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

David Mumpower: In a certain sense, this is a case of deja vu all over again as this debut is almost identical to Date Night's $25.2 million debut four months ago. That film wound up finishing just short of $100 million, which seems like an ambitious finish for this one, given the middling reviews and somewhat hostile word-of-mouth. Still, as Mr. Huntley points out, it's a relatively low cost production and that puts this debut in the win column, albeit with about the worst possible amount to qualify. I strongly suspect that when Carell's 2010 is evaluated, Despicable Me will be the movie remembered the most despite his being just a voice actor in it. Then, there will be some mention of the vanilla-flavored Date Night and Dinner with Schmucks is the least of the three, the All about Steve of the bunch, if you will.

The real question is: does he still love lamp?

Kim Hollis: What does the $23.5 million opening of Dinner for Schmucks make you think about Steve Carell's drawing power? Is it more, less, or about what you thought it was?

Josh Spiegel: I don't think anything's really made things worse for Carell here. Again, the movie could have opened wider, but the result isn't going to be disappointing for him. He's been in three movies this year, and two of them were major hits. Dinner for Schmucks won't be that big of a hit, but Carell's a consistent performer at the box office. I just wish he made movies that seemed, you know, as funny as he can be. Still, he's come a long way from being Producer Pete Steve Carell on the Daily Show a decade ago. Good for him.





Matthew Huntley: Ever since Steve Carell became a household name with The 40-Year-Old Virgin, he has generally opened movies to the tune of $20 million or more, which is about where Dinner for Schmucks was expected to fall. The question is whether people are seeing these movies because of their concepts or because Carell is in them. It's probably both, but now that his last few movies, including Schmucks and Date Night, are audience pleasers and have opened with respectable numbers, there's no doubt people feel comfortable with him and know what to expect. He's become a "safe" celebrity-actor because he doesn't stray too far from his usual routine. For now, I think this sense of safety increases his drawing power at the box office (audiences like to feel safe), but in a few years, it could also be his downfall should his shtick ever wear thin. If he's serious about being an actor, Carell should try something new and attempt a role that goes against his usual type.

Reagen Sulewski: I don't think it's fair to say that Carell isn't stretching - he probably should have been nominated for an Oscar for Little Miss Sunshine, and Dan in Real Life was an interesting failure, at least. So if he comes back to these roles from time to time to keep his star power up, I say that's pretty smart. It's only a few million above Rudd's career average as a lead, for that matter, and he's the guy who I think could stand to broaden his horizons more.

Kim Hollis: I think it's fair to say that with someone else in the lead role, Dinner for Schmucks probably would have done a few million worse, or at least fallen "just" in Rudd's general opening range ($15-18 million). I have to believe that Carell did add a little something.

And I'd agree that Dan in Real Life and Little Miss Sunshine let him do something that was outside his comfort zone. I think both movies are pretty terrific, too. The fact that he's leaving the Michael Scott behind makes me believe that he's not going to be a guy who simply takes one note roles in the future. I'd kind of like to see him do a bit more writing, too.

Continued:       1       2