Skip to main content

I kinda thought we would just wing it, you know.


Box Office Comment
January-February 2013


It’s the last week of February and, unsurprisingly, few contenders for box office glory have been released so far. Only two films (Die Hard 5 and Safe Haven) featured in my 2013 predictions and I usefully managed to omit Identity Thief, which is close to $100m in the US.

But who can predict hits, let alone comedy hits? Released at another moment, a Jason Bateman comedy would be a bomb. True, Seth Gordon topped $100m with both his previous features (Horrible Bosses and Four Christmases), and a savaging by critics is no impediment to a responsive mass audience. But no one was really expecting it to hit this big; the trailers, in particular, were horrible.

So, logic suggests this is the Melissa McCarthy factor; her first starring role after stealing Bridesmaids, and audiences clearly want to see her being obnoxiously crude and bovine. It bodes well for the prospects of the upcoming pairing of McCarthy with Sandy Buttocks in The Heat; my top-end estimate of US $120m now looks quite low. That said, give it 18 months and audiences will likely have tired of her.

The most notable run of disappointments in the year to date have been with action movies. Arnie’s return stiffed (The Last Stand) despite some favourable comments regarding Jee-woon Kim’s direction, and thus far it hasn’t been making up numbers in the rest of the world. But neither this, nor Stallone’s solo, non-franchise Bullet to the Head ever seemed to have much prospect of reward.

Schwarzenegger has been on hiatus governating for a decade and was a dimming bulb even before his descent into politics. Stallone has shrewdly spent the past decade reviving franchises and creating one that doesn’t rely solely on him (The Expendables). When it came to him doing his thing solo, no one wanted to know. Just like ’94-2004, then. Maybe The Tomb will do better as they team up. While I didn’t expect either of these to be hits, I didn’t expect quite such failures.

It hasn’t been good news for younger “icons” either. Mark Wahlberg may be a patchy leading man, but he’s a very Midas-like producer. The failure of Broken City is his first significant misstep since 2008’s Max Payne (the director of which will be mentioned shortly). Wahlberg tends to wisely make medium-budget starring vehicles, and had a very good year last year (Ted and Contraband), although he’s an actor whose following is mainly US-based. If teaming with Russell Crowe didn’t work out this time, there’s always Denzel coming up (2 Guns).

With the likes of Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham it’s very much about lowered expectations anyway. As long as these guys make action pictures on a certain budget they can guarantee a certain level of return. Statham’s profile has been elevated by his support in The Expendables, following the profitable Transporter trilogy. But can anyone recall The Mechanic, Killer Elite or Safe (the middle one of which was more costly than he is used to, and suffered accordingly)? So now we have a new iteration of Parker, which looks to yield similar returns to the last few efforts. He’ll continue to get work, but the rare perfect fit of personality and interesting material (The Bank Job) now seems like an aberration.

Johnson has also prospered within (other people’s) franchises (Fast Five, Journey 2) but floundered on his own. Snitch looks set to follow the underwhelming Faster with Stat levels of box office. He has Fast 6 and G.I Joe 2 coming up, so they will insulate him for a while. But, like Statham, no one is really expecting his star vehicles to become break-out hits.

This glut of testosterone has also seen the one expected juggernaut crash and burn. Albeit, how much it was expected by Fox is questionable given the lack of advance screenings. A Good Day to Die Hard was roundly molested by critics and trampled into the dirt by fans of the franchise.

Reportedly, it had good responses from the general audience on its first weekend (B+) but its second week plummet suggests otherwise. If Live Free and Die Hard met with resistance from the fans who said it betrayed the franchise, there’s no denying that it was a word-of-mouth hit that came as something of a surprise. In contrast, Die Hard 5 will end up nearly $100m lower than its nearest franchise competitor when adjusted for inflation.

It’s another example of Fox having no idea how to make movies diligently. Slap a hack (John Moore, an in-house director who made all five of his films with the studio; what hold do they have over him, and why do they want him given the middling returns his pictures have yielded?) on a picture and quality be damned. And presumably Bruce Willis approved him (although Willis has always had negligible quality control, both in scripts and directors).

