Box Office Zoology: The Bunny Still Reigns
Monday, April 11, 2011 at 10:26AM Bunnies continued to be the favored animal at the weekend box office as Hop overperformed again. The cuddly bears of Arthur and the gaping wolf maw of Hanna split ticket buyers enough that Soul Surfer's shark was able to bite off not just a pretty girl's arm but a surprising chunk of the weekend box office. It was...wait for it... a zoo out there. hahahahhhaa unghhh. I'm here all week. Re: Soul Surfer, I understand that inspirational sports movies are a familiar comfort-food movie genre and I can live with that. But please don't let this mean Helen Hunt is back in the game. I beg you universe, I beg you!
Bears, and Wolves and Sharks. Oh my
The Box Office (Actuals)
01 HOP $21.2 (cumulative $67.7)
02 HANNA new $12.3
03 ARTHUR new $12.2 [my review]
04 SOUL SURFER new $10.6
05 INSIDIOUS $9.3 (cumulative $26.7)
06 YOUR HIGHNESS new $9.3
07 SOURCE CODE $8.6 (cumulative $28.2)
08 LIMITLESS $5.4 (cumulative $64.1)
09 DIARY OF A WIMPY KID $4.7 (cumulative $45.3)
10 THE LINCOLN LAWYER $4.2 (cumulative $46.1)
What does all this mean? That's for you to decide. When I try to understand the nation's moviegoers my eyes often bleed and blood attracts carnivorous animals. Why are people so eager to see an animated bunny rock star with the voice of Russell Brand? Why am I so obsessed with hating that (unseen) movie?
What did you see over the weekend, in theater or at home? (I keep a screening log over in the "reviews" section if you're curious about me.)
Helen Hunt, box office, sports, zoology
Reader Comments (24)
I saw Hanna, and I was really surprised at how good it was. I really really liked it.
This is the dead season for movies, it seems. Sad. Me and my boyfriend are dying to go to the movies and... we are uninspired. Well, maybe this is our opportunity to plow through the backlogged netflix queue. I've been wanting to see "Carlos" for quite a while now.
Nathaniel, i am totally with you on preemptively hating 'Hop'. it just looks soooo silly.
RE: Timothy
Don't want to harp on, but I really think you should give Hanna a chance. It's trailer is a bit weird, but it's a lot of fun, and you can tell it was made by a cinephile in the style and films it is referencing.
Saw Hanna. It was pretty damn good! Well-shot, well-edited and strong performances all around.
I caught In Old Chicago and the original Arthur on Netflix. I liked Arthur, though I feel the actors and director put way more into building the relationships between characters than the writer did, and I wish I had a better grasp of who Jill Eikenberry's character was. I LOVED In Old Chicago, and was awestruck by the depiction of the Great Chicago Fire. Good Lord, that sequence gave me goosebumps. Beautifully done, I thought.
Walter -- that's probably true about Arthur. the relationship chemistry is definitely lesser-than in the remake. (putting In Old Chicago on my queue)
I had a great video-watching weekend. I watched the Sondheim Birthday Concert on Netflix Instant Watch Friday evening. It was absolutely astounding; all the best Sondheim singers on one stage.
I caught The Hours for the first time ever on Saturday. It's obviously well-made, but I couldn't decide whether I thought all the motifs connecting the narratives-- sleeping in and flowers and eggs and whatnot-- were cool or just gimmicky and obvious. And how is it never mentioned that Meryl's girlfriend has the same name as Clarissa Dalloway's love interest in the novel? I also preferred Julianne to both Meryl and Nicole, which was quite surprising.
Then I saw Jane Eyre yesterday. Costumes were great (Sally Hawkins' dress while sending Jane away was astounding), the direction and horror feel given to it were awesome, but I thought that a little something in the love interest story arc was missing. I listened to the podcast and loved the story of the women who were surprised by the plot. I had a viewer next to me who was absolutely outraged when Jane was beaten in one of the opening scenes.
Russell Brand vs. Russell Brand! Yay America! This is why I don't give a damn about box office until Oscar season.
Finally saw The Town and Love and Other Drugs...The Town was great, Love and Other Drugs was okay...I didn't believe their sexual chemistry and I didn't believe Anne's orgasms!
I also caught the original Arthur on Netflix this weekend and I fell in love with Dudley's performance...it had everything...it was charming, soulful, sad, hilarious, even sexy...it was brilliant and I thought his chemistry with Liza was fantastic...the stable scene and the monologue to the church wedding party were highlights...his Oscar nom was well deserved...he lost to sentimental favorite Henry Fonda for On Golden Pond and was nominated with Burt Lancaster (who swept the critic's prizes for Atlantic City)...I haven't seen those peformances yet...but for those who have seen all three, who was most deserving...was Dudley robbed?
