“This is the First Time, I Swear!”
With critics and sofa kings churning out their lists for best and worst films of 2007 like Jonah Hill drawing dicks, let’s take a look at the movies that failed to reach general expectations, whether at the box office, creatively, or both. Some of these films carry repercussions for big stars in 2008 (Lions for Lambs), some seem like odd flukes (Walk Hard), and some underperformed with such dreadful flair they helped usher in a new mega franchise from Peter Jackson and New Line (The Golden Compass, natch!). As Bill Murray might put it, “Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together…mass hysteria!” This is what happens when major films drop, flop and roll.
And if we missed any of this year’s middling flicks, comment below!
Grindhouse
Why: When I walked into the theater with a few friends and a flask in my jacket pocket, two truths hit me: Grindhouse was going to flop super hard, and the Internet had not yet crossed over to being “the new flesh,” to reference Videodrome. There were ten people at a nine o’clock showing, and the audience wasn’t even made up of geeks – replace junkies and sketchy pervs with face-hugging teen couples, old farts and jocks and the turnout was equal to a Shaw Brothers triple-feature in suburbia. Clearly, these people didn’t know what they were about to watch, and I soon realized that, well, neither did I. Shock, horror. Planet Terror didn’t come close to Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez’ 1996 collabo From Dusk Till Dawn in terms of humor, scares, originality or raunch. A scantly clad, one-legged Rose McGowan does not equal Salma Hayek’s fully exposed stripper-vampire fun bags. Before the three trailers started, more than half the crowd had exited with actual boo’s. It says a lot that the directors behind the trailers understood Grindhouse far more than either director. After months and months of QT sweating balls and coke chills over Death Proof and hours spent observing a poster that promised “a white hot juggernaut at 200 mph!” we got teased with a clothed lap dance, a few classy kills, and more vapid chatter from vapid chicks than The Hills. I actually felt sorry for Kurt Russell! You only get one shot with QT, so make sure it’s a biggie (call up and ask Michael Keaton). The entire project was a $70 million cheat, and even worse, the web’s united defenders of Death Proof (U.D.D.P) were informing the majority of bummed QT fans that it was “supposed to be chatty” and “That’s how grindhouse pictures are! It’s genius!” Did they forget all of QT’s “Hard R” and “This film will be what the cool posters promised but never delivered!” rah-rahing beforehand? Even worse was reading Harvey Weinstein’s interview with Nikki Finke (oh, the power of a flop!) where he spouted that his company might separate the two movies and re-release them, which they later did…on DVD. Has the world gone mad?
The Fallout: As Rodriguez’ film unfairly took the harshest beat-downs in the press, Weinstein and Tarantino tellingly re-cut Death Proof and brought it to Cannes to lick their wounds. In the meantime, Rodriguez left his long-term partnership with the Weinsteins to shop his epic Barbarella project to outside studios with his home-wrecker starlet McGowan in Jane Fonda’s old role. As of today, there are no serious bidders. Wonder why? This entire ordeal has the appearance of a bad soap opera, and it’s a sign that the era of the ’90s auteurs (Weinstein Co. also passed on Kevin Smith’s Red State) is showing its age. To much surprise, so is the huge influence of geekdom on the green light of Hollywood execs. No film will ever scream “geeks’ wet dream” as loudly as Grindhouse, including Cloverfield and The Dark Knight, ever again.
Upside: Lots of Eli Roth’s haters including myself admit to loving Thanksgiving’s trailer, so he’s got that going for him and…a popular t-shirt at Hot Topic, I guess. QT will no doubt make Inglorious Bastards that much more crass and amazing in response to his growing detractors. Here’s waiting til’ 2020.
Zodiac
Why: David Fincher and serial killer movies go together like Woody Harrelson and weed, but even with solid actors like Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo and Ironman and arguably its most famous, titular star, Zodiac eked by at the box office with $33 million total. The film’s trailers lacked Se7en-ish scares to hook mainstream audiences (as did the actual film), and most critics didn’t push “four star” and “classic” blurbs until, uh, last week (weak dudes!). One of cinema’s definitive police procedurals, even those of us who were stoked on Zodiac couldn’t recommend it to everyone. A dopey friend of mine compared it to reading a newspaper in a theater, pointed to the beloved Fight Club poster on his wall and frowned. You know the type. And the (false) rumors that Fincher’s desired cut would add yet another hour to the lengthy running time made many fans question (and swoon over) the director’s incurable obsession (and sanity).
The Fallout: Everyone who knows good cinema, in L.A. and beyond, already at least respects Zodiac. A few Oscar noms will make it a costly success in hindsight. And Fincher’s The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, set for a fall 2008 release, looks and sounds promising in every way.
