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

Jason Lee: With the gross of SATC 2's strategic five-day holiday opening roughly in line with the weekend opening of the first film, I gotta say, the film may not have expanded the audience for SATC, but it did a pretty nice job of holding onto its audience. I mean, c'mon, the SATC films were never going to draw new fans. If you were even minimally inclined to see a SATC movie at all, you probably saw the first one. And you probably liked it. That the second SATC film didn't surpass the first in terms of opening is not surprising to me. Its opening weekend was probably the best it was ever going to do.

David Mumpower: I echo a lot of the thoughts being offered here, particularly Jason’s. A month prior to the release of Sex and the City, even $30 million seemed like an optimistic result for a relatively unheralded television adaptation. They caught lightning in a bottle by marketing the first film as an excuse for women to throw parties, get sloshed and go watch a celebration of the shallow lifestyle. We’re talking about a $57 million production that *stole* $415 million worth of worldwide box office.

With absolutely nowhere to go with the sequel, the only reason there even was one is that it would function as box office arbitrage, which is what has happened for the most part. It’s a terrible film that is bringing out the bile in film critics across the globe, but we’re still talking about a three-day opening weekend in excess of $30 million, more than was expected for the first title. Yes, this one cost more to make and yes, word-of-mouth on it is BRUtal, but we’re still talking about a successful cash grab for Warner Bros. Sickening though the thought may be, a Deadwood or Rome film would not open this well, no matter how great its quality.

We miss you, Jack Sparrow

Kim Hollis: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time opened to $37.8 million over the holiday period. Should Disney be satisfied with this result?

Reagen Sulewski: This is a situation a lot like Robin Hood, where international box office is probably going to be huge and save the day, but we're talking about a $150 million budgeted film that's going to struggle to make $100 million domestic. There's very little to be happy about here, especially compared to other action-adventure movies. This is less than even the pure cash-in film of The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor was able to make two years ago, and that was a sequel with cast changes and without a point.

Kim Hollis: I think the studio has known for a long time that this project was in trouble. It never seemed like they were trying that hard with it, from the entirely inappropriate casting of Jake Gyllenhaal to the lackluster marketing campaign. There was not one thing in the trailer or the commercials that made Prince of Persia look appealing. I only think it made this much because people somehow still connect Bruckheimer to summer movie fun.

Josh Spiegel: This result adds up to a big "Meh" from everyone involved. This movie just didn't seem like something I should pay 10 bucks for. Why waste the money on something that seems so phoned in?

Continued:       1       2       3       4       5