Summertime: the biggest time of the year for imbibing alcoholic beverages while floating around on an innertube. Unfortunately I spent my summer in a movie theater watching Transformers 2. The hardest part isn't sitting through the stinkers, it's explaining why so many of them, even the truly awful ones, managed to make so much money. Luckily, after a six-pack I have an answer for everything. So with summer's heady days of blockbuster moviegoing over Cinema Blend box office guru Scott Gwin and I planned some impromptu tubing, determined to make up for lost time, and started floating down the lazy river of summer box office review.
Scott showed up wearing a striped onesie and complaining of rickets. Apparently they don't do well in water. I shoved him into the river, hopped in a tube behind him and started drinking. As usual, Scott was all facts and figures and as usual, I was drunk, irresponsible, and missing my pants by the time we were halfway through. Is it really wise to bring a briefcase in the water? Scott isn't interested in my verbal jabs, as usual he's already reciting facts and figures.
BOX OFFICE WINNERS
Summer time, in addition to being good for tubing, is also a pretty big time of the year for the movies. It is, without a doubt, when Hollywood makes its big bucks and box office winners are abundant. The hard part isn't picking the winners…the hard part is explaining why some of them, mediocre as they were, managed to make so much money. But I don't care enough to try and explain. Maybe Josh can. I just crunch the numbers.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
SCOTT: Following X-Men: The Last Stand, Brett Ratner's wretched attempt at continuing the mutant film franchise, there really wasn't anywhere else to go but back to the beginning. There's something about the rugged, brooding Hugh Jackman (as opposed the clean-cut, Oscar-hosting version) that brings female fans back for more, but in the big scheme of things Wolverine struggled to make as much cash as the previous X-Men flicks. While the $179 million it banked this summer topped the original X-Men by a cool $20 million, if fell short of the two sequels, both of which made over $200 million. But despite faltering in his own shadow, Wolverine still came out rosy overall with a hefty profit margin and a sweet second highest opening weekend of the summer: $85 million.
JOSH: A lot of people hated this movie. Most of them were film critics like Roger Ebert who hated the character, and would have hated the movie regardless. Audiences on the other hand seemed pretty happy with it, probably because they watched it while texting on their cell phones. The plot's a mess and a lot of it doesn't make much sense if you think about it for more than a second. On the other hand Wolverine did run around and slash things, which is kind of all anyone wanted from it. Sure we didn't really need to know the origins of Wolverine's leather jacket, but at least it wasn't X-Men: The Last Stand. Just imagine how much one of these X-Men movies could make it if it were good. Goddammit Bryan Singer.
Star Trek
SCOTT: Another crapped out franchise that decided to reboot itself, Star Trek went all the way back to the beginning, tampered with the time continuum and created an excuse to make whatever changes director J. J. Abrams wanted in order to keep himself, and hopefully a brand new generation of fans, interested in Trek. Never mind that once interesting characters were sacrificed at the altar of budget-breaking special effects, it did the one thing studios truly care about: created a whole starship full of cash. It was one of the five films that broke the $200 million mark in American theaters this summer, but there are even bigger bragging rights: it was by far the biggest cash earner of any Star Trek film ever. The previous record-holder was Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home which took in $109 million back in 1986 (just over $200 million if you figure in ticket price inflation). Of course, Star Trek had a lot to make up for as well. It boldly went where no Trek movie had gone before, boasting a budget of $150 million, twice the price of any other Enterprise venture. But despite all those top dollar numbers it still ranks about fifth on my list of Star Trek faves. For my money, Wrath of Khan is the superior film, and only took $11 million to make.
JOSH: Much as I'd like to join in your Star Trek cynicism, the movie's so light and fun that it's kind of hard to hate. It's the most fun just about anyone had at the movies this summer. Of course the only reason it sucked in such a big audience is because they watered it down and ironed out all the interesting, thoughtful stuff from the previous films (the good ones anyway) to turn it into a space-faring Fast and the Furious. As a Trek fan, that still sort of stings. But there's no longer any place in this summer blockbuster world for smart science fiction, or smart anything for that matter. If there were, MOON would have been the biggest movie of the summer. The best we can hope for is a movie like Star Trek, dumb enough to appeal to the masses, but not so dumb that there's any reason for people who know how to read to hate it. Better this than more Terminator: Salvation. I assume we'll take a crap on that one later? Get to it Gwin. I have words for Mr. McGinty.