Upside: Zodiac is not only the densest $70 million episode of Unsolved Mysteries on record it’s also a modern classic not dissimilar to Chinatown. File it under: one for Fincher (and one for us). When hipster film students annoyingly reminisce about cinema’s ’70s heyday, point to Zodiac, No Country for Old Men, and There Will Be Blood and watch them push their hair into their eyes and glibly walk away. Dummies.
Lions for Lambs
Why: Lions for Lambs was like an off-Broadway play about the War on Terror that was adapted too faithfully into a movie, starring a major celebrity that almost everyone was sick of. Sound like a hit? Still, it’s surprising that Lions for Lambs grossed less than $15 million. Like Zodiac, for a good portion of the film, the leads sit at mundane desks having intricate conversations about intricate topics, so maybe the trailer should have been a fiery montage of iconic terrorism images that also played up the controversy and interesting cast. Also, if someone had told insiders at the beginning of 2007 that this film would have no shot at major Oscar nominations, most would have been shocked. It’s an all around let down.
The Fallout: The war genre still looks fertile in 2008, and Lions for Lambs was smartly budgeted, leaving Tom Cruise’s United Artists out of harm’s way. However, Cruise should be worried both as an actor and as a studio head. His 2008 follow-up Valkyrie, directed by Bryan Singer, not only has a very unimpressive trailer, but Cruise’s appearance therein (an unfitting eye patch) and clumsy accent (think inexplicable Valley Boy) have drawn unintentional laughs and comparisons to Rocky & Bullwinkle for a deadly serious film about Nazis. Can buzz get any worse? Such a one-two punch would mean very little in the ’90s, but in its current shaky state Cruise’s career can’t take it. And it gets worse; Valkyrie’s release date was recently pushed from summer to winter. That may be strategy, sure, but it looks like a hesitant retreat all the same and a reaction to this film’s quick dismissal.
Upside: Of all of the year’s war films, you can do a lot worse on an intellectual level than Lions for Lambs, and Cruise still gets brownie points for making a ballsy war film his first project at UA.
Walk Hard
Somewhere Fred Willard is muttering, “Whaaa Happen?” I expected this to be Judd Apatow’s true blue sleeper of 2007, but instead it almost cut the super-producer down to size like Dewey Cox’s brother. The marketing for this movie was fantastic, from a genuine rock tour with John C. Reilly to the promotional packages containing Dewey Cox underwear and a packet of chest hair (real?!). That said you can’t figure out Walk Hard’s premise, title or modus operandi like Superbad (high school comedy) and Knocked Up (preggers comedy) because “music biopic comedy” doesn’t mean much this side of This is Spinal Tap. We’re almost entering Mad territory, and sadly a lot of plebeians don’t grasp what’s so funny about that magazine, Walk the Line or Ray. In a parallel universe, John C. Reilly is forever Dewey Cox, his megaflop (only $12 million so far) be damned.
The Fallout: By making his signature brand of raunchy, heartfelt comedy so ubiquitous in this year’s marketplace, it’s ironic that Judd Apatow may have killed one of his own flicks because it wasn’t in style. Even the punks who were firing up the Apatow backlash online now seem bummed that a flop interrupted his banner year, neutering the momentum of their future diatribes. Is that a bad thing? No, but it’s not good. As for Reilly, he should be fine, as he’s co-headlining another R-rated comedy called Step Brothers opposite Will Ferrell that sounds amazin’.
Upside: Walk Hard will have little problem stumbling drunkenly through its Dark Period into the cult movie pantheon. Also, the film has a great soundtrack, and critics dug it, so Apatow is still in their good graces as this year’s Drillbit Taylor approaches (perhaps an even bigger flop).
28 Weeks Later
Sometimes it’s a bad sign when you can’t remember if a film came out in 2006 or 2007, and that’s the case with this film, the incredibly strong sequel to 28 Days Later. We are all still suffering from zombie fatigue, and hey, zombies all look alike, whether they sprint or drag a foot, so who can blame most of us for passing on this? 28 Weeks Later was simply no match for the summer of sumo wrestling sequels, and it’s a damn shame, because it’s the best horror movie of the year (and a strong action title as well), surpassing the more popular original in unpredictability, suspense and endurance, while grossing only half its box office. The staff of Fox Atomic could hardly contain themselves over director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo’s American debut (that’s a first), and many media outlets including the New York Times gave the flick beyond stellar reviews. In the end, it still meant too little, and perhaps the marketing and title was just a little too similar to the original to break out in pop culture like a killer virus.
The Fallout: The fate of a possible third film in the franchise is now filed away, at least theatrically. Zombies in general are back underground, awaiting a rainy day for the horror genre. Director Fresnadillo has an ambitious project at DreamWorks called Wednesday, so he’s fine, but his agent is probably veering him away from horror, which is unfortunate given the genre’s lack of innovators.
