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: Honestly, this is one of the more remarkable opening weekends that I can recall. Put these two elements together out of context - Hugh Jackman. Boxing robots - and see how far you get in terms of describing a potential blockbuster before laughing out loud. This result almost feels like what people expected out of Snakes on a Plane when it was at its peak "can you believe they made a movie out of this" feeling. Somehow they turned that mockery into people who actually wanted to see it. I guess robots are just that cool. Whatever exec bet his career that this was the film worth spending $110 million has big brass ones, though.

Jason Lee: I would like to congratulate Disney on turning a movie adaptation of Rock'em Sock'em robots into a $25+ million opening.

Kim Hollis: I think Real Steel has done fine here. No, it's probably not going to earn its budget back stateside, but it has decent word-of-mouth and should do well enough that international receipts will push it over the top. Jackman is a big draw overseas, after all. And Reagen is right, too. A couple of months ago when I first saw the trailer for the film, it barely passed the laugh test. Then, they recut a new trailer and I found myself thinking the film looked kind of fun. Jackman got out and did some excellent promo work (I disagree with Tim that the RAW appearance smacked of desperation, but then again, I think Hugh is hot and will watch him in anything. Also, I love you CM Punk. That is all).

David Mumpower: While Reagen's point is well taken, I maintain that this opening weekend came at an expensive price. And I am not referring to the production budget. I have been seeing Real Steel ads since March and it was one of the most heavily exhibited trailers during the summer box office campaign, particularly with regards to IMAX titles. As such, DreamWorks/Disney expended a lot of money and tied up a lot of advertising slots on a title whose debut falls somewhere between Moneyball and The Lion King re-release. I struggle to be impressed by such a feat. There was a strong demonstration of support for the product on the supply side, but the demand was sadly lacking.

Don't make him go *snikt*

Edwin Davies: I think he's one of those rare people who is a huge star without being a draw in his own right. His performance as Wolverine was what introduced him to the world, and since then he has established a reputation as a charismatic, funny and charming actor who also seems to be a really nice guy. I don't remember the Oscars ceremony he hosted being particularly good, but I do remember that he managed to hold it together fairly well, which I don't think a lot of actors would be able to do. He seems to be someone that most people know and like, but his non-Wolverine career has been, at best, chequered. He's still looking for the role that will establish him as someone other than the guy who played Wolverine and turn the legions of people who like him into people who will actually pay to see him in a film. Is Real Steel that film? Probably not, but stepping into an original (if ridiculous) family film that will bring in a pretty broad audience seems to be the right way to go.

Brett Beach: I concur with Edwin's assessment. He is an anomaly in many regards, key among them is that he is one of the few modern-day physically buff/ripped song-and-dance mans that comes to mind (Neil Patrick Harris would be another, but much as I like him, I don't see him having been able to pull off playing Wolverine). Although I am contradicting myself from last month concerning Daniel Craig and his A-list status outside James Bond, I don't think Jackman would qualify, setting aside Wolverine. But he has shown he can do well in performances far outside comic book action so I think A-list-er status is stil achievable.

Jason Lee: I think Jackson has a really intriguing combination of attributes that make him a safe, friendly, action-oriented leading man. He's buff enough to attract the women, but "gay" enough to calm men's fears.

Kim Hollis: I don't know that I'd call him A-list, but I do think he's the kind of actor that studios don't mind anchoring their films. He's not as expensive as some others, for one thing, but he's so genial and well-regarded that it's impossible to see a trailer for any film he's in and not be at least mildly intrigued. As I mentioned before, he really took a lot of time to make sure that he threw his own support behind the movie (he even had an appearance for a premiere here in my hometown.

David Mumpower: He has clearly proven to be a lackluster box office draw that the public loves anyway. As Edwin succinctly stated, audiences love him because he has such an endearing personality. The fact that this popularity has not translated into box office triumph is a bit mystifying, really. Looking back at some of the most popular celebrities of the past 25 years like Sandra Bullock, Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson (those last two are hard to believe now), their charisma directly correlated with the popularity of their films. There is a disconnect between what pop culture fanatics think of Hugh Jackson as a person and whether that means they will see him fight fake looking robots or seduce fake looking Nicole Kidmans in movies.

Continued:       1       2