Up
SCOTT: I never get tired of saying it: Pixar is the best film studio out in the world today. Up is yet another perfect example of what happens when a studio has artists and storytellers, not MBAs and bean counters, running the show. It's almost hard to even care about the money when the movie is so enjoyable and touching, but that's what we're here to discuss. Up wasn't Pixar's most expensive film ever (it came in $5 million less than Wall-E's $180 million price tag) and it wasn't their biggest seller (falling about $50 million shy of record holder Finding Nemo's $340 million domestic gross sales) but the $290 million it made puts it at the number three spot in the overall summer box office tally and the best domestic selling animated movie of the year. Well, it may end up losing that title to Avatar which, if you've seen the trailer, is pretty much an animated feature as well, though somehow far less appealing than the wayward adventures of an old man, an overweight boy scout and an ourcast dog named Dug.
JOSH: I'm so tired of humping Pixar's leg. Sure they've never made a bad movie but it's been awhile since they've made a great one either. Up is another perfect example of yet another Pixar movie that only has half a story. Like WALL-E before it, UP sort of falls apart in the second half. Why the is everyone so obsessed with Kevin and why should anyone care? I know why it made a ton of money: every computer animated movie makes a ton of money. What I don't know is why Pixar has lost the ability to write an entire film. Up had me in tears within the first five minutes and then it dropped me off a cliff. Dogs flying airplanes? I've seen Toy Story and The Incredibles. You're not fooling anyone John Lasseter. You can do better.
SCOTT: Far from an anticipated block buster this brainless comedy ended up being bigger than Wolverine and Captain Kirk. We knew it was going to be a moneymaker when it made back its budget its first weekend in theaters, but no one could have guessed how much further it would go. One of only three movies in the summer's top ten that wasn't a sequel/prequel, The Hangover banked an unbelievable $268 million in the US alone. Tack on the $150 million it earned internationally and you have a movie that earned Warner Brothers an amazing 1100% return on its painless $35 million budget. That percentage was the largest of the summer and, indeed, one of the largest in wide release history. It's hard to believe such a successful film came from the guy who directed Starsky and Hutch. Never mind that lightning rarely strikes twice, with this kind of cash flow expect to see Hangover sequels until Ed Helms is as old as Ed Asner.
JOSH: I saw this movie with an actual hangover, which is sort of like seeing it in 3D but without the extra ticket fees. Many of the people around me would only have their hangovers later, because they showed up to it rather drunk. It's just that kind of movie. Inebriated or post-inebriated The Hangover was easily the summer's funniest experience and definitely the only one in which a naked Asian gangster hops out of a trunk and beats up a bearded comedian. But listen, let's stop holding Starsky & Hutch against Todd Phillips and start holding School for Scoundrels against him instead. What we've learned here is that the guy is good for something funny and morally reprehensible every six years. In 2003 it was Old School and in 2009 he gave us The Hangover. I look forward to laughing my ass off at Drunk Geezers, or whatever he calls it, in 2016.
The Proposal
SCOTT: On their own neither Sandra Bullock nor Ryan Reynolds have ever been able to generate much heat at the box office. Put them together though and for some reason audiences suddenly go wild. Maybe the cougar crowd enjoyed seeing mid-forties Bullock making moves on early-thirties Reynolds, but whatever the reason, this mediocre $40 million romantic comedy earned nearly $160 million and a spot as one of the top ten summer cash cows. That kind of money for a rom-com is the stuff of Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan legend and all but guarantees we'll see Reynolds and Bullock paired again.
