Monday Morning Quarterback Part II

By BOP Staff

December 19, 2012

Chris Johnson is an okay dude, even if he cost me my fantasy football game yesterday.

New at BOP:
Share & Save
Digg Button  
Print this column
David Mumpower: Speaking as the staff member who couldn't care less about Tolkien or the first trilogy, the latest film was about what I expected. The Hobbit is nowhere near as serious in tone as its successors. Even with Jackson taking artistic liberties with the source material, it will still be a hodgepodge of silly dwarves cast in dire circumstances. I found some of the stunt sequences in the movie hysterically amateurish and lacking in logic. Apparently, you can drop a dwarf from any distance and it will be fine. Also, there is a scene that occurs on a pair of mountain tops that just...wow, is that a stupid scene. As is the case with most three hour movies, it also needed tighter editing, which seems to be Peter Jackson's Kryptonite as a director.

Otherwise, I liked the movie well enough and believe it is a nice family film, save for a couple of intense moments. Now, the greasy fanboys who created the phenomenon that was Lord of the Rings may not be pleased to hear that this title skews younger. There could be a Jar Jar Binks factor in terms of how The Hobbit is remembered. I couldn't care less but I want to mention this for people on the fence about the film. The one takeaway I have about 48 frames per second viewing is that it elucidates intended visual stimulation. There is a positive and a negative to this. The glowing blue sword in The Hobbit is breathtaking. Conversely, some of the CGI characters such as trolls look transparently fake to the point that I was taken out of the movie. Right now, I'm dubious that this style of cinema will be readily adopted.

We’ll always love Attila the Romantic Hun.

Kim Hollis: Playing for Keeps, the Gerard Butler romantic comedy featuring soccer (and presumably soccer moms), has made $10.7 million after 10 days. What do you think about this result?

Edwin Davies: That combining one of the least popular romantic leads in Hollywood with a sport that most people in America don't care about was a Very Bad Idea. Setting aside that the film is by all accounts awful, I can't imagine anyone looking at the pitch "Gerard Butler + soccer" and seeing dollar signs.

Matthew Huntley: This movie's figures don't surprise me in the least. For one thing, it has a generic title that tells you nothing about the plot/story (nor does it get your interested to learn about them); and second, it came at a time when not many people go to the movies (the first week of December is typically one of the slowest of the year). As a side note, did anyone happen to notice how the poster for this movie looked uncannily like the one for How Do You Know? from 2010? Coincidentally, that move also had a generic title and was also a box-office bomb.




Advertisement



Felix Quinonez: I think this is a great result. As long as these movies keep making money, there will be more of them. So I am very happy that this is a total flop.

Max Braden: Why that's almost the audience size of a half filled soccer stadium.

David Mumpower: Dear Hollywood, stop casting Gerard Butler in things. He is killing your bottom line.

Kim Hollis: It’s a totally expected result. I think studios are struggling with the fact that the rom-com audience is evolving. We’re going to see more and more crappy-looking movies like this one fail. People want a hook, something unique, I think. I’m not really a fan of the genre for the most part, but I’ll watch when there’s something distinct about the film to draw me in (assuming it doesn’t look too treacly).


Continued:       1       2       3

     


 
 

Need to contact us? E-mail a Box Office Prophet.
Friday, March 29, 2024
© 2024 Box Office Prophets, a division of One Of Us, Inc.