1. Burt Lancsater was the most robbed of the nominees. Steve Martin should've been nominated. I can't hate Henry Fonda's oscar because AMPAS robbed him so many times over the years, but it's a Scent-of-a-Woman oscar over a more deserving candidate.
2. Hop is a family film, right? Presumably, that's a big part of why it's doing so well.
I saw Hanna on Friday and hated it. For a film with that much talent, beautiful visuals, and banging original score, there was not enough plot for anyone to work with. You know all but one nuance of the entire story from watching the trailers to the film.
However, I saw Insidious this morning and just about died of joy. It takes a special kind of filmmaker to throw every haunted house cliche at the screen and turn it into a brand new experience. It's like wandering through an art exhibit detailing the best in jump scares and Exorcist-styled cross-cuts in the shadows for an hour before you're hit with genuinely novel scares and plot points. It's as bizarre, derivative, and innovative as James Wan and Leigh Whannel's Dead Silence and Saw. They just love subverting cliches to shock an audience.
SoSueMe - from 1981, i'd go with Lancaster too i think. if not Warren Beatty in REDS. i thought Dudley Moore's performance was very good too except i foudn him more irritating than funny -- which still worked for the narrative as he's always sloshed. But i believed him as a drunk big time.
Nat, I'll second your vote for Burt Lancaster in Atlantic City - the sort of subtle performance that probably wouldn't get nominated today - although I confess I've not seen On Golden Pond.
You should watch On Golden Pond sometime. It has great performances by Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn :)
Thanks for the responses...I'm adding Reds, On Golden Pond, and Atlantic City to my queue.
i'm happy that YOUR HIGHNESS bombs
I saw Win Win Friday and Cold Weather on Saturday. Both mixed bags - I liked Win Win but the ending felt like a cop out. Real nice work from the entire cast, and McCarthy, as advertised, handles the shifts in tone like a pro, but it just sort of ends, lets various characters off the hook, and, well... Makes the whole thing seem like a bit of a wank in retrospect. Cold Weather, meanwhile, is an intolerable mumblecore-ish slog for the first thirty minutes, a delightfully off kilter mystery for the second thirty minutes, and an uneasy combination of the two for the remainder of the film. On the plus side, the photography in CW is beautiful.
Nathaniel, I'm waiting for you to see and comment on "Hanna". I saw it and think it's OK but I'm curious to know what you>/i>'ll think.
Only saw one film this weekend and the missus and I join the minority opinion that "Hanna" was a disappointment. Wooden performances, plot holes you could drive a barge through, and almost no thrills, which is a problem for a movie in the spy thriller genre. And the Chemical Brothers score was an irritating distraction. With this team, I certainly expected better.
I saw "Hillary and Jackie" over the weekend. Has anyone else seen it?
I saw Hanna this past weekend and I loved it. Yes, I thought there were some major gapholes in the screenplays, but by the end of the film I appreciated the ambiguity and divisiveness and really loved the visual flair of the movie and ESPECIALLY that bangin' score by the Chemical Brothers...I didn't think it distracted at all...it was perfectly innovative for this kind of unusual chase thriller.
And can I just say that Cate Blanchett was just so memorably and deliciously evil...my friend and I honest-to-god talked about her performance for at least an hour after it ended...she's such a gifted actress...I've missed her on the screen! In my opinion, it's her best role since I'm Not There.
Funny enough, the amazing cinematography and absolutely fantastic Chemical Brothers score in Hanna were enough to keep me entertained all the way through. The film was tongue in cheek so I didn't mind it too much. Blanchett was fun, Bana was good but Jessica Barden, who plays Olivia Williams' daughter in the film, stole the show. Her speedy delivery was priceless.
Question, though, why wasn't this movie directed by Tom Tykwer? And why wasn't Source Code directed by Michel Gondry? THINK ABOUT IT.
sethGassfan - I recently saw it as well and was surprised to find out it's a glossy tv movie in disguise. Rachel Griffiths is fantastic (as always) but her role borders heavily on co-lead so that Supporting nod doesn't really go down well. I wanted to love Emily Watson more than I did but the movie ultimately fails her in the end. And I love me some Jacqueline Du Pre so I was pissed. Liv Ullmann would've been perfect casting, had the circumstances been ideal.
Saw Hanna and loved it. Blanchett's performance was a bit iffy and the screenplay is a bit muddled/vague, but with everything else working and excelling including Ronan, cinematography, and breathtaking score... it was a great thrill ride of a film.