Film Clips: Lessons Learned from Madea
Filed under: Action, Comedy, Drama, Independent, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Thrillers, Family Films, Angelina Jolie, Movie Marketing, Politics, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Cinematical Indie
A couple weeks ago I pondered the question: does the opinion of a bunch of white film critics matter when it comes to a film like Madea's Family Reunion? Three weeks of box office later, the numbers tell me the answer is a resounding, "Hell, no!" To date, Madea has raked in an impressive $60 mill at the box office (although this week there was a serious drop off - the film only made $5 million in the last week), off an estimated budget of $6 million. Pretty darn impressive take for a film that has a less-than-impressive 30% over at Rotten Tomatoes. The film's success pretty much guarantees we'll be seeing a lot more Madea, and Tyler Perry, no doubt, is chuckling all the way to the bank. Big Momma's House and Big Momma's House 2, which also targeted primarily African-American audiences, also ripped up the box office in spite of being panned by critics. The original Big Momma, with an RT score of 30%, took in $117.5 million off a $30 million budget. Big Momma 2, with a dismal 6% over at RT, still managed to make a $27 million profit ($67 million on a $40 million budget).
If the success of Madea and the Big Momma films are flukes, it would be one thing, but they aren't. Year after year critics and movie fans alike bitch and moan about how much crap comes out of Hollywood, and year after year the critics try their darndest to point audiences to what they consider to be good, even great films, only to watch, befuddled, as audiences flock to the dreck with relentless tenacity. Hollywood, meanwhile, continues to churn out heaps of mediocre (or worse) films, because all too often, mediocrity is what brings in the bank, and it takes lots of cash to support Hollywood in the opulent lifestyle to which it's become accustomed.
Another case in point: "family films". This category is a major cash cow for Hollywood. I don't know if it's because studios (and parents) think kids are stupid and therefore believe they will enjoy anything that's on a big screen in front of them, so long as they have a bucket of popcorn and a mega-sized orange drink, or if parents are so desperate to find something to do with their kids that they'll torture themselves by sitting through some truly retch-worthy films, but there are a lot of parents taking a lot of kids to a lot of crappy movies. For instance, Scooby-Doo. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 27%, but it raked in $153.2 million. Jinkies! How about Garfield: The Movie? Rotten Tomatoes critics slapped that one with a 13% (and I suspect those 13% were either smoking something or wrote their reviews in their sleep) but parents shelled out $75 million to take their kidlets to see the annoyingly mouthy kitty in action. Then there was Daddy Day Care. Only 29% of the RT critics liked the Eddie Murphy vehicle, but parents paid for that one to the tune of $104 million. And let's not overlook that classic children's film, Baby Geniuses, which scored a big, fat goose egg with Rotten Tomatoes, yet still managed to make $27.2 million off a $13 million budget. Baby Geniuses. $27 million. I'll just let that sink in for a moment while all you dedicated indie filmmakers out there ponder how many years you'd have to work at your day job to make $27 million.
Meanwhile, Duma, a family film which has been almost universally lauded by critics (RT critics give it a 96% rating, with only two bad reviews - and one of those is from the Village Voice's Ben Kenigsberg, who also hated one of the best films I saw all year, Innocent Voices, so take that for what you will), has struggled mightily at the box office in those cities it's actually screened in. March of the Penguins seems to be the exception that proves the rule, with a 95% positive RT rating and a hefty $77.5 million at the box office, but if the success of the penguins was solely to do with what the critics said, Duma should be solid box office gold as well, and it's not. Penguins aside, though, the bottom line is that parents don't seem to listen to what critics have to say about family films. Maybe there aren't enough good family films for parents to chose from; maybe the kids are making the movie-going decisions and dragging their parents (and their parents' wallets) to the 'plex; maybe it's all the fault of those evil co-branded toy marketing deals with McD's and BK; or maybe it's just that parents assume critics aren't going to have anything positive to say about a kiddie flick anyhow, so they don't factor reviews into their decision from the get-go.
Action/sci-fi/superhero films also seem to be pretty much immune to the ire of the critics. Plenty of films from these genres bring home big paydays, even those loathed by critics. In this category we'll find films like Bad Boys II, which took home an astounding $138 million in spite of a measly 25% Rotten Tomatoes score. Unfortunately, the film cost a hefty $130 million to make (Will Smith and Martin Lawrence blowing lots of stuff up = big bucks), so the film's profit wasn't as big as it could have been, in spite of lots of folks who went to see it. Lara Croft: Tomb Raider fared a bit better, thanks largely to the scintillating presence of Angelina Jolie in revealing costumes. Tomb Raider scored a pathetic 17%, but raided the piggy banks of geeks and fanboys everywhere to the tune of $131 million on an $80 million budget.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, here are nine films with perfect 100s on RT: The Sweet Hereafter; The Winslow Boy; The Secret of Roan Inish; Henry V; Drugstore Cowboy; Red Rock West; Paris, Texas; Of Mice and Men; and A Bronx Tale. Now, consider - the box office take for these nine films combined is $54.7 million - less than Madea took in its first three weeks in theaters. Let's just ponder that for a moment. Is it any wonder Hollywood keeps churning out films that critics hate? Not so long as the movie-going public will shell out nearly 10 times the bank to see Madea over artsy flicks.
So what gives? Are critics so out of touch with mainstream America that their collective opinions just really don't matter to the average movie-goer? Do we need more diversity among film critics to give a broader view on movies that appeal to the masses? Do film critics tend to dismiss mainstream films while painting over the flaws of indie and foreign films? And most importantly - are there really that many people out there who think most of the films showing at their metroplex are the bee's knees? Or is it simply that we should hold mainstream films, or movies aimed at