JOSH: I propose that Sandra Bullock should not be allowed to pretend she's twenty-nine anymore. She belongs in the next Sex and the City movie, maybe as a replacement for the rapidly decomposing Kim Cattrall, not cavorting naked in a romantic comedy with Ryan Reynolds. Still The Proposal wasn't terrible and there really wasn't anything else out there this summer to pick up the shopping bag-toting, high-heel wearing crowd which made the first Sex and the City such a success last year.
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
SCOTT: Ice Age was a fun movie that didn't really need or deserve sequels. But there have been two so far with many more no doubt on the way (if you'll recall, the previous pre-historic animated series of films The Land Before Time has more roman numerals than Star Trek). But the $192 million it banked in the US isn't what makes it such a box office winner. The more than $600 million it made in the rest of the world, the biggest international haul of the summer, is what makes the jaw drop. Foreigners liked it better than The Dark Knight or any of the Shrek movies. I didn't realize Ray Romano has such a following abroad.
JOSH: See what I mean? Any computer animated movie can make money. All it takes is a spendy marketing campaign and a few movie posters. The ones that fail, like Battle for Terra, fail only because their backers aren't willing to shove ads for the film down our throats during reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond. It doesn't matter whether the movie's any good, the world's on see it by default where these things are concerned. At least Pixar is using this zombie-like animated movie attendance to slip in something smart and challenging (if often incomplete) in front of them. The Ice Age franchise seems to be using this as an opportunity not to give a damn. Hey! Here's another Ice Age movie! It's like watching frozen road kill. You'll love it.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
SCOTT: Harry Potter has never failed to turn a huge profit. Each of the boy wizard's on-screen adventures has generated $800 million world-wide for Warner Brothers and Half-Blood Prince has proven no less successful. With over $290 million in domestic sales it was the number two cash-cow this summer. But that's not its only important distinction. Warner Brothers, perhaps finally realizing that they've banked billions off ol' Harry, loosened the purse strings and gave Half-Blood Prince an unprecedented $250 million budget. Not only was that the biggest sum spent on a movie this summer (Transformers 2 only ran a $200 million tab) it's almost double that of any other Potter film. Of course, inflation was to be expected. Rumor has it Daniel Radcliffe is drawing a $25 million paycheck per Potter film these days. Just call him the boy who lived large.
JOSH: Harry Potter's box office numbers are no longer worth my time, or yours, Gwin. Big money happens wherever this Radcliffe punk shows up. What's worth discussing is how little Danny Rad will spend the war chest filled with gold doubloons he'll walk away with by the time this boy wizarding thing is over. I'm guessing he'll pattern his life after Charlie Sheen and blow it all on hookers with cocaine-filled boobs. Seriously, this kid as a libido problem. I know he claims to be drowning in poon, but nobody who's actually getting some spends this much time talking about ass. Harry Potter really needs to get laid. What's that Luna Lovegood chick up to? I'm pretty sure she's on Ecstasy.
(500) Days of Summer
SCOTT: Every summer there's one movie that gets made on a shoe-string budget (i.e., less than ten million…I wish I had those kind of shoestrings) but still makes a goodly amount of cash. (500) Days of Summer's listed price tag was $7.5 million but thanks to a patient release schedule it took back over $22 million, making it the third most successful movie of the summer where percent profit was concerned. It seems insignificant compared to the likes of Juno which also cost only $7.5 million but banked $143 million, but it's a tough world for good small-budget films and (500) Days of Summer is definitely is one of the financial winners.
JOSH: The days of little movies like Little Miss Sunshine or March of the Penguins making big summer money seem to be over. Probably, they should have released (500) Days of Summer in December instead, and hoped for enough Oscar buzz to get people in theaters. That's really the only reason Juno did as well as it did. Stick Ellen Page in June and even $22 million might have been too much to ask. Sure (500) Days made some money but in order for Oscar voters to remember it this fall it probably needed to make more. Instead it made $22 million and from here on out, will likely be ignored. Except by me of course. I thumbs up my Joseph Gordon Levitt poster every night before bed.
