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

Jason Barney: This has to be labeled as a bit of a disappointment, as the potential for counter-programming was there, but this one will be lucky to approach its budget. When I first saw the commercials I thought the story might be funny and intriguing to go and see. I'm glad I had some patience. This film is not getting much attention, and I can wait and see it in a few months. This is a missed opportunity.

Max Braden: Vaughn is frequently half of a comedy duo, paired with guys like Owen Wilson and Kevin James. Without the partner I think there's a sense that something's missing here, like a phantom limb. The material is also odd in that it's like a romantic comedy but without one single romantic interest, and a little too on the adult side to lure in family audiences where they might flock to a human version of 101 Dalmatians. So with Vaughn on his own (despite his ensemble of children represented by Christ Pratt), I don't think it's too surprising that the box office was half or a smaller fraction of the opening weekends for The Internship, The Dilemma, Couples Retreat, and The Break-Up. A decade ago, Will Ferrell might have brought in more money with this project due to his stardom, but I don't think there was a lot of hidden potential for anyone to star here. It's an easily described hook, but audiences need something more focused than "tons of kids" in order to deliver a strong opening weekend number.

David Mumpower: I have a different perspective on this than the rest of you. I believe that this movie was doomed to failure due to the shaky decision of release dates. Counter-programming is a concept that is driven by the idea that people will want to see a movie that is not the most heralded one. There used to be a secondary aspect involving potential overflow audiences from sold out venues but that concept has become archaic in the 4,000 venues release era. The key premise of a tentpole title is that it is presumed to appeal to all four movie quadrants. A movie like that by definition appeals to everyone, so an attempt to counter-program is doomed to failure. I am not saying that a film has no hope of succeeding in such a scenario as the quality/appeal of the title still comes into play. What I do believe, however, is that a mediocre flick like Delivery Man simply will not have a chance when pitted against a behemoth like Catching Fire. All it seems like is a punchline, and not in the way a comedy wants to be associated with jokes.

Even if all of the above were not true, Delivery Man would still have issues. It is a Vince Vaughn vehicle, and consumers have grown weary of his shtick. The Internship demonstrated his flagging box office pull. An inferior version of high concept comedy without Owen Wilson as a co-star was something that frankly should not have gotten a greenlight. This project was a mistake, pure and simple.

Kim Hollis: Dallas Buyers Club, an Oscar contender featuring Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto, earned $2.7 million this weekend from 666 venues. What do you think of this result? What do you think are its best chances at Academy Awards?

Edwin Davies: This is a solid, but not spectacular expansion that suggests that the film is going to do fairly well going forward, but will probably not be quite the sensation that fellow contender 12 Years A Slave (which made $2 million more when it expanded into 200 fewer screens a few weeks ago than Dallas Buyers Club did this weekend) has been so far. The ads have rightly played up the fact that the film is more of a caper than a grim awards contender, but that might have made it seem less essential than other, weightier offerings.

In terms of its awards potential, I think its greatest chances for nominations and wins are in the acting categories. McConaughey's physical transformation for the role is really quite startling, and the Academy always like to see an actor endanger their health for a film (he's also really, really good in it, which helps), so a Best Actor nomination seems pretty much certain. The film's best chance for a win, as far as I'm concerned, is for Jared Leto in the Best Supporting Actor category, because it's the kind of exuberant, bold performance that is easy to pinpoint as a highlight of the film, but because it also touches on a lot of important, relevant themes about sexuality and gender identity, all of which makes for a very Oscar friendly combination.

Max Braden: In my stomping grounds around Washington, DC, this movie comes across as huge Oscar material. I think for a movie like this and its film-circuit audience, the goal is more about awareness and buzz than necessarily getting people in the theater, so even though the box office isn't lighting up over it, I think the press is. There's plenty of advertising for the movie here. And when you add to it the already strong buzz McConaughey has received after starring in Mud (which recently came available for rental), I think he's a very strong contender for Best Actor. Leto too is getting buzz for this movie, and although he might not be as widely talked about as McConaughey, it's the kind of role that should carry weight with the voters who have seen the movie. I suspect that the screenplay may also be a candidate for a nomination.

David Mumpower: For a sober-seeming film such as Dallas Buyers Club, any box office whatsoever is an achievement. Made for a frugal $5.5 million, the title has already reached $7 million domestically. It will earn enough money in theaters to justify its existence, no small feat in and of itself. The knowledge that it should continue to chug along at this sort of pace for a while means it is a solid hit relative to financial outlay.

In terms of awards candidacy, I am not as enthusiastic about its prospects as the rest of you. I am well aware of its glowing critical reception thus far. Not only is Dallas Buyers Club 94% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, it is a perfect 42 for 42 among top critics. The people who champion unheralded cinema are its most ardent supporters. The problem is that the academy is notoriously fickle about these sorts of performances. I applaud Matthew McConaughey for trying to change his reputation, and I believe that Jared Leto deserves to be a bigger player in the industry. I struggle to believe that the average voter will choose such people to laud, though. Leto is a strong possibility, but the combination of McConaughey's track record and his desperate attempt to become respected as an actor strikes me as a Jim Carrey scenario. I firmly expect the movie to be a popular title during December awards season, but I do not expect that momentum to carry into February.

Kim Hollis: I think if people read the description of the film, the fact that it made this much money in expansion is pretty remarkable. With regards to its awards chances, I would also posit that McConaughey and Leto are its best shot, but the two male acting categories are going to be so competitive this year that it might be a challenge to break into the mix. Leto is probably the top contender in Supporting Actor at the moment, though.

Continued:       1       2       3       4       5       6