I don’t do Sunday box office round-ups anymore, mostly because our readers don’t seem to care too much, and it gets a little tedious after a while always talking about business and money and how much this movie made and what position they are at the box office, etc, etc.
But this week’s estimated box office is interesting, not because the unexpected film took first place (that would be the cat adventurer CG movie “Puss in Boots” if you were wondering — $34 million in leche and golden eggs on its way to #1), but because a couple of films I had expected to do reasonably well … well, didn’t.
Andrew Niccol’s heavily promoted “In Time”, for instance, opened in 3rd place, losing the second spot to last week’s winner “Paranormal Activity 3”. It earned only $12 million from an estimated $40 million dollar production budget. Given the heavy promotion, unless the film starts picking up in its second week, it’s probably going to end up being a money loser for 20th Century Fox.
But hey, at least Niccol’s film did better than the Johnny Depp fronted “The Rum Diary”, which opened in fifth place with a lousy $5 million. It couldn’t even unseat last week’s #3 film “Footloose”, which fell to fourth place in its third week. Yes, a movie in its third week is still doing better than a movie starring Johnny Depp, the man with a half dozen billion dollar movies under his belt. That last part, more than anything, might explain why “The Rum Diary” has a ridiculous $50 million dollar production budget. Whoever greenlit this boozefest for that kind of money must have been tying one (or a dozen) over himself at the time.
The disappointing first week for “In Time” though is what really intrigues me. Does this mean there isn’t an audience for clever sci-fi premises? “Real Steel” did well enough when it opened four weeks ago, but let’s face it, it wasn’t really all that clever. “In Time” is more like another poor box office performer, Matt Damon’s “The Adjustment Bureau”. Both films have a very novel and high-concept plot, with “In Time” positing a future where time is, literally, money. But it’s also fronted by unproven actors Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried. And let’s face it, Amanda Seyfried hasn’t opened very much in her career except those big lovely eyes of hers. Or maybe the world just isn’t ready to accept “the kid from N’sync” as an action hero. Either way, “In Time” looks like it’s going to take a beating. I wonder if it’ll fall out of the Top 10 completely by next week?
Via : Yahoo