The first two films in the series finished up with $40 million and $51 million domestically, which are hardly the kind of impressive numbers one would expect of a franchise. But they've been more popular overseas, with each earning over $100 million worldwide. And thanks to the absence of A-list stars, the budgets came in at $33 million and $45 million, making them profitable little programmers for Screen Gems.

As it happens, your humble narrator subjected himself to the first two entries, and found them to be exactly that: little programmers. Not terribly offensive, but not good either, and instantly forgotten. The first Resident Evil at least had some engrossing camera work and visuals, plus some creative violence (I was particularly fond of the criss-crossing laser beams, although they were strongly reminiscent of the lower-budget but creatively superior Canadian film, Cube). Writer, director, and critical whipping boy Paul W.S. Anderson (not to be confused with critical darling Paul Thomas Anderson) stepped down as director for Apocalypse, but still handled scripting duties (as he did on Extincition), thus costing the sequel the visual panache and leaving little else to recommend it.

So why in pluperfect hell did Extinction make more than either predecessor? Why does everything about this franchise remind me of the equally unimpressive Underworld series? And, on a slightly broader note, has there ever been a good movie made from a videogame? The good people over at BoxOfficeMojo.com have compiled a list of movies adapted from video games, and they include such treasures as: Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Doom, and Super Mario Bros (poor Bob Hoskins...). In fact, the only movie on the entire list that I have any affinity for is Roger Avery and Christophe Gans' Silent Hill, which was still a disappointment but kind of an interesting one, as well as providing the great Sean Bean with one of his few non-bad guy roles.

So, seriously, anybody out there who can justify Wing Commander or any other video game adaptation, have at it.

Now that that little tirade is out of the way, what can I say about the opening for Good Luck, Chuck? Well, very, very little. Stars Dane Cook and Jessica Alba could be classified as rising stars, and Chuck's $14 million opening and $5.3k average are so middle of the road, so totally bland, that they will neither help nor hurt the young actors' careers. The critical beating the film took won't endear their next project to critics, but in reality, that's neither here nor there. And while I understand Jessica Alba's appeal (as anyone who saw Sin City understands...), I have yet to see anything from Dane Cook, including his standup, that makes me want him to succeed. So this little comedy will flit away into the ether, neither a success nor a failure. Just another movie that no one will be talking about in a month.

It also appears that no one will be discussing The Brave One around the water cooler this week. It dropped 45% to $7.4 million and a $25 million total in it's second week, and will probably finish with about $35 million, thus ending Jodie Forster's run as the most financially viable female heroine. That said, if you were producing a Flightplan-ish thriller requiring a female lead, what actress today would you trust to secure a decent opening? I can't think of one.

3:10 to Yuma seems intent on spiting me. It continues to show very good legs, dropping 29% to $6.3 million and a $37 million total. I still insist that it will not find any black ink stateside, but if the cast can attract any business overseas, Lionsgate may not find the film a total wash. Expanding into 1,404 theatres and landing in fifth place was Eastern Promises with $5.7 million for the weekend and a $6.5 million total. Those numbers don't look promising (get it?), but reviews are terrific, and director David Cronenberg has a loyal following who no doubt turned out this weekend, leading to good word of mouth and good legs as the film continues to expand. It should wind up in the neighborhood of A History of Violence's $30 million domestic haul.

Posted in Industry , Moviegasm , Newsgasm by Sutter Cane at 5:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)
Last Comment: sutterkane on Sep 25, 2007 10:22 AM.