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: I get that the first movie was liked, achieving a lifetime box office multiplier of over four times its opening weekend, but with a $30 million opening it wasn't something I'd immediately expect to call for a sequel. With Cloudy 2's performance compared to the first movie and other September openings, I'd say producing the sequel turned out to be the right call.

Kim Hollis: I feel like it should have performed a bit better, but not significantly so. It should have a nice run for several weeks because it's a fun kid film in a time when there's just not much available for families, and with the smart budgeting, it's a definite win for the studio. It seemed like it might have been an unlikely candidate for a sequel, but it was a financially prudent choice.

David Mumpower: I agree with what others have touched upon with their comments. The original film tied off its storylines in a way that left a sequel superfluous. I believe all involved with the follow-up should take a bow for crafting a new story that is different yet still hearkens back to all of the warmth of the original. I actually liked Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs better than Up that year, a statement that is a stronger compliment to the former film than an insult to the Pixar title. As such, I have been conflicted about the release of the sequels, which I was worried would diminish my enjoyment of the original. I believe that is the opinion held by many, and that explains why there was not the ordinary sequel-spike on opening weekend. I was never expecting a huge breakout debut, so Cloudy 2 is right in line with my assumption. Due to the aforementioned cost control on this project and some eventual toy sales (Barry the Berry should be very popular), the sequel feels to me like a solid win for Sony.

Kim Hollis: Rush, the Formula One racing movie directed by Ron Howard, earned $10 million this weekend as it expanded to wide release. What do you think about this result?

Jason Barney: There doesn't seem to be that much interest here in the states, but that really doesn't matter, as this one really should do fairly well overseas. Any amount that is made in American theaters will obviously push the final numbers higher, but Oscar attention and box office potential are two different aspects of the film business. This may get some critical attention, and it appears it won't lose money, but it definitely has not broken out.

Brett Ballard-Beach: As pundits have noted all over the web, Formula One racing isn't the kind of sports event that those in the States rush (pun, no pun, I'm not sure) to see movies about. Even Cruise/Simpson/Bruckheimer/Scott with the heat of Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop II, et. al could only get Days of Thunder to $83 million in 1990, still a genre best as serious auto racing films go. The critical acclaim can only carry this one so far, and even with good word-of-mouth, it will probably just make back its budget here. But as Jay and others have pointed out, the lion's share of the grosses will be coming from the rest of the globe. In case anyone is keeping tally: As Peter Morgan/Ron Howard collabs about famous rivalries go, it will be Hunt and Lauda by more than a nose (in the end) over Frost and Nixon.

Continued:       1       2       3