District 9
SCOTT: You don't need a big budget to make a great sci-fi fantasy film. I'm convinced that when you don't have a big budget and you're forced to use creative storytelling and imagination instead of over-bearing special effects, you get a better movie. That's definitely the case with District 9 which proved to be one of my favorite new movies of the summer. Despite a seemingly impossible $30 million budget, the movie featured clever special-effects that blended seamlessly with the action and avoided getting in the way of a surprisingly engaging story and wonderful acting. No doubt a shock to its producers who labored to produce one of the most intriguing marketing schemes of the summer, the film made $37 million its first weekend, joining The Hangover in the rare turned-a-profit-in-one-weekend club. Although it's only in its second week the movie is already closing in on the $100 million mark. A completely unnecessary District 10 is probably already in the works, meaning yet another brilliant story ruined by over-budgeted bad storytelling. Yeah, I'm pessimistic about it, but when it comes to Hollywood and sequels I have history on my side.
JOSH: Creative storytelling? Imagination? Seriously am I the only person in the world who has seen Alien Nation? Come on Gwin, back me up on this. Still credit where credit is due: that marketing scheme sucked. The film's endless and wildly premature viral marketing had nothing to do with selling this movie and people only got interested in it when they ditched the viral junk and started showing standard, alien-infested movie trailers. The aliens looked like scary, giant bugs and people like that in the same way they like giant robots. Bonus points since the whole thing was an allegory for racism, and racism has been a hot ticket this summer (Hello Michael Bay! You're next.). So they went. Maybe good reviews didn't hurt any either, that's assuming you believe that anyone still reads reviews. As someone who writes them, I don't.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
SCOTT: The movie was a disappointment… a tragic, annoying, miserable disappointment. Leave it to Michael Bay to take an action flick so far that it's actually tedious to watch. And yet, like too many years in recent past, a lean-scripted, over-acted, under achieving sequel with a horrible case of special effects diarrhea won the hearts and wallets of the consuming masses to become the top seller of the summer and, indeed, probably the year (other past winners meeting this description include 2007's Spider-man 3, 2006's Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and 2005's Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith). Transformers 2 banked nearly $400 million at the box office domestically, also enjoying the biggest opening weekend with $109 million. There's no question that a third film in the series is on its way. The only thing to wonder is whether or not Bay will go back to the elements that made the first movie so much fun or if the third will be as painful as the second.
JOSH: Seriously, what the hell were we watching? The fight scenes were like sitting in the middle of a metal tornado. I could forgive the bad writing and horrible characters, if only I could have enjoyed some solid robot punching. It's like Bay threw out everything that worked in the first movie and magnified everything that didn't. Worse, people loved him for it! Forget all that moderately engaging boy and his car crap, just give us gleefully illiterate stereotypes and Megan Fox's boobs in slow motion. Bank! Next time, I'm pretty sure they're not even going to bother with a script. Why should they? The worse the movie, the more violently people defend it. So no, Bay will not go back to the elements that made the first movie so much fun. He abandoned the core geek audience which supported his first movie in favor of catering to violent, hateful, illiterate rednecks. Michael Bay is Hollywood's Sarah Palin. The whole thing is a like a Bruno bit gone bad. Well, actually, Bruno was a Bruno bit gone bad so imagine something even worse.
Angels and Demons
SCOTT: For my money Dan Brown isn't a particularly gifted author and the one book he wrote that I think would make a pretty cool thriller (“Deception Point”) isn't even on the cinematic radar. No, apparently the interest in making a Dan Brown novel into a movie is directly proportional to amount of pointless controversy it can generate. That seems to describe its level of box office success as well. The Da Vinci Code, despite claims that it put several people into a boredom induced coma and single-handedly made Tom Hank's hair an international joke phenomenon, it made an absolute killing world-wide, raking in $750 million against a $125 million budget. Follow-up Angels and Demons featured a slightly less drowse-inducing storyline and a normal hairstyle on Hanks but it did over 1/3 less business, ending up at $484 million world-wide. By any financial standard that's a solid turn out, but the global tendency to pay more for less is even more bizarre than a Vatican plot to kill the Pope.
