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

Max Braden: Both are positively surprising, but the good word-of-mouth really surprises me. There's nothing from the trailer that indicates that this is anything other than another cheap genre movie. Which makes me wonder: how did the guys making the trailer miss that?

David Mumpower: I agree with Edwin that the vibe from Chronicle is that a switch was flipped from "What is Chronicle?" to "The universe will take away my cellphone if I don't watch Chronicle asap". I don't know who had the power to pull off such a marketing coup but theirs is the most impressive superpower involved with the movie, the one with practical business applications. If The Devil Inside is the undeserved surprise hit of January, Chronicle is the yin to its yang. It's a wildly profitable title whose buzz will only grow over time, meaning that this is a Paranormal Activity-ish situation rather than a "You are sending me to a Web site???" public relations disaster. What Chronicle has quietly accomplished this weekend is exactly what studios spend tens of millions of dollars to create buzz on superhero franchises. That this has been done so cheaply and effectively is a staggering achievement.

Four word titles are the best!

Kim Hollis: The Woman in Black, Daniel Radcliffe's first attempt at post-Harry Potter success, opened to $20.9 million and also garnered positive reviews. What do you take from this result. Do you believe Radcliffe will continue to be a box office draw or is he permanently typecast?

Matthew Huntley: I never thought it would happen so quickly, but Daniel Radcliffe proved in The Women in Black he's capable of breaking the typecasting curse that plagues so many young actors, specifically ones who were launched into fame because of a single franchise. There came a point in WIB where I actually saw him as his character and not as Harry Potter (or Daniel Radcliffe). I think the film's director, James Watkins, deserves some of the credit because he helps make the role distinct and uses subtle techniques that help flush out an original performance. Right now, if Radcliffe does become a box-office draw, I can say with certain legitimacy it's because of his talent, and not his attachment to the HP brand name.

Bruce Hall: I think the results speak for themselves. Actors become typecast for a variety of reasons, but sometimes it's because they're really not any better than the role that made them famous. I don't pretend to know how Radcliffe's career is going to pan out, but it's become clear that he's a genuinely talented actor, and not just some kid who happened to resemble a fictional character and was therefore cast as that character. Now that Harry Potter is over, its former boy wizard has shown a willingness to take risks and challenge himself. Plus, he's clearly not afraid to fail. I think that those qualities will continue to serve him well.

Continued:       1       2       3