I don’t want actually this to bomb, because I’d like to see a worthy Die Hard 6 conclude the “double” trilogy. With John McTiernan returning.  Worldwide, the film is nearing $200m, and could well reach about $275m before it pegs out. As it cost $90m a sixth installment is possible, but I’m sure no one wants the stink of another one like this on them. I predicted $350m worldwide low-end if it didn’t stink. Alas, it did.

A Nicholas Sparks adaptation seems like a sure thing; reasonably cheap and an assured return. That’s why even a bidding war on his novels is a no-brainer. About two-thirds of the gross for these romantic melodramas comes from the US, however, so the $50m Safe Haven has made so far will likely finish up around, or just over, $100m worldwide.

A few of the films released so far have achieved surprising yields. Mama was an expected PG-13 horror hit, with Guillermo Del Toro attached as producer and nestled in the traditional January horror window. It had better legs than the one-week Texas Chainsaw 3D prequel and will end up about $100m worldwide. Another horror-tinged hit is Warm Bodies, a romantic zombie movie that has found an audience I wasn’t expecting (it helps that the reviews have been kind, of course). In contrast, Beautiful Creatures, a botched Young Adult adaptation, bombed and can be added to the ever-increasing pile of Twilight/Hunger Games-wannabe failures. The other horror-ish release has been Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters. Delayed and labelled a piece of shit, the medium-budgeted horror comedy has proved a success worldwide, certainly more so than anyone consigning it to the early January rubbish heap expected ($163m an counting).

The other hit that deserves a mention completely failed to make an impression in the States, although it nabbed Naomi Watts a Best Actress nod. The Impossible made a negligible $18m at the US box office, but its worldwide take stands at $161m. There’s little doubt that the film wasn’t cheap, and critical reaction has been lukewarm, but it’s interesting to see a release where the US response is so divergent – nine times lower (Resident Evil might be a similar comparison where the overall take is about six times the US one).

Escape from Planet Earth is the Weinsteins just about justifying their animation investment (see also Hoodwinked!) but not really having the understanding of the genre. Still, no one expected great things and it’s doing reasonable business.

The other area to note is the performance of Oscar nominees. As usual, films have received a bump from all the attention; Silver Linings Playbook in particular. Argo too, had pretty much finished its run when it got a second wind of another $30m+ from all the awards attention. The worldwide versus US grosses are something worth considering this year, as there are significant disparities in both directions.

Unsurprisingly, Lincoln has made three-quarters of its money in the US. At best, that will end up as two-thirds. In the current landscape, US takings would be expected/hoped as a third-ish of a film’s overall box office at maximum (in terms of the increasing appetite for cinema outside of America). Zero Dark Thirty has seen even less interest outside of America, with only just over a tenth of its gross (the reverse of The Impossible, which might highlight the US-centric subject matter and viewpoint, except that The Impossible went out of its way to give us white Caucasian leads). Now awards season has finished, that’s unlikely to change.

So too, Silver Linings Playbook ($107m, $160m overall) and Argo ($130m, £207m overall) look to finish up with two-thirds US and a third rest-of-the-world.

Django Unchained ($158m, $380m overall) and Les Miserables ($146m, $395m overall) are both heading in the direction of the third US/two-thirds rest-of-the-world ratio, but there’s some distance to go yet.

But the only film (and most of the nominees this year are significant hits on some level, so everyone will be happy) to truly hit the new model is Life of Pi. $113m in the US but $583m worldwide. That’s only a fifth of its take coming from America.

Beasts of the Southern Wild and Amour are both very much art house inclined, and successes on that basis (which will likely be increased from the attention they get as rentals).

March sees would-be hits make themselves known, including the delayed Jack the Giant Slayer, Oz the Great and Powerful, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, Olympus has Fallen, Admission (Fey and Rudd), The Croods, G.I. Joe Retaliation, The Host and (for US audiences) Tyler Perry’s Temptation. A couple of films could break out bigger than their budgets would normally allow, notably Wayne Blair’s feel-good ‘Nam girl group film The Sapphires. There’s also Derek Cianfrance’s The Place Beyond the Pines, but that’s more likely to garner critical kudos alone. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.