JOSH: The Catholic Church and I don't agree on much, but I was with them on their boycott of The Da Vinci Code. I mean from their perspective, it just made sense. You've spent centuries oppressing people simply for saying the Earth revolves around the sun and you're going to back off when someone starts making fantasy movies which mock your dogma? Persecuting logic and reason is bad enough, but it's hypocrisy I can't stand. So maybe you're a horrible organization with a history of atrocities. At least stand by it! So with The Da Vinci Code they did, and of course it made a ridiculous amount of money. Then I got to blame the Pope for helping a bad movie earn big box office, and that felt pretty good. For Angels & Demons I guess they got wind of my boycott approval and decided to go back to being my mortal enemy by keeping their mouths shut. On the positive side it helped keep this horrible sequel from making as much money as the original, so I guess that's something. On the negative, I can no longer blame the Pope for this mess. I need a new scapegoat. Let's go with Brazil.
BOX OFFICE TOSS UPS
Summer box office toss-ups don't lose money. They make a profit, but usually not much, or at least not as much as they expected. Most of this summer's movies either won big or fell flat at the box office, making it harder than usual to fill this list. But as sure as cream rises to the top and crap sinks to the bottom, there's always that enigmatic floaty stuff that just sort of hovers in the middle.
Terminator Salvation
SCOTT: This third sequel in the series came at a high price. The $200 million budget wasn't recovered in US sales which totaled at $125 million. The international crowd shelled out $245 million which technically made the movie a financial success, but you wouldn't know it since the franchise's owners/producers filed for bankruptcy earlier this month. Each Terminator sequel has made less cash than its predecessor (the series peaked with Judgment Day's $519 million world-wide sales in 1991). With regards to storytelling, writers John Brancato and Michael Ferris along with director McG have rendered the whole franchise rather impotent and, along with Halcyon's folding, have probably terminated Skynet, at least for a while. Not that that's a bad thing. The cash flow wasn't the only aspect of the series that peaked with Judgment Day.
JOSH: I'll handle the storytelling around here. You just reach into that cooler floating next to your innertube and toss me a beer. What I have to say should be approached only while basking in the healthy glow of excessive alcohol. Here it is: McG didn't screw this one up. Oh the movie's kind of terrible and yes he directed it so I guess he gets some of the blame simply because his name is in the credits, but it actually looks alright. It's fairly well directed. Look I hate defending the guy, normally I'm the first to make fun of him, but Terminator Salvation is a moderately well directed film. It sucks because the script is garbage, the idea it's based on wasn't worth making, and because Warner Bros. forced him to fit it inside a PG-13 box when everyone knows (even McG) a proper Terminator movie needs boobies and excessive violence, all the stuff that makes R-rated entertainment worth viewing. It sucks because it's set in the future when the fun of Terminator is in watching robots destroy our present. It sucks because it takes the time travel to new heights of stupidity and it sucks because the plot just doesn't make any sense. Maybe a better director could have somehow fixed all of that, and definitely McG's is an asshole, but he didn't exactly screw the pooch on this one. He had help. A lot of help. It's great to know they won't be rewarded with excessive riches for their underwhelming efforts. Maybe this will reverse the trend Die Hard 4 started, of forcing traditionally R-rated franchises into the teen-friendly PG-13 box. With movies like District 9 and The Hangover doing well at the box office it was an R-rated summer and Terminator Salvation was stuck in a PG-13 world.
Drag Me To Hell
SCOTT: Modern horror/thriller movies, by and large, are drivel. Critics pan them and a very small group of people ever bother to see them. Most of them aren't even that scary, much less entertaining. But, get Sam Raimi behind the camera and you change the game… a little bit. Drag me To Hell got a thumbs up from a vast majority of critics and a larger than usual number of audiences went to see it, but it wasn't enough to make it a huge success. It only brought back $42 million in domestic sales with only a handful more from around the world. That would be big for any other horror movie since they tend to be made on miniscule budgets, but Raimi drew a good sized $30 million budget making the returns just good enough to be a toss up.