Upside: It’s had a decent life on DVD and serves as a great example for young directors on how to improve on a franchise’s formula with wicked intelligence and style. If you saw it, it was probably in your top three major films over the summer, and when a zombie film is this classic, you nearly forget about the others that weren’t.
The Golden Compass
Calling this film an underperformer is like calling Zac Efron for advice on being a badass. This is the type of franchise-aborting $200 million picture that studio execs’ pets have nightmares about…except for New Line’s. First, the Dark Materials novels offer an open dissent on Christianity, a religion that 80 percent of Americans align themselves with according to some poll – this doesn’t sound like adaptable kids’ stuff even with heavy editing, no matter what your beliefs. Second, picking the holidays to release this film is beyond dumb, and third (this list goes up to 25), you hire Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig, two actors who have no kid appeal, steely eyes, and patchy box office records, to act alongside the Coca Cola bears while sailing this risky proposition to over $700 million worldwide (in your dreams). This is the only “Doh!” heard around the world that is louder than Homer’s. Balding heads should roll.
The Fallout: No more sequels, I don’t care if Australia wants to have its babies. That beeping noise you hear is New Line putting its arse in reverse, giving Peter Jackson his bag of money owed for their other franchise, and signing him up to produce two Hobbit features. Unfortunately for Bob Shaye, Karma also wants a couple million dollars in cash delivered at its feet for The Last Mimzy.
Upside: Peter Jackson will probably grow his beard out and look all cuddly again. Nicole Kidman stays away from the world’s kids as well as her own. By its proximity to the bad luck of The Golden Compass‘ director Chris Weitz, hopefully the film based on Neil Strauss’ self-mythologizing pick-up artist book The Game is a disaster (Weitz is producing).
The Number 23
Up until now, every film listed here at least tried to accomplish something worthwhile on the screen. Jim Carrey’s latest tale from the dark side is not only his worst film, but one of the worst films Hollywood released this year, and possibly ever. Fringe numerology is a kooky and creepy idea for a movie, and shares an irreverent, growing popularity to conspiracy theories like Mothman and the Illuminati, and Carrey’s genuine fascination for numbers (does this explain Jenny McCarthy?) drew him to the material. But The Number 23 can’t capitalize on its title’s potential, it has to pile on a beyond cheesy and ridiculous film noir subplot taken from an entirely different movie, and then…wait for it…it tacks on a shocking “he’s got two personalities” ending lifted from Fight Club, only eight years tardy! There needs to be a name for this painful, semi-recent phenomenon, where you’re sitting in a theater and you start to feel the Fight Club ending creeping up on you. You resist it - yet another film can’t be headed there you reassure yourself - and then wham! You end up walking out of theater during the credits with a feeling of surreal violation. They did it again! This film underperformed ($33 million) simply because it sucked.
The Fallout: A lot of moviegoers can no longer remember why they liked Jim Carrey to begin with, so dismal are his choices year after year. This is a huge, nearly permanent problem that Dr. Seuss cannot mend. In perfect contrast, Joel Schumacher is a notoriously inconsistent director, capable of delivering this type of rotten tripe (Batman and Robin) with a huge, pleased grin on his face. It’s almost endearing. But the man made The Lost Boys and thus gets three life time passes. And his Falling Down wasn’t too shabby either.
Upside: Nothing, not even the tired possibility of Jenny McCarthy posing in Playboy.
Feel free to discuss these runner-up underperformers of 2007 below: The Mist, Beowulf (debatable), The Heartbreak Kid, Michael Clayton, Things We Lost in the Fire, In the Valley of Elah, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Shoot ‘Em Up, Stardust, Evan Almighty, Black Snake Moan, Hannibal Rising
January 4th, 2008 at 9:16 am
AWESOME article Hunter! I loved every bit of it.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:36 am
This article is made of epic and win.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Nice, article, spot on about why the Golden Compass failed, even if it is pretty popular over here in the UK. I feel bitter that films like Stardust, Zodiac, Jesse James and Grindhouse fail when Alvin + The Motherfuckin’ Chipmunks somehow makes $160 million. what. the. fuck.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Agreed. Nice article. Thought you nailed Grindhouse and Zodiac down perfectly (first one stunk; second one is genius). I’d only have to disagree on 28 Weeks Later, which I thought was a killer bore and a big let-down from the first film.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Only surprise for me was Golden Compass. However, I do think audiences are growing weary of epic proportioned children’s tales.
