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

What no one knows is that it's a battle between the plastics and the reals. Hint: the plastics have a numbers advantage.

Kim Hollis: Battle: Los Angeles, the poorly reviewed Sony action flick, opened to $35.6 million. What do you take from this result?

Matthew Huntley: For such an effects-filled extravaganza, I'd say the opening is rather soft. By comparison, 2012 opened almost a year and a half ago but grossed nearly twice as much its first weekend. But, to be fair, 2012 debuted at a much more lucrative time of year and had bigger names attached to it.

With that said, Sony should still be pleased with $35.6 million for Battle: Los Angeles because it only cost a relatively modest $70 million to produce, which seems low for a disaster flick. If this holds true, then it will definitely earn the studio a profit, especially when you take into account overseas territories, which tend to love this type of entertainment (2012 grossed over $600 million from international markets alone). It's another win for Sony, which will now have three movies that grossed over $90 million during the first quarter of the year.

Tim Briody: That's pretty stellar for something that has zero redeeming value according to both critics and audiences. I guess there was an audience who was tired all the awards crap and just wanted to see stuff blow up.





Brett Beach: To open at half of 2012's opening (and budget) with a horribly generic title and without the help of a big-name director, star or any kind of "special" hook/feel to the latest spectacle of apocalypse has to be counted as a win. And as for zero redeeming value, those under 18 gave it an A which is probably all that the studio was hoping for. It's not a lock for $100 million here, but with foreign grosses it'll redeem itself.

Can anyone tell me if those is supposed to be a series starter (i.e., Battle: New York, Battle: Paris; Battle: Micronesia)?

Eric Hughes: Sure, Battle: LA didn't beat Rango, but $35.6 million secures it for 13th-best weekend ever in the month of March. Had Battle: LA opened in, say, June to $35.6 million, it's a different story. But opening to that much money at this point in the year has to be more than Columbia was expecting.

Shalimar Sahota: I think that the marketing for this was spot on. The trailers used Johann Johannsson's Sun's Gone Dim, and when played to the images we see, the whole thing evokes a sense of sadness and loss. Then we hear someone speak about how they've lost communication with Tokyo, Rio and New York. If anything, this looked like a big studio film where the heroes weren't going to win. It's a good opening, and I would have seen it myself, but the poor reviews kept me away, saying how it's just so "by-the-numbers." It'll probably equate to middling word-of-mouth and a big second week drop.

Continued:       1       2       3