JOSH: For a box office guru, you've missed a lot of box office numbers. Horror movies make tons of money, but they're mainly seen by large numbers of increasingly stupid teenagers. Teens don't really want good horror movies. In fact they avoid them and then so does everyone else, assuming the theater where its showing will be infested with ill-mannered hoodlums. Critics loved this movie, yet teenagers instinctively distrust all forms of authority and they're far too young to know that Raimi and horror kick ass on their own. So when a teenager hears that Drag Me To Hell is fresh, inventive, and scary, their response is “nobody want to see that old man!” They want stale retreads in which dumb people get stabbed (presumably because they identify with them) or movies in which the rape and sadistic torture of pretty girls is presented as good, clean, fun (because that's where they see themselves in ten years). They're not interested in being genuinely scared, they want 3D horror movies which throw cartoon vomit at their heads. They want horror movies they can watch while texting with their friends. Drag Me To Hell is none of those things. Critics like none of those things. So critics loved it yet the film's only real audience, teenagers, saw a positive ratings and then went running to Blockbuster where they picked up a copy o f Generic Slasher Film: The Return Of Stabby Stabby, which they watched in the basement while having unprotected sex. Drag Me To Hell is a borderline flop and somebody's daughter is now pregnant.
Dance Flick
SCOTT: I swear I'm being mocked. These crappy spoof films are the bane of my existence but someone keeps making them because they somehow keep making money. I really hoped Dance Flick would tank, giving producers another excuse to stop churning out the crap. Dance Flick's stats? Budget: $25.0 million. Box Office total: $25.6 million. A profit…but not by much. Why, God, why?
JOSH: If you were being mocked would all the kids along the shore be pointing and laughing? That's ridicule sir, mockery is much more subtle. But that's what you get when you wear… whatever that is you're wearing. Dance Flick. Much like your outfit, it speaks for itself.
The Taking Of Pelham 123
SCOTT: The summer was well stocked with sequels but there were a minimal number of remakes floating around. Pelham 1 2 3 wasn't great as remakes go, and it showed at the box office. With a $100 million budget it really didn't have that far to go to make it out of the red. Ticket sales to date: $101 million. Just above break-even at best, the movie is no winner for the careers of Denzel Washington or John Travolta either. Audiences like their heroes to be heroic and their villains to be evil but in this movie the performances are as much a toss-up as the ticket sales. But since you don't have to worry about buying the DVD to keep Denzel's profit margins afloat, you can invest your money in a better place, namely a copy of the original Pelham 1 2 3 with Walter Mathou and Robert Shaw.
JOSH: I'm investing my money in Bing, since this movie made me hate Google Maps. Tony Scott, what's up with all the cityscape shots and street view zooms? Were you as embarrassed by John Travolta's goatee as we were and trying to draw attention away from it by pointing your camera into the sun? Denzel: This man does not deserve you as his Leonardo DiCaprio. Be some other director's Scarlett Johansson. You're twice as hot and nearly as talented. Or is that twice as talented and nearly as hot??
Public Enemies
SCOTT: Poor Johnny Depp. The guy can't get any credit at the box office playing a real human being. Stick him in a funny hat (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Pirates of the Caribbean, Alice In Wonderland) and the crowds go wild. Put him in a trench coat with a tommy gun and the response is luke warm. $100 million is kind of a high price tag for a crime drama, but Depp doesn't come cheap. The movie didn't recover its budget with US sales but thanks to international audiences it managed to make a tidy 75% profit. That's not bad, but it's not par for Depp whose other movies, even in musical form like Sweeny Todd, generally manage to take in at least three times the budget world-wide.
JOSH: I feel it incumbent upon me to point out here that Johnny Depp was in fact, wearing a funny hat in this movie. The fedora. He's bringing it back. Or he might have if more people had seen Public Enemies. Since the movie's a tosser, I guess I should stop wearing them now. Here's the problem with Public Enemies: It cost a lot of money to make but it looks cheap. Michael Mann's digital video style works on some movies, but used on a period piece it just looks like he couldn't afford a real camera. Shoot it on film and Public Enemies earns another $25 million.
