More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Scott Mendelson

Scott Mendelson

Posted: August 1, 2010 04:53 PM

Inception was number one for the third straight weekend, as it fended off three challengers and neared the $200 million mark. Dropping just 35%, the Chris Nolan thriller grossed another $27.4 million for a new total of $193.3 million. It will likely cross the $200 million mark on Tuesday, its nineteenth day of release. By Wednesday, it will surpass the $205 million gross of Batman Begins to become Nolan's second-highest grossing domestic grosser, behind the $533 million earned by The Dark Knight. At this point, Inception is having a slightly leggier run than Star Trek, with smaller drops to compensate for a lower opening weekend (it too ended weekend three with $191 million). So it would appear that the audience-pleasing mind-bender should finished between $260-300 million, depending on how well it handles the direct demo competition in the next few weekends. Ironically, it will lose at least some of its IMAX screens a little earlier than expected, as Avatar has a planned re-release on August 27th in IMAX and 3-D theaters. There's not really much more to say aside from repeating the fact that the film has already recouped its budget in domestic numbers and is slowly expanding overseas (it's worldwide total is now $363 million). So of course, in order to cash in on this audience-pleasing original, Sony is now set to remake Total Recall. Brilliant.

The big new release was Paramount's Dinner For Schmucks, which had an unusually low screen count of just 2,911 screens. While the reviews were decidedly mixed and the marketing was almost low-key, the picture still proved the drawing power of Steve Carell and/or Paul Rudd, as the film opened with $23.5 million anyway. This remake, of a French comedy, underwent a bit of a makeover following disappointing test screenings, apparently to add more heart and compassion to an inherently mean-spirited story. We won't know whether the changes had an effect until next weekend (opening weekends are about marketing, second weekends are about audience reaction), but my dad didn't care for it one bit ('a movie for schmucks'). Regardless, this proves that star power is not completely dead, as pretty much anyone who saw this went because of one of the big names involved (I'm sure the appearance of Zach Galifianakis didn't hurt).Regardless, the film cost a somewhat reasonable $69 million (remember when only big-budget action films cost more than $50 million?), but it's probably going to get hammered next weekend, when the all-star (Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson, Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Keaton, Eva Mendes, etc.) cop satire The Other Guys opens.

The next major opener was a financial disaster. Warner Bros unwanted/unneeded/much too late sequel to the 2001 hit Cats and Dogs opened with just $12.2 million. Subtitled 'The Revenge of Kitty Galore', this $85 million-picture seemed green-lit purely to convert it into 3-D after the fact, and even audiences could smell the desperation (I'm assuming this was a film rushed into production just before or after the 2007 writer's strike). The original film cost $60 million, opening to $21 million over the July 4th holiday, and ended up with $93 million domestic and $200 million worldwide. The marketing failed to answer a question of 'why' a sequel to a forgotten kids flick was released nine years later, and the novelty of seeing dogs and cats partaking in spy games was no longer there. Quality wises, even my two-year old got a little restless, and frankly the film makes G-Force look like Babe. The only thing the picture has going for it is the genuinely inspired three-minute Road Runner/Wile E. Coyote short that proceeds it. I laughed my butt off, even if my daughter apparently has no appreciation of the arts ('I don't like this', she snidely commented as it was ending). Anyway, audiences gave this stinker a B-, so expect it to lose many of its 3-D screens when Step Up 3-D opens next weekend.

The last major opener was the slightly supernatural drama Charlie St. Cloud. While the film ended up being severely frontloaded ($12.2 million weekend off a $5.6 million Friday = 2.19x multiplier), it still proved that Zac Efron is a genuine movie star. This $44 million (too expensive!) Nicolas Sparks-wannabe was sold 100% on the would-be drawing power of Mr. Efron, and the kid pulled in a $5 million opening day on his name alone. The film pulled a B+ from Cinema Score, with an A- from the under-18 crowd (the film played 59% under-25 and 79% female). I still say it was a mistake not to release Me and Orson Welles wide late last year, and this opening number seems to bear that out. Point being, combine Efron with a marketable premise and you get 17 Again ($23 million opening weekend, $64 million finish). Combine Efron with... absolutely nothing else of marketing value, and you still get a $12 million opening weekend. While some of his High School Musical alumni like Ashley Tisdale, Olesya Rulin, Monique Coleman, and Lucas Grabel have yet to break out following the third picture (Tisdale may spend the rest of her life playing Sharpay, be it in Sharpey's Fabulous Adventure or High School Musical 4: East Meets West), Efron has successfully left the franchise in his wake.

This article continues, with info on indie films and holdovers, at Mendelson's Memos.

 

Follow Scott Mendelson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ScottMendelson

 
 
  • Comments
  • 26
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
02:07 PM on 08/03/2010
Did you seriously say a 12mil opener makes Zac Efron a star? How much did he pay you for that?
05:12 PM on 08/02/2010
Eva Mendes and Samuel L. Jackson were both in a horrible movie called 'The Spirit' a couple years ago, which I had the great misfortune to actually see in the theater and which most of you had the great fortune of not seeing at all. She and everyone involved with that fiasco were lucky to ever work again. After that I got the feeling that Eva, beautiful though she may be, in most cases except perhaps Ghost Rider and Hitch, is box office poison. Notice she is not in much of the marketing, except when they need a shot of someone's chest heaving.