Walk Hard - no matter the inclusion of Judd Apatow, John C. Reilly, or the marketing onslaught, I didn’t know a single person that was excited about going to see this movie. It didn’t look that funny. It came across like a horrible Wayan’s brothers knock off.
28 Weeks Later - HUGE fan of 28 Days Later, but the sequel had a different director and actors. In my book, that means wait for DVD, even though it had stellar reviews.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I don’t know about the trend about making every movie Apatow’s involved with out to be an Apatow movie. True he wrote it, but he didn’t direct. Nor did he direct (or even write) Superbad.
Anyway, I didn’t understand why people thought Walk Hard would be a hit. It could have been called “John C. Reilly Acts Wacky Again in Another Movie.”
We’ve all seen that movie about ten times before, but this time there wasn’t someone like Will Ferrell co-starring.
People will rent it in droves, though. That’s its destiny.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Great stuff. Of the runners-up, I would say that Michael Clayton and Black Snake Moan were pretty good movies that were poorly marketed. Especially BSM, whose commercials basically made the entire film look like it was about Samuel L. Jackson keeping a white girl chained up in his house, when that was really a small part of the story.
Jesse James had it’s merits but didn’t seem to be in very wide release, had very little action for a western and came out roughly the same time as another western, 3:10 to Yuma. (The people who flock to see Alvin and the Chipmunks don’t want to throw down $10 to watch Brad Pitt look contemplative for 2 hours.)
Evan Almighty was excruciating. I love Steve Carrell, but it seemed like a desperate attempt by the studio to cash in on his recent success.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Great article - I agree that Zodiac is the underperforming gem (of the year), Grindhouse was OK (I’ve only seen the seperate, extended films living in the UK, so can’t judge the ‘real deal’), 28 weeks later was alright, but certainly not stellar - it was an entertaining zombie flick and nothing more. The others I haven’t seen, and have no intention of seeing.
Regarding the films to discuss, I think Stardust equals Zodiac in terms of disappointing returns. 50% of the worldwide box office for Stardust came from the UK (although this may be the weak dollar inflating the figures) but I still expected this film to do better. The film seemed very unsure of who the target audience was, and I think the casting reflected that: Danes appeals to 20-somethings who liked My So Called Life and Romeo & Juliet rather than her work in train wrecks like Terminator 3; Pfeifer and DeNiro have a broader appeal, but still aren’t big in the sub-18 market that this film really should appeal to; main star is new, but very likeable. Will probably do very well on DVD.
I think Stardust highlights the impact of a year of sequels - new titles or properties don’t perform well because movie goers have choices; if you liked Spiderman and #3 comes out at the same time as a promising looking but not known title, it’ll be the sequel every time.
ali
January 4th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Not bad, not bad at all. I thought you nailed almost everything to a t, but what movie i thought was seriously unappreciated in the box office was “reign over me.” this film was widely accepted by critics, but somehow fell short with mainstream audiences. i really thought this movie would do better because first of all its an adam sandler movie, which is not the reason people should see this movie, but this guy has been known to pull in some money even with pieces of crap like “i now pronounce you chuck and larry.”so i dont understand how a great movie like this would fall short. Sorry if i tried to post my own review here, but seriously hunter you did good.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:58 am
-First of all…you got Grindhouse all wrong. And no I am neither a Rodriguez nor a Q.T. fanboy, you simply got that movie all wrong. Maybe it was the crowd you saw it with, and if so I am sorry that poor sales affected your viewing experience, but hey, maybe you juts don’t like movies I dunno.
-I agree with you about Zodiac, it was amazing and did not deserve to get snubbed at the box office. Fincher should get a best director nod at the Oscars…but alas skill is not always awarded.(someone please inform me as to why Dicaprio did not win best Actor in the Aviator (oh and why the Aviator didn’t win best picture))
-Lions and Lambs just looked flat out awful, I’ll admit that I didn’t even see that one but I had good reason…Tom Cruise was attached to it and he hasn’t made a good film since the 90’s ended.
-Oh my god…you mean Judd Apatow isn’t a god in human form, he can make a shitty movie!?!?!??! Yea he can, and he did. Walk hard was awful, I;m sorry fanboys, don’t get pissed at me, get pissed at your messiah. Superbad was the funniest movie of the year, and Knocked up, while in my opinion not nearly as good, was still very solid (as long as you only aw it once). I’m actually glad that Walk Hard sucked aas much as it did because hopefully it will force Judd Apatow and his crew to get their head out of the clouds.
-28 weeks later. Not a bad movie, but I’m sorry I still feel that 28 Days Later was far superior. The new one took away the whole feel of desperation that you felt in the original. It was basically just an action-packed-americanized-”yo did you see that explosion tha looked like that Michael Bay shit” version of the original.
