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

Felix Quinonez: I definitely think it's a good opening but I was expecting it to open closer to $30 million. With the good reviews and solid word-of-mouth, I think it should have good legs. But it has to reach $70 million just to break even and I don't see it getting too much higher than that, so it will have to rely on overseas grosses to make a profit.

Reagen Sulewski: Just think how much more it might have made had Shia LaBeouf not been in it! The wildcard with the final box office here was with how much Oscar attention it might receive, which could really let it hang around. There's a bit of horse/cart involved there, but the notion of awards buzz could propel this a few weeks down the road to where it starts really making a difference. That said, I don't think it's all that likely to happen, as reviews are good, but not spectacularly good. Sony took a gamble on perceived quality and a solid formula (big named star, period war piece, serious tone) that nearly paid off big but fell just short. I at least appreciate the effort.

Max Braden: I think we're still in the shadow of the era where WWII movies fall into one of two categories: Movies that are Saving Private Ryan, and all the rest. And although SPR doesn't have the modern opening weekend record for WWII movies, it does hold the title for total gross along with the critical awards it received. If you're not going to throw money at the project like Michael Bay, your WWII movie isn't likely to break out of a typical zone for the genre. Choosing Brad Pitt as the figurehead wasn't going to do much to move the opening numbers, though it should help the movie's legs (along with good reviews - I haven't seen it yet but having seen Monuments Men there's no other conclusion to draw than this must be the better movie.) The number is decent, not great, but still one of those projects worth doing, even if it still isn't Saving Private Ryan Again.

Kim Hollis: It's a solid result, particularly considering that Brad Pitt hasn't necessarily proven to be a guaranteed draw over the past several years. Sure, it's less than Inglourious Basterds, but that film had the benefit of the Quentin Tarantino name on top of his presence (not to mention some truly amazing trailers and promotion). It wasn't as easy to market Fury - it's a historical action film and not much else. I think the studio should be pleased - and with the international numbers Brad Pitt seems to bring in, it probably will show a profit, too.

David Mumpower: Right, it's easy to say that another Brad Pitt war movie should match Inglourious Basterds, but Tarantino is one of the few directors whose name matters in terms of drawing customers. It's no fairer to compare Fury to World War Z, which is ostensibly also a war movie. The Monuments Men really is the best comparison. As others have noted, it's going to surpass that film's box office thanks to the magic of glowing word-of-mouth. And since both films cost about the same, Fury feels like a solid win to me.

Continued:       1       2