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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

How could anyone like a movie where the SAFETY BUNKER has a BACK DOOR closed with a simple chain? Simply awful.

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.