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

Tim Briody: This is totally fine, especially for Soderbergh's commercial work. Friends who've seen it say it's pretty good, though they're now scared to ever leave their homes again.

Reagen Sulewski: The thing about the cast when you look at it is that it's loaded with talent but not necessarily a lot of box office clout. Outside of Damon, and even he has trouble with films that don't have "Bourne" in the title, no one of the many distinguished actors in this film are someone that I'd have a lot of confidence in naming as the lead of a big blockbuster film. That leaves a lot of this opening weekend to the concept and execution, which is the most difficult part of making a successful debut. You can't help but be satisfied with a low 20s result for this, when we're dealing with an enemy that's entirely microscopic.

Edwin Davies: I agree with Reagan that apart from Damon - who, as we've said in the past, has had a rough couple of years box office-wise since The Bourne Ultimatum in 2007 - none of the cast are really big draws. Sure, they've all been in big films in their time, but none of them have opened a film in a big way for a long time, if ever. Hell, there was a time not so long ago when casting Jude Law in a film was a death sentence. What they do bring, though, is credibility, and I think that went a long way to persuading people that Contagion was worth taking a shot on. Hearing that Kate Winslet or Bryan Cranston are involved could have made people think that there was more to the film than just being a retread of Outbreak, and whilst that might not be solely responsible for this result, it could have been the difference between a sub-$20 million opening and the one we got. I think this is a solid opening, but that the real success of the film will unfold over the next few weeks and once it opens worldwide.

David Mumpower: Finally, a film has been created that caters to people like me, extreme germaphobes. Should we see this movie? Of course not. Will we? The weekend box office tells the story. There is something indescribably appealing about seeing your worst fears turned into movies. Between this and Sex and the City, all of my nightmares have been covered now. When we look at this performance, the aspect that others have mentioned here that I see as the most important is that everything except The Help has failed recently. Contagion has filled the void created by lousy end of summer releases and capitalized on opening weekend.

MMA=non-factor

Kim Hollis: Warrior, the Lionsgate feature that has attained glowing reviews (especially for star Tom Hardy), opened to $5.2 million. Why wasn't this "guy film" with great buzz able to capitalize more at the box office?

Bruce Hall: I think it's possible that MMA isn't quite as mainstream as it thinks it is. The most recent similar film I can immediately recall would of course be 2008's The Wrestler, which was also well reviewed, and was also a very good film. The comparisons stop there, as The Wrestler opened at a less terrible time of year, and Americans tend to view professional wrestling as an amusing diversion while many still view MMA as a repulsive abomination. It's really neither here nor there, though. If The Wrestler can be in the conversation come Oscar time, so can Warrior. If The Hurt Locker can win Best Picture despite barely earning back its catering budget and 99 percent of Americans never having heard of it, there's no reason to believe The Warrior can't find a little love at the end of the year as well.

Continued:       1       2       3       4