March 15, 2004

Beware The Ides of March….

A year ago, we were in the heat of the rage over the Robert Wise letter. Today, everyone seems to have been lulled to sleep by The Mel.

I, as you know, am desperate for something worth writing about. I really do need to tell you about the great-looking Blade 3 and Shirley Henderson and Super Size Me and some really cool documentaries that will soon be on HBO, a few months after their Oscar nominations. Yet, I just can’t seem to get focused on these issues.

Looking over the box office numbers, in light of the overwhelming wave of The Passion, things looked kind of similar to last year… at first glance. The Passion is not only its own anomaly, but it doesn’t seem to have had much effect on the rest of the box office. 2004 comedies 50 First Dates and Starsky & Hutch will end up less than 10% behind 2003 comedies Bringing Down The House ($133m) and How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days ($106 million). The next four films on the box office list look to be off just slightly more, the difference being more than explained by comparing last year’s drama Daredevil ($103m) with this year’s Miracle (should top out around $65m).

But there is another statistic that is more than a little startling… so much so, that I found myself checking and rechecking it. Last year, by this time - weekend 11 of the year - studios had done wide releases on five films that would go on to earn less than $20 million. This year to date, there have been a dozen such films. That is more than double the number of bombs from this year to last. And this is just the first quarter. (The numbers actually got worse when I realized that The Guru never got on to more than 98 screens, thus self-disqualifying, even if Universal ate it on that one.)

The early losers of 2003 were: Dark Blue, Deliver Us from Eva, Gods & Generals, A Guy Thing and Willard.

Five films from five different distributors. Two serious movies meant for adults. Two comedies. One genre film. No sequels.

This year, the losers so far are: Against The Ropes, The Big Bounce, Catch That Kid, Chasing Liberty, Club Dredd, Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights, Eurotrip, My Baby’s Daddy, The Perfect Score, Teacher’s Pet, Welcome to Mooseport and Win A Date With Tad Hamilton!

DreamWorks, Fox, Paramount and Warner Bros. all took two hits apiece. You could add Club Dredd to Fox’s ticket and you certainly could add Twisted - which was more expensive than any of these dozen losers and will have a hard time getting to $30 million - to Paramount’s tally. (Interestingly enough, if the criteria for loser status was expanded to $30 million, only two films would join last year’s five - Biker Boyz and The Life of David Gale - and the same as this year with Twisted and Torque.)

Eight of the dozen were comedies of some kind. Two films specifically targeted young kids. There isn’t a single title that could be considered aimed at adults or as ambitiously mature as Dark Blue or Gods & Generals.

Three of last year’s five misses were titles that their studios had been shifting around the schedule repeatedly. And perhaps the scariest element of all of this analysis is that only three or four of this year’s dozen misses were such “dumpers.”

There were 22 wide releases by this time last year. There have been just four more, 26, this year. So last year, there was a 23% dud rate in the first 11 weeks of the year. This year, we’re looking at an astounding 46% dud rate. And, note again for the record, only two of this year’s duds opened against any week of The Passion of The Christ.

And you wonder why things seem so boring out there….

Of this year’s dirty dozen, maybe three will find life in home entertainment. But being bad, as we all know, does not require box office failure. The thing that really strikes me about the films is that with the exception of Welcome To Mooseport and maybe Club Dredd, I didn’t really know much of what any of them were by way of the advertising. And I’m paying attention.

There is another obvious element. The only film to have a star that has ever been considered an “opener” is Against The Ropes with Meg Ryan. Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman are great… but not openers. Owen Wilson has never proved himself away from being half of a team. Eddie Griffin and Anthony Anderson have made a lot of movies – a lot – and really need to be sold hard to be of much box office value.

Of course, last year’s early hits were led by stars who didn’t have great histories of opening – Queen Latifah, Steve Martin, Kate Hudson, Matthew McConaughey, Ben Affleck, Jerry O’Connell and Anthony Anderson. Ironically, one of this year's hits, Miracle, is headed by one of last year’s losers Dark Blue's Kurt Russell.

If there is a single astounding run this year, it is Ben Stiller, co-starring in both the third and fourth biggest hits of the year so far. Also, Johnny Depp’s ability to open Secret Window so well is an unsurprising surprise.

There is no real answer to what has happened this year so far. But mark the map of 2004. In all of 2003, there were 20 releases on more than 1000 screens that failed to gross $20 million. We’re already at 12 for 2004. Mark it.

READER OF THE DAY: PB, NO J wrote: “Mel Gibson's other "Passion" movie

One of the most talked about films of recent years, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Curly," depicts Jerome "Curly" Howard's final 12 hours on earth and, by Gibson's own admission, includes several hours' worth of extremely graphic and violent images of Curly being repeatedly slapped, poked in the eye, conked on the head, and other forms of torture at the hands of fellow Stooges, Moe and Larry.

Industry insiders have predicted an opening week take of up to 30 million dollars. Those figures are all the more extraordinary given that just one year ago Gibson was struggling to find a distributor for a film that boasts no big-name stars and dialogue lifted entirely from 1930s Columbia two-reelers. And, in what appears to be an omen, the lead actor was struck by a pie during filming.

Controversy has focused on charges, mostly levelled by Shemp fan clubs and strongly denied by Gibson, that the movie somehow blames Shemp for Curly's death and will fuel anti-Shemp sentiment.

Those accusations have to an extent been buttressed by unguarded comments from Gibson's father, Hutton Gibson, claiming that the success of Shemp's career as a character actor independent of the Three Stooges is greatly exaggerated and that there is a conspiracy aimed at proving that Shemp was really a more talented, funnier Stooge than the others.

Gibson and his father are both Traditionalists, who have never accepted the various reforms which, among other things, led to Shemp, Joe Besser and "Curly" Joe DeRita being named Stooges.

Gibson has staunchly defended himself and the film against the charges, insisting that he had never intended to trigger a "blame game" over responsibility for Curly's death. "Curly was beaten for our enjoyment," Gibson said. "He was wounded for our laughter and by laughing at his wounds we are comforted and healed. That's the point of the film. It's not about pointing fingers -- except, of course, to poke out Curly's eyes." Gibson then added, "Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. Woo woo woo woo! Why, soytenly!" and barked like a dog before slapping himself in the face several times.

Some pro-Shemp groups, notably the influential Amalgamated Morons League ("We're not just morons -- we're organized!"), have argued that while Gibson may not be anti-Shemp, his film is capable of arousing hatred against Shemp and other later, lesser Stooges.”

E ME: Wiseguy, eh?