"The Other Guys" is part of a new Hollywood trend (evident in movies such as "Valentines Day" and "The Grown Ups") where a bunch of marginally successful actors with checkered pasts are thrown into one mix to generate as much name recognition as possible in a seemingly desperate attempt to get someone to care. It worked on some level for those two, so maybe it will work for this one as well.
11:33 AM on 08/02/2010
""but it's probably going to get hammered next weekend, when the all-star (Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson, Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Keaton, Eva Mendes, etc.) cop satire The Other Guys opens.""

Good Article, my only issue with it is....you put in "The Rock", Eva Mendes, Michael Keaton, Will Farrell) into the phrase "All Star"

Will Farrell has become a reason to avoid a movie, Eva Mendes? People have heard of her, but is she a draw? The Rock? and Michael Keaton? When was the last movie he had that wasn't a flat out bomb? (Jack Frost anybody?) As for the ones left, Mark Wallberg hasn't proven to be a huge draw leaving only Samuel L. Jackson.

I'm curious to see if you're right about this film, but I can't see it exploding the box office unless there is absolutly nothing else out there.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Scott Mendelson
Film critic/pundit for Mendelson's Memos, Valley S
11:57 AM on 08/02/2010
Ferrell is a solid opener in his safe zone, which The Other Guys is. Dwayne Johnson is a popular actor who can occasionally open a movie on his own (see - The Rundown, The Tooth Fairy, etc). Eva Mendes gets press attention. Michael Keaton is a beloved actor who doesn't work all that much, so when he decides to dip his toes into a major picture, it's worth noticing. Mark Walberg may not be a mega star, and he can't open much completely on his own, but he is a known entity and the fact that he's doing broad comedy is again worth noticing.
12:18 PM on 08/02/2010
I don't know, Ferrell's last several that were in his safe zone haven't done very well.

SemiPro
Land of the Lost
Step Brothers
Good Cop Baby Cop
Kicking and Screaming
Bewitched
Talladega Nights
Stranger than Fiction

Michael Keaton has been continuously working it's just that nothing he has done has been a big hit.

Some of his most known movies in the last 5 or 6 years?
Herbie Fully Loaded
First Daughter.

Again, I like your review, but the cast for this movie sounds more like something John Waters put together to see if he could have a hit in spite of the cast. ;)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aznurse
01:05 AM on 08/02/2010
have you seen "Restrepo" yet? It was outstanding.
01:20 AM on 08/02/2010
I'll write it down. I appreciate recommendations.
09:05 PM on 08/01/2010
I do hope that the middling performance of "Salt" signals the beginning of the end of Hollywood's fascination with putting semi-automatic weapons in the hands of a female protagonist and calling the results "feminist."
01:21 AM on 08/02/2010
It plummeted this week, considering how much promotion was put into it. People are getting less interested in this kind of movie, I hope.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Scott Mendelson
Film critic/pundit for Mendelson's Memos, Valley S
11:58 AM on 08/02/2010
This kind of movie? It's a throwback to mid-to-late 90s star-driven thrillers, the kind of thing we only see a few times a year anyway (think Vantage Point, Law Abiding Citizen, etc). They generally open well and generally do about three times their opening weekend, which is what Salt will likely do.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shout
07:18 AM on 08/02/2010
SALT will be lucky to hit $100 million, since the drop-off will be more considerable in the next couple of weeks. With a $100 budget and close to $50 million more in marketing, it will have to look oversees to make money. Much like Tom Cruise with Knight and Day. It's certainly a far cry from Jolie's Tomb Raider days more than a decade ago.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Scott Mendelson
Film critic/pundit for Mendelson's Memos, Valley S
12:01 PM on 08/02/2010
Not necessarily. Jolie's films generally have large second weekend drops, but Salt could very well play for the next month as the second-choice for grown ups. If Eat, Pray, Love or The Expendables is sold out, and you've already seen Inception, what else is there for older audiences?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
truthglow
07:53 PM on 08/01/2010
I saw "Inception" last weekend, and it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
Reviewers must be being paid off to give good reviews these days.
08:03 PM on 08/01/2010
You must be getting paid off by Dinner for Schmucks to give bad reviews.
photo
getoffthecross
I take social satire seriously...
10:30 AM on 08/02/2010
Now, I have no financial stake in the success of Inception. But it always makes me curious when someone says something is the "WORST" thing in whatever category they're discussing. Why was this the WORST in your opinion? Was it due to the fact that the plot wasn't linear? I guess that's not for everyone, but there are worse non-linear plots. Was it the acting? Was it the cinematography? In a summer with Grown Ups, yet another Twilight offering, Marmaduke and more, how exactly do you think this was one of the WORST?
03:08 PM on 08/02/2010
Just remember, some people preferred the "Chronological" version of Memento. It's a sad world we live in.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balzac
06:08 PM on 08/01/2010
It's a very good movie. I enjoyed it a lot.