G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra
SCOTT: Of all the movies with budgets at or over $150 million, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is the only one struggling to break the $300 million mark world-wide. At this rate it will be lucky to top $250 million. An unimpressive $54 million opening weekend led to less than $120 million in domestic sales in its first two weeks. With a $175 million budget hanging over its head, the movie should be grateful that the rest of world, rumored to hate the American military, turned out to hand it an extra $110 million. While it will break even, there's not enough success to guarantee a sequel…not that I'm complaining.
JOSH: Your math is dizzying. What's certain is that this movie didn't suck and, even if you hate America as much as Michael Moore (This is a joke. Stop looking so happy Gwin I haven't turned into Rush Limbaugh, I'm just borrowing his Oxycotton.) there's probably no reason to hate this movie. Most of the rah-rah flag waving stuff of the cartoon is gone, replaced with slick track suits and a vaguely European flair. These are the good guys, it doesn't matter which flag you're burning, they're on your side, even if they are tossers. One moment… I just realized that the movies in this category are “toss-ups” not “tossers”. You should probably ignore everything I've just said.
BOX OFFICE LOSERS
Every summer there are many movies that don't make back their budget with domestic US sales and rely on world-wide audiences to turn a profit. And there are usually one or two that, even with international monies can't match their cost. This year, there were six, making the picks for summer box office losers an easy job.
I Love You Beth Cooper
Budget: $18 million World-wide Sales: $15 million In the Hole: $3 million
SCOTT: When your movie only has $18 million to recover you don't really have to do a whole lot to get there. A vast majority of wide release movies break the $20 million mark so even statistics are in a film's favor. You'd think that a movie directed by Chris Columbus, the guy who directed two very successful Harry Potter movies wouldn't have trouble either. But, clearly America doesn't love Beth Cooper and Columbus is left hanging for the second time in a row. His last film, Rent, lost $9 million in theaters world wide.
JOSH: It's not fair to blame Chris Columbus for this movie's real problem: Hayden Pantierre's total lack of hotness. She's hot in the same way a baby seal it hot, as in not at all. Maybe she has a future in endangered species torture porn, but not in this kind of movie. I'm not saying she's not pretty, I'm sure if I knew her I wouldn't want to vomit every time she walked into the room. But I Love You, Beth Cooper cast her as the hottest girl in school and there's no way anyone outside of the two or three people still watching Heroes is buying that. I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure she wouldn't even make the top ten in my High School, and I'm from Hicksville, Texas. Some of the girls didn't have teeth. Do us all a favor and club this baby seal.
Year One
Budget: $60 million World-wide Sales: $54 million In the Hole: $6 million
SCOTT: This one shouldn't have come as a surprise for anyone. $60 million for a movie where Jack Black engages in pre-historic antics and Michael Cera plays Michael Cera in a loin cloth? Cera hasn't been funny since “Arrested Development” and Black, while usually bankable, had more laughs in his cameo role in a faux movie from an episode of “The Office”. To budget that kind of money on this movie wasn't just a gamble, it was a bad idea and the fact that it made as much money as it did was lucky. Hopefully some bean counter somewhere got the boot for this one.
JOSH: It came as a surprise to me. I don't know what I was thinking. The clips seemed funny and sometimes I listen to old Tenacious D albums, sing along with Jesus Ranch, and convince myself Jack Black is still funny. Every now and then I fall in love with a baked potato. Forget for a moment though, whether or not it was any good. As Michael Bay has proven time and again, quality doesn't dictate audience attendance. In some cases, as illustrated by Drag Me To Hell, it hurts it. Year One failed because it just never made any damn sense. Who was this movie for? A Michael Cera comedy set in biblical times? Is it really any surprise that it's a total flop? It's like a Mel Brooks movie without Mel Brooks. Even Mel Brooks isn't relevant anymore let alone a third rate History of the World knockoff.
