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: Reagen touches upon an interesting aspect in that this is the acting equivalent to Clint Eastwood's late career ascension as a director, a trend that diminished recently. I think what Neeson has done is more impressive because Eastwood was already a legend. Neeson is experiencing a fundamental change in perception about his acting skill that perhaps hasn't been seen since Leslie Nielsen woke up one day and everyone else noticed he was funny. What is most impressive about the accomplishment is that Taken by all rights should have been a one-time success yet he has followed up with a pair of equally original action premises, Unknown and now The Grey. What is brilliant about the latter film is that if you put someone in their 20s or 30s in the film as the lead, it's not as interesting. An older guy trying to survive enhances the concept.

Since we all agree that this is a fantastic result for a $25 million production, the other aspect of this story I find fascinating is that it is an Open Road Films release. For those unfamiliar with the distributor, this is the joint start-up from Regal Entertainment and AMC Theatres. The two largest exhibitors have chosen to work together to fill a few bare spots on the schedule with their own programming. The first attempt, Killer Elite, was undone by Clive Owen's mustache (prove me wrong!). The Grey, however, is a huge triumph. This demonstrates that the idea is workable and puts some of the power back in the hands of the exhibitors.

Finally, I'm glad those uppity wolves have learned a harsh lesson here. Humanity can unleash the Neeson whenever needed.

Why do mediocre openings happen to awful people?

Kim Hollis: One for the Money, yet another in a seemingly endless line of indistinguishable Katherine Heigl films, opened to $11.5 million in spite of $6 tickets on Groupon. Why do you think this film struggled? Do you believe Katherine Heigl is running out of box office juice?

Reagen Sulewski: I think we've all been very, very patient with Ms. Heigl, waiting for her to star in a movie that would justify her acting like a miserable person to all and sundry, biting every hand that feeds her. That stuff gets out of the insider circles and people noticed. I wouldn't say that's the biggest reason for the failure of One for the Money, but it's in there. Obviously it's the fact that the movie looked terrible (personal pet peeve from the trailer - someone accidentally firing a gun indoors in a crowded room with no one freaking out about almost being shot or complaining about their hearing) and it's remarkable given that this is from a book series with 17 and counting potential sequels (that's, like, a James Bond number of films). This is a squandering of an epic degree.

Matthew Huntley: The answer seems simple: the movie looks bad. Really bad. I haven't seen it, so I can't judge for sure, but if the trailer is any indication of its quality, then I would suspect we're entering The Bounty Hunter territory (and indeed it has a similar plot). When I first saw the preview back in September, the reaction by the audience was a collective "pee-eww," and it looks like things haven't changed between then and now.

If Katherine Heigl wants a shot at becoming a revered actress, she's going to have to take on roles that go beyond the rom-com, girl-next-door routine. Audiences will then respect her, and that can only help translate into better box-office. Right now, I think most people are tired of her because she brings nothing new to the table. We're asking, "What's so special about Katherine Heigl?" It's her job to remind us.

Continued:       1       2       3