-Yea the Golden Compass was doomed from the get go. Nicole Kidman Eats children doesn’t she?
-The Number 23 was a steaming pile of crap, in which Jim Carrey just thought that if maybe he parted his hair to the side again and tried to act that it would work out as well as it did last time (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). To bad thats not all it takes huh…or maybe he’d have a profitable career again…
January 4th, 2008 at 11:01 am
You brought a flask into a movie? What are you, 15 years old? I loved kicking out douchebags like you when I worked as an usher.
I completely agree with the list however.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. I continue to wonder who the hell is in charge of the traffic signal in “Hollywood,” and how in F*#K they were able to convince others they were qualified for this duty.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Did you only consider US box office or are the international success and DVD sales already included?
For example is “Black Snake Moan” really underperforming? Sure it had a weak box office numbers, but the DVD sales were exceptionally strong and made that up easily.
Probably the expectations were higher, but “Stardust” was succesful enough in the international market to earn its budget back from worldwide box office alone. And DVD sales will push it into the profit zone even further.
But especially “Black Snake Moan” isn’t underperforming in my opinion, but I would really like to hear some experts on this issue.
A really underperforming movie that you forgot to mention is Danny Boyle’s “Sunshine”. “28 Weeks Later” already had weak box office numbers, but “Sunshine” only earned half of that worldwide, despite a 50 Mio.$ budget.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Walk Hard was awful. John C. Reilly clearly can’t carry a role by himself. Without Will Ferrell, he’s made for TV.
Good list.
-Brad
January 4th, 2008 at 11:50 am
i didn’t care for zodiac…which was boring
January 4th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I personally have dealt with the UDDP. Thanks for finally giving me something to call people like that.
But yeah, entertaining article… keep up the good work.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Am I the only person that liked 23? I thought it was a breath of fresh air after “Fun with Dick and Jane”.
I agree with all the other movie criticisms, besides Grindhouse, which I didn’t watch (I chose to watch Death Proof).
January 4th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
/Film needs a forum so we can have bigger discussions like this!!
January 4th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
great article, very enjoyable and true.
I also have to add that “The Assassination Of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford” is a great film, one of the best of the year, and all of the acting performances were brilliant in my opinion. i do believe that the film didn’t perform as well as it could have for several reasons. first off: when i saw the film- i live in Grand Junction Colorado- i hadn’t even known the film was released yet. i saw no advertising at all. and actually, when i did see it i had to search out the theater it was showing at. It was not at a major theater in our town and it only had one showing, at 4 o clock. it was inconvenient but i was excited enough to see it that i made time. Which leads to another point. many people do not want to see a film with brilliant acting and some of the best cinematography ever, along with an oscar worthy script and many other great attributes. it was a western without any real “Westerny” sequences. i think when people see a western they expect something like the last 20 minutes of “Open Range” rather than the previous hour and a half. this is sad because this great movie was seemingly overlooked by the public, but i expect that it will win a few awards, i would put money on it getting some kind of visual effects award or best cinematography- which i believe it should, thanks for your time, if you actually red this.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
If they wanted The Golden Compass to make money they just should have had Hannah Montana as the star…
January 4th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I think the Zodiac section should have included how well it did overseas and on DVD to balance out its poor showing in North American theatres.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I’ve seen all of these minus Walk Hard. They were all pretty good, Zodiac was the greatest.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
“Salma Hayek’s fully exposed stripper-vampire fun bags”
Wait…what?!?
Is there a version of Dusk til Dawn film I haven’t seen?
She stays in her bikini in all the versions I’ve seen…
Re: Planet Terror, I think RR has lost it anyway (Sharkboy & Lava Girl, anyone?)
Re: Zodiac & 28 Weeks Later were both great
Haven’t seen the others….
January 4th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
@Takashi
Womp womp. You may be right. Is that legendary naked-Salma fever dream from Desperado bleeding over into my memory of From Dusk Till Dawn? She does however handle a giant snake and devilishly writhe in FDTD, and there remains copious amounts of sizzling, tequila-fueled T&A. I’d also take Salma’s nerdy stripper dance in Dogma over the lap dance in Death Proof any day. Click here for a reminder (SFW): http://www.metacafe.com/watch/112911/salma_hayek_club_dance/
@Anonymous
Point taken. The article above is primarily concerned with performance in North America and from the expectations of the studios (and fans) as their films went into wide release.