Aliens In The Attic
Budget: $45 million World-wide Sales: $32 million In the Hole: $13 million
SCOTT: If you're going to launch a mediocre family friendly flick with creepy looking CG characters you probably shouldn't do it anywhere near the likes of Harry Potter or something with fluffier heroes like G-Force 's guinea pigs. In fact, you probably shouldn't do it anywhere near summer at all. Aliens in the Attic's marketing made it look just as unfunny as critics found it to be and when you roll in the studio's poor release timing this one was doomed from the start.
JOSH: Mediocre? Aren't we feeling generous. I guess it did have Kevin Nealon and he did seem very confused. He's at his best when he's confused. Maybe not enough to warrant mediocre but close enough.
Funny People
Budget: $75million World-wide Sales: $52 million In the Hole: $23 million
SCOTT: Judd Apatow, Seth Rogen and especially Adam Sandler have all built reputations for being particularly bankable names so it figures there'd be some studio exec out there willing to hand them a check for $75 million and expect a success. Not so. A movie titled Funny People proved to be anything but, and audiences gave it a luke-warm reception. The movie's saving grace may be the fact that it still has several minor international release dates yet to come meaning additional world-wide sales that could push in into profit land, but as it stands now it's one of the biggest losers of the summer.
JOSH: I honestly do not know what Apatow spent the $75 million dollars on. How much can it cost to rent out a couple of comedy clubs and a mansion for a weekend? Is Adam Sandler really making that much? Did James Taylor hold out for a big payday? If you break it down per laugh, then Judd spent roughly $5 million per laugh. If you're going to call your movie Funny People then making it funny really should have been more of a priority.
Imagine That
Budget: $55 million World-wide Sales: $18 million In the Hole: $37 million
SCOTT: Eddie Murphy had a rough go with his last movie Meet Dave. It lost $10 million and seemed to indicate that he couldn't do profitable comedy that didn't involved him making out with himself in a fat suit. But someone decided to take another chance, gave him $55 million to make a movie with his daughter, and hoped for the best. They got the worst. $37 millions in loss for Imagine That. Murphy's only hope for recovery is to make Norbit 2, and nobody wants that.
JOSH: Actually he's making another Beverly Hills Cop, but even that may not do it. I'm not watching another Eddie Murphy movie until he's credited as Edward Murphy.
Land of the Lost
Budget: $100 million World-wide Sales: $62 million In the Hole: $38 million
SCOTT: Might as well call it “Land of the Lost Cash”. Will Ferrell has made a lot of painfully crappy comedies, most of them much, much worse than the concept of a Land of the Lost movie. All of those movies turned at least a mediocre profit. Despite a massive marketing campaign, the Land of the Lost struggled in the midst of tough summer competition and a clear lack of appreciation for the return of the Sleestaks. The movie left US theaters two weeks ago and is disappearing from the international circuit as well, leaving it with a $38 million hole DVD sales probably won't be able to fill.
JOSH: Semi-Pro made a profit? Amazing. Still, I don't think the Will Ferrell thing is over. This movie just had too much imagination and the average moviegoer hates imagination. His most successful films have all involved heavy drinking, NASCAR, and making fun of gay people. Will Ferrell makes money when he's catering to redneck culture in much the same way Tyler Perry makes all his money by pandering to black church groups. Rednecks show up to will Ferrell movies to laugh at fags and beer. They get confused when confronted by Sleestaks and alternate dimensions. If Will's next movie is about binge drinking, he'll be right back on top.
Rocked by the gentle waves of the Comal river and full of warm Pabst Blue Ribbon, I eventually started snoring, allowing Scott an easy opportunity to hop out of the water and escape to the shore unnoticed. Rapids ahead! When I wake up, I'll hope he saved the beer. I'll need it, and more, should I allow him to talk me into doing this again next year.
Read Summer Box Office 2008: Kung Fu Critics here.
Read Summer Box Office 2007: The Critics Ultimatum here.
Read Summer Box Office 2006: Critics Last Stand here.
Read Summer Box Office 2005: Revenge of the Critics here.
Read Summer Box Office 2004: The Chronicles of Critics here.
Read Summer Box Office 2003: Critics United here.
