if it had been available to me to do so prior to this weekend. With that said, the instant I realized it was available for at-home viewing, the choice was easy. Even if it had been in local theaters this weekend, I would have gone the home video route. I’ll always choose the comfort of home versus seat-kickers, people on cell phones, and just the general distraction of the theater itself (I admit that since the theater shooting in Colorado a couple of years ago, I have moments where I anxiously examine the exit doors and weird behavior of other people in the audience).
As for the decision itself, I’d say it paid off. Entertainment Weekly says that Snowpiercer earned $1.1 million, almost two times as much as it made in North American theaters. If you add the $1.1 million to the $635,000 it did earn in theaters, it had an increase from last weekend (whereas if you just look at its box office results, it looks like it declined 37%). Clearly, a good portion of potential viewers wanted to see Snowpiercer at home and took advantage. Now, as word-of-mouth can spread, it should become a profitable little venture for Radius, an arm of the Weinstein Co. that plans to specialize in this unique release style moving forward. It was an interesting experiment, and I think it’s going to be a story we’re all going to continue to track very closely.
On a final note, I do recommend the film. It has segments that are difficult to watch (and even to think about), but it has an engaging story and fine acting performances.