@leon83
Theatrically, Black Snake Moan was a disappointment. Director Craig Brewer was coming off an extremely buzz-worthy debut with Hustle & Flow, and the “shocking” marketing campaign for the film was expected to turn his follow-up into a sleeper hit. DVD performance wasn’t the aim of the piece, just theatrical, but you’re correct in that BSM definitely found a home in homes.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Maybe the reason that Lions for Lambs, Michael Clayton, Redacted, Rendition, Grace is Gone, and In the Valley of Elah didn’t do so well was because people are sick of Hollywood’s single-minded hatred of the military, corporations, and the Bush administration. I, for one, don’t care to pay $8 to hear for two hours from egotistical “progressives” how the world is purely black and white and all that is black belongs to the Republican party.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Yeah… You pretty much nailed it. I thought The Mist was decent (maybe my low expectations?) and I loved Jesse James and Shoot Em’ Up, but the most of the rest were flops for a good reason. SO glad that The Golden Compass flopped, not just because of the resulting Hobbit films, but because I’m getting tired of everyone that thinks they’re edgy for bashing God and the government… Yes… We know you hate them both… We may even hate them with you, but holy crap, shut up.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:20 am
The Golden Compass may also have performed badly because it was rubbish (also the novels, while major bestsellers, haven’t penetrated as far as Harry Potter and LOTR yet).
After seeing Jesse James recently, I can see why I didn’t do well, despite staring Mr Pitt. It’s pretty much a kind of psychological art film, more than a western, and westerns don’t perform that well anyway. I thought it was great, though.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:33 am
well whitlow and sammie will just go to the dollar move and see some older films as none of these really arouse much interest in either of them and jay and sammie will just spend more time sifting through their accumulated dirt from the digs.
eric y and jay whitlow
January 5th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Thanks for the article,
January 5th, 2008 at 8:49 am
@ Ezra Dulis:
I’m sorry if this sounds aggressive or nasty, but I think that is a completely specious and bullcorn argument. I know Bill O’Reilly has been on tv criticizing the movies for their “worldview” and encouraging people not to see them and to protest and saying that the reason they are bombs is because the American people are sick of the “progressive” agenda and politics, etc. But I couldn’t disagree more.
Lions For Lambs, Redacted, Rendition, etc. were all PRETTY BAD movies. The trailers made the films look boring and completely bland exercises. The reviews echoed that, etc. I think people would be open to an excellent movie about politics and the war, etc. but no one is going to go for a tedious and tiresome, joyless, chore of a movie about a serious subject. Just look at the “good” and “bad” movies about Vietnam. There were plenty of both.
And I think you’ll find that Michael Clayton shouldn’t be lumped into that group and was actually an excellent movie, but I can’t comment about In The Valley of Elah which I didn’t see- though I found Crash to be a horrible and trite piece of junk meant to be shown to college freshman during orientation.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Also….. how is 28 Weeks Later on this list when Evan Almighty is just in the honorable mentions?
In terms of financial investment and expectations and then underperformance…. I think you HAVE to recognize the differences and put Evan Almighty up there with the biggest flops of the year. I don’t think 28 Weeks Later is even close.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:32 am
“28 Weeks Later was simply no match for the summer of sumo wrestling sequels, and it’s a damn shame, because it’s the best horror movie of the year…”
I disagree. I thought the opening scene was incredible, but it went down hill from there. True, it was entertaining, but it delivered little suspense and even less scares. A decent movie, but most definitely not the best horror movie of the year.
Otherwise, a really great article.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:46 am
I have to say that 28 weeks later was one of the WORST movies of 2007. The whole movie felt like they were trying to set up for the next one, which is a huge sign they have given up on the movie and are just trying to milk the franchise. I was a huge fan of 28 days later; it was a self contained story that lent the possibility of a sequel without cramming the fact down our throats.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:00 am
“No one is going to go for a tedious and tiresome, joyless, chore of a movie about a serious subject.”
Well, that’s more like what I was saying. For the past couple years, movies like these are just that– self-important, masturbatory indulgences by blowhards looking down on “flyover country” with condescending self-righteousness. The message overtakes the movie; the arduousness of the filmmakers’ proselytizing destroys any potential for the film to be exciting, original or appealing. So, while the reason that most people skip out on the movie is that it looks boring, it made itself boring by taking itself and its message too seriously.
I probably shouldn’t have lumped Michael Clayton in there, as it does look very well-made and the evil corporation is just a staple of Hollywood dramas. So, touche.
By the way, I don’t watch Fox News. Don’t even have the channel.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Hey Ezra:
Buy a mirror and look into it, you ,may be surprised to see a self-important blowhard looking back!
January 5th, 2008 at 10:33 am
OMG Zodiac was excruciatingly boring. i saw it on DVD and fast-forwarded just to get it done with. what a waste of attention.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Hunter, you are an idiot. 28 Weeks Later, Golden Compass, and the number 23 were all exceptionally well-made movies. You make some formidable points regarding some of the movies on the list, but overall - its inaccurate.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:14 am
@Anonymous
While Evan Almighty obviously lost more money and was a bigger disappointment than 28 Weeks Later, I wanted to include a variety of movies from 2007 from different genres as well as films that underperformed for different reasons. Evan was comparable to The Golden Compass (besides the, um, religion thing) in that it was incredibly pricey “children’s spectacle” entertainment. However, you could also make the argument that Evan’s main failing was not connecting with the original film’s demographic and choosing to go younger (note: different from broader). It was also just a bad film, but not as bad as The Number 23.
@ Various Commenters who disliked 28 Weeks Later
I am still relatively surprised by the number of fans of 28 Days Later who are peeved-to-furious with 28 Weeks Later. I liked 28 Days and it was good to see Boyle back in fine form (and snag a sleeper hit), but the third act of 28 Days was all down hill in terms of pacing, suspense and entertainment value. I found 28 Weeks Later to be incredibly taut and unpredictable (you never ever knew who was going to fall to the zombies) for its entire duration. I also feel it surpassed Snyder’s Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead, which had also had a comparably intense and classic kickoff, but lumbered ahead in many scenes. On a side note: I remain curious about 28 Weeks Later’s helicopter-decap scene in correlation with the release of Grindhouse and that film’s exact same scene. I don’t believe these films were paying homage to anything with these scenes, so it’s a bizarre coincidence. On top of that…28 Weeks’ heli-decap scene was far superior. If anyone has any further info on this, let me know.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Great article. But 28 Weeks Later was among the worst movies I’ve ever paid to see in a theater. It had a single entertaining scene, in the helicopter bloodbath. Other than that, it was atrocious.
How could anyone like a movie where the SAFETY BUNKER has a BACK DOOR closed with a simple chain? Simply awful.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:32 am
There is a helicopter decapitation in the original Dawn of the Dead (1978).
Everyone I know who saw 28 Weeks Later seemed to like it.
I disagree with you about the final act of 28 Days Later. I found it to be incredibly suspenseful and perfectly paced. What a horrifying realization it is for the main characters to come to terms with the fact that, after all of this searching, it is man who poses the most sinister threat via the soldiers. And Jim ends up both using an infected person to “help” while he himself becomes something of a killing dehumanized brute in order to protect the girls.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Article was well-written, funny, and apparently very well-received.
There’s just no possible way I can agree with what you said about Grindhouse.
It underperformed at the BOX OFFICE… but if you have a real taste for solid filmmaking, then it OUTPERFORMED everything else I saw in theaters around that time.
I can’t remember the last time I actually had THAT MUCH fun at a movie theater before. Oh, and our theater was PACKED. Sold OUT! Everyone was cheering for the good guys and screaming support when the bad guys got beat up.
Total blast of a movie. I’d watch it again and again and again. — And how about those mock trailers? How could you NOT laugh at those!?
Other than that, man… good list.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
28 Weeks Later sucked, hard. Liked the first one, but almost walked out of the second. Horrible, horrible in every way.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Lame, if he put zodiac and grindhouse on that, he should have put the most over hyped movie of the year on, 300.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
@ dyr
Sorry mate, 300 made $210 million and opened with $70 mill to become the seventh largest film of 2007 and a total pop culture sensation (also coining the most annoyingly Chappelle-ified line of the year). It surpassed box office gurus’ and the studio’s highest expectations while actually managing to satiate the majority of fanboys against a Great Wall of Internet Hype big enough to make Phil Spector’s afro wig catch on fire. 300 made in one weekend what Grindhouse and Zodiac both cost to make sans marketing (as did 300). It is nearly the antithesis of an underperformer in every way.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Where the HELL is “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead?!?!?”
January 5th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Oh, please, The Golden Compass was a piece of junk. That’s why it was a flop at the box office. But unlike Harry Potter it has had good acting, which leaves just the convoluted plot with its numerous holes in it.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
300? Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead?
Clearly some people are stuggling with the concept of an underperforming movie.
Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead is on a pretty limited release but has still managed to do a lot more than pay back its paltry $5 million budget.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
- Keith -
Was there an expectation that Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead would be strong at the box office? It only maxed on 321 screens and was marketed as special interest / indie. That’s like saying you thought Lars and the Real Girl underperformed.
Completely agree with Lions for Lambs. And Rendition for that matter. I also agree about the ridiculous fanboy mentality regarding Grindhouse. I’m in my 30s, and the movie is a gem. A real riot. In the same vein, I’m sure the Cloverfield disciples are either dreaming of its greatness or imagining how smart and pithy their negative reactions will be. Just a thought:
http://meetinthelobby.com/what-if-cloverfield-stinks.html
January 5th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I disagree with you on The Number 23. I don’t think you really saw what the movie was about.
Spoiler: In the beginning you have this number which seems to be everywhere, this number which is haunting this man. But this number really could have been anything. The point of the movie was that this man had done something wrong, and he did not take responsibility for his actions, he rather chose to hide away from his memories. But later in life his actions came back to haunt him, almost to the point where he commits suicide (almost getting hit with the bust), because at that point he had very little to live for because he did not know what was true/real anymore, his life had fallen apart because he did something wrong in the past.
In the movie he quotes some philospher: The greatest(only?) decision to make is if one should just commit suicide.
So he had made a mistake, his life had fallen apart for it, he was faced with committing suicide, and he would have done it one if he didn’t have a reason to live for. Which was his son, when he shows up at the end. The number 23 was in a sense only the gateway to his past. It was not meant to be this number that killed people (which could have been the message that some picked up).
The movie was in a sense an argument to the above question (if one should just commit suicide), that argument being that it is worth living only if you have a reason to live. The reason for the main character was his son.
I would call this movie a philosophical thriller, lol. I enjoyed it.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
how about mr. brooks … ?
January 5th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Your assessment regarding The Golden Compass might be somewhat correct, but for some reason you completely failed to catch the key-points: Everything was plain bad, except for the actors and the effects. Everything.
If you want to make a movie based on a book your main audience will always be your readers. Betraying your readers by gutting the story and characters in the movie will NOT create any form of hype required, on the contrary, it’ll create a lot of bad press.
Even in liberal countries where they don’t give a flying f… about it dissing religion it was badly received, even more so by it’s fans. Why? Because the key points in it was bad, simple as that. Blaming religion, actors (which did an awesome job), and whatever will never change that the movie was bad, and it fails to deliver what people want.
January 5th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
@subcorpus
Since Mr. Brooks was released in the summer, one might argue its case for being here, but I excluded it due to: the low-to-moderate performance of Kevin Costner and Demi Moore’s recent films (as well as Dane Cook’s); its budget was $20 million and it grossed $28 mill, and its target audience (IMDB rating: 7.6 and also, um, my mom loved it) seems to feel it met expectations. It’s a cheese ball thriller beamed up from the ’90s and doesn’t really pretend to be anything but. You can make the argument that it was Lamesville, just like Wild Hogs, but why invest time critiquing mystery meat or Dr. Phil, you know? Sometimes mediocrity is comforting from a safe distance, and Mr. Brooks has a quiet little fiefdom out there.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
where’s Gone Baby Gone?
January 5th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
@yeahokay
Considering that Gone Baby Gone was budgeted at $19 mill, grossed $19 mill and change, didn’t have a famous lead, and was directed by Affleck, whose last six films as an actor have not grossed more than $26 million not to mention his PR troubles, I can’t say GBG dramatically underperformed. Sure, the critics loved it, but that’s not the only qualifier here. If, let’s say, it had an original theatrical run after sweeping the Oscars, then it’d be here, but it couldn’t in that hypothetical.
Two films that DO need to be added to this list after the current weekend box office is taken into consideration are Sweeney Todd and AVP-R. Sweeney, I believe, is a case of a major foul-up in the theatrical roll-out, as it’s still not on 2,000 screens. Any film with Depp and Burton directing is an event film and should be distributed and marketed as such. Both of them are bigger factors in a film’s success than word of mouth, c’mon. And while a macabre musical doesn’t have precedent at the box office, I don’t think that’s the main reason why the film is struggled out of the gate. Such a shame. Maybe Oscar noms will boost it to or past 50-60 mill, but extremely doubtful. Depp can’t be too siked on how it was handled, no matter how mellow he is.
AVP-R was hurt by the lack of press screenings for the Internet sites (or course, we know why), and it seemed to me that it’s hype died way down near its release compared to the bloody frenzy that followed the red band trailer. Also, the Christmas release date wasn’t smart in hindsight, as way too many flicks were fighting it out and it hampered the much needed event-feeling that a Friday opening connotes. No, I haven’t seen it, but, yes, I know it probably sucks. And suckage is a big factor, but wasn’t with AVP, so hey hey hey and a whoa whoa whoa.
January 6th, 2008 at 11:47 am
According to Variety “The Golden Compass” is making in excess of 200 million overseas, so while it did poorly domestically it is doing well in the foreign market, which will give New Line something to ponder when they decide later this month whether to greenlight the sequels.
I haven’t read the books yet but I can see why the film didn’t do well domestically. The fact the souls are disemboded animals called “daemons”, pronounced same as “demon”, would have discouraged American parents from bringing their kids even without the complaints of the Catholic League. Also, it is far different from other kid’s fare. Better the cuddly chipmunks than armor-wearing polar bears.