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 feel like it could (should) have been a lot worse. But that being said, it has about zero chance to even coming close to matching the legs of the original. So best case scenario, this will make about half as much as the first movie. But when you consider the budget, that should actually be enough.

Michael Lynderey: I was hoping that the film would either flop spectacularly or open to some ridiculous number like $50 million, just to continue the Blart tradition of illogical box office performances. Actually, $24 million is illogical, too, for a film that is still polling at 0% on Rotten Tomatoes (how many major releases can say that?). The opening is too high, but at the same time, still sort of boring. In short, what I'm maybe trying to say is that the whole idea, execution, and reception of the Paul Blart films has just annoyed me (out of the three huge January 2009 movies, Blart was probably somewhat weirder for me than Gran Torino and Taken, although maybe it shouldn't have been). It looks like the franchise is over now, although the number is just high enough to make me less than totally certain.

Ryan Kyle: The fact that $24 million worth of people found the trailer appealing to see this movie (as well as enjoyed the first one to want a sequel) is mind-boggling to me. With a six-year gap, you'd assume most of the target demo from round one would have aged out by now, but maybe their mental capacity just stayed the same given the low-IQ needed to enjoy something like this. You have to give it up to Sony for squeezing out this opening which is above expectations and on course for profit. The legs will not be as good this time around (although who the hell knows when it comes to Paul Blart), but enough for a profit and maybe *gulp* another sequel.

Kim Hollis: I'm with Ryan. I have no idea how the studio managed to open this sequel this high. It looked terrible (though a lot of people laughed in theaters when the trailer played. Those people made me sad). It had a ridiculous Friday-to-Sunday multiplier that makes absolutely no sense (the original opened on MLK weekend, which would naturally inflate the Sunday). Maybe there are some teens who really liked the first movie and ran out to see the second one? I know my movie taste was terrible when I was young. Honestly, the sequel's debut might confuse me more than the original's.

David Mumpower: I suspect it's a combination of two factors. The first is the one that others have mentioned. There was too much time that passed between the first and the second one, similar to Anchorman 2. The more pressing issue is that lightning only strikes once. Paul Blart is a dumb comedy that is well-intended and strikes a chord with many consumers. Once. Going back to the well a second time is like playing the lottery after you've already won. It's just greedy. With a single-purpose concept akin to Miss Congeniality and Legally Blonde, and a brain-numbingly stupid trailer, the Paul Blart sequel was sold on name recognition. That clearly wasn't enough. Still, it's going to earn a ton of money relative to budget, so nobody's complaining.

Kim Hollis: True Story, a drama featuring James Franco and Jonah Hill, earned just $1.9 million from fairly limited venues. What do you think about this result?

Matthew Huntley: True Story fell into the sticky area between limited and wide release, which almost always proves fatal for any movie as far as box-office returns. It's not able to garner buzz from a limited release debut and, at the same time, it's too low-profile to take advantage of a prolific marketing campaign. Plus, its reviews are mediocre at best, which further limits appeal. With all this mind, I'm not surprised by the unsuccessful debut, and I still question why studios ever choose this release pattern since it rarely, if ever, works.

Edwin Davies: I agree with everything Matthew said, and would add that the only reason I can see why studios do use this semi-wide strategy is as a last ditch attempt to make something happen for a project they either don't believe in or have no idea what to do with. If the film breaks out, then they can press their advantage and expand it; if it fails, they can say that they at least tried while letting it wither on the vine. The reviews suggest that this one was never going to do anything in limited release, so this approach was probably the best hope True Story had of making any sort of an impact.

Ryan Kyle: Woman In Gold, another star-driven, mediocre-reviewed drama opened up to almost triple last week this with an arguably less juicy plot, making True Story seem like a loser. However, looking further down the charts, the star-driven, mediocre-reviewed drama Child 44 opened up to less than a third of this movie this week, making True Story seem like a winner. I guess we can call this opening a draw.

I agree with all of Matthew's points. This kind of movie really needed a big boost of support to break out, but only received a gentle push from the studio in terms of marketing. It is a busy frame for star-driven dramas with a moderate release and no front-running awards potential (the two titles mentioned before, Danny Collins, While We're Young, Ex Machina, even It Follows to an extent in terms of screen count). Next weekend will determine which one of these films will have the legs to hold its screen count against the heavyweights of May to hit the magical double-digits mark.

Continued:       1       2