One Month Out: Weekends of July 23 and 30, 2010
By BOP Staff
June 29, 2010
Kim Hollis: The fact that there is a sequel to Cats and Dogs makes me want to curl up in the fetal position. Seriously. The first film was a crime against humanity. I know I listed it amongst my worst movies of that year. And I say this as someone who *likes* both cats and dogs very much. I have at least one of each.
My own feelings aside, I think the long distance between the films can't bode well for the sequel's success. The kids who liked it back in the day are older teenagers now. I guess we could see a new set of children go crazy for more talking animals, but we've seen that people do show *some* discretion with their talking animal dollars. I hope that Cats and Dogs 2 is not one that unpleasantly surprises me.
As for Charlie St. Cloud, I'm not sure I'm qualified to give an unbiased opinion. I think an awful lot of Zac Efron's talent (really) and I also think that the studio is doing a really good job of marketing this film to the right people. Right now, they have a social networking aspect to getting the word out amongst its demographic - all run from the movie's official site. By completing various activities, users score points, with the person receiving the most points getting a screening of the movie. Let's just say that I think there's a reason CBS Films ran far far away from this date with Beastly (starring Efron's girlfriend Vanessa Hudgens).
Finally, Dinner for Schmucks looks absolutely awful to me, but I have heard a lot of the people I believe to be its target audience saying how funny they think it is. I don't think it's going to knock our socks off or anything, but an opening around $30 million wouldn't surprise me at all.
David Mumpower: Yes, Cats and Dogs was a terrible movie, but that’s not the point. It is a terrible movie that earned $200 million against a $60 million budget. Talking animals films are every bit as tantalizing to children as beer commercials with buxom women are to grown men. Independent of what we think of a sequel, it is one of the safest box office titles in the marketplace this month. I’ll be surprised if it opens under $20 million and flat out stunned if it finishes less than $70 million. It’s box office arbitrage.
Dinner for Schmucks is exactly the sort of role that some agent convinces Steve Carell is a great career move a few months before Carell fires the agent with gross prejudice. If it earns a lot of money, humanity as we know it is lessened. I’m expecting it to make about $17 million in its debut then finish with $55 million worth of very bitter consumers.
Charlie St. Cloud is fascinating to me in that as much as I want to hate Zac Efron for being the object of lust for an entire generation of Disney watchers (and my would-be cougar wife), he is a very engaging actor. No matter what you think of the High School Musical movies, you have to be impressed by the singing/dancing/acting combination he pulls off with aplomb at such a young age. In addition, you have to give him credit for not letting his celebrity go to his head the way a few unnamed graduates of Disney University did. Finally, 17 Again is a pretty great movie that really brings the funny and he pulls off the Chandler in High School role quite well. I think he’s a legit talent, unlike certain vampires and lyncanthropes with bad hair and great abs. I believe that Charlie St. Cloud will perform almost as well as 17 Again, probably around $18 million at the start and $55 million during its domestic run.
Continued:
1
2
3
4
Print this column
