New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Reagen Sulewski: That's the thing though - Denzel and Travolta have never been first weekend superstars. This is pretty much par for the course for them (and Tony Scott, who is practically a savant at making these generic action movies). And seeing how unremarkable Pelham 1 2 3 looked, this is pretty much proof positive that you can put Denzel is just about anything with guns and criminals and open it to about $25 million.

David Mumpower: I see it the same way Reagen does. 12 months out, I was thinking this would open between $20 and $25 million. I know that some folks were saying $35 million was a possibility, but that was overly ambitious. This is exactly the line of demarcation for Denzel Washington's movies and it is, if anything, better than usual for most Travolta fare. It's also a role I'm tired of seeing the latter man portray. There isn't a lot of differentiation in the Evil John Travolta characters over the years.

Forget Denzel. Why aren't we talking about Tony Scott?

Kim Hollis: Where would you rank Denzel Washington on the list of consistent box office openers?

Josh Spiegel: He is absolutely consistent; granted, he's not able to open a movie at $50 million or somewhere in that neighborhood, but if you put Denzel Washington in an action movie or a thriller, you're likely looking at somewhere around $20-30 million in the opening weekend. One of the reasons we should consider Pelham 1 2 3 a win is that this film gives Denzel his third-best opening weekend, following up American Gangster and Inside Man. He's one of the few stars from the 1990s who's managed to keep doing solid work in solid movies, which provide a solid profit.

Tim Briody: Six out of his last seven movies have opened to $20 million (the aberration being The Great Debaters) and that's as consistent as you can ask someone to be these days. It's a combination of being a solid actor plus making smart decisions.

Scott Lumley: He's upper tier. He gives credibility to a film, and he has a fan base that watches his films and buys his DVDs no matter what. He also steadfastly refuses to do the stupid things that some stars do to derail their careers. He never seems to open any film enormously, but his movies always seem to have decent legs and make money.





Sean Collier: The key might be a willingness to wait. Many of the stars that have proven themselves more inconsistent will either take on riskier projects or go for the cash with lowbrow offerings; Denzel seems to stick to what he likes and what he wants to do. I'd like to say that this means integrity equals consistency, but it more just means that lots of people love Denzel, and he hasn't done anything to put his fans off.

Max Braden: He's pretty consistent, but if I were going to greenlight a reliable player, I'd prefer to get Adam Sandler reliable box office.

Eric Hughes: I'd say he's second to Will Smith, and perhaps no one else.

Jason Lee: I 100% agree with Scott - "credibility" is just the perfect word. I think that Denzel brings a level of integrity to any film that he's in and moviegoers have responded in kind.

David Mumpower: The way I look at it is that Denzel Washington brings B opening weekends, B+ box office and A+ performances to all of his roles. $20-$25 million isn't special, but studios will take consistent $70 million domestic runs any day of the week as long as the production cost is acceptable.

Kim Hollis: I have to think he's a studio's dream, and there's probably a reason that he and Tony Scott keep on teaming up. The two of them together pretty much guarantee a certain quality and financial return, both at the box office and on DVD.

Continued:       1       2