Maybe I'm just getting lazy, but as I sit down to write this, I find I'm drawing a blank on clever titles, so feel free to improve on this one in the comments section.
Needless to say, director James (Walk the Line) Mangold's 3:10 to Yuma captured the box office crown this weekend with $14 million from 2,652 theatres for a $5k average. Not bad, but even with a fairly restrained $55 million budget (period pieces tend to be more expensive, especially with stars like Russell Crowe and Christian Bale), it's going to be hard pressed to get too far into the black, especially since Westerns don't play especially well overseas
Neither is it the triumphant return of the genre to box office glory. Many thought that Westerns were coming back into style, with a number of them on studios' development and production slates, but after this opening, I don't think they'll be scrambling to get them into theatres the way they were with sword-and-sandle flicks after Gladiator or 300. There's still the oft delayed The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, which starts a platform release in two weeks. That's been getting some very enthusiastic reviews out of the festivals, but even with Brad Pitt headlining, it's looked at as more of an awards contender than a box office powerhouse (Roger Deakins cinematography in particular is being talked up, especially after the equally enthusiastic reception for the Coen Brothers' No Country for Old Men, which he also shot).
So the Western isn't dead, but it isn't back, either. I'm hoping that Kevin Costner will come along with something to really restore it to prominence, but after Mr. Brooks, that sure feels like a long shot.
I'll run through the rest of the numbers, but first I want to skip down to the sixth place opening of Shoot 'Em Up, which brought in just $5.4 million from 2,108 screens for a disappointing $2.5k average. I thought this one had a decent marketing push, cool trailers... it looked like it might do Transporter type numbers. Obviously, that was not the case (and I was clearly very wrong in predicting it would fight 3:10 for the top spot last week), but with all those things going for it, not to mention very little competition, I'm afraid there's really only one conclusion to be drawn here, and it pains me to say it: Clive Owen is not a movie star.
Don't get me wrong. He's a terrific actor, and I enjoyed him immensely in Children of Men, Sin City, and Closer. He's a good looking guy, a versatile actor, and directors clearly like him. In the eleven movies since he popped up on Hollywood's radar in Croupier, he managed to work with Robert Altman, Spike Lee, Mike Nichols, and Alfonso Cuaron, which is pretty distinguished company. But he's also proven time and time again that he cannot open a movie, no matter commercially appealing the material seems to be, or how enthusiastically the movies are received by critics. His biggest box office successes have always come as a second fiddle to bigger A-list actors (opposite Denzel Washington and Jodie Foster in Inside Man, which did $88 million, and one of a slew of stars in Sin City, $74 million). But even with that kind of exposure, not mention a richly deserved Oscar nomination for Closer, if I were a studio head, I'd still be hard pressed to have him headline a $100 million feature.
Of course, for whatever reason, Hollywood is much more forgiving to its leading men than its leading ladies. Owen has at least one more shot at carrying a film to box office success with Tom (Run, Lola, Run) Tykwer's thriller The International, which is scheduled for release this time next year. But after that, he may find himself recruited for supporting roles and the occasional lead in an indie, and that's a damn shame. If you haven't done it yet, go rent Children of Men; you'll thank me, and believe it or not, those studio execs look at video revenue, too.
Comments (1)
Ok - how's this for a title?
Yuma't want to check out this movie
1 of 1 | Posted by TinkerbellAPixie | Posted on September 15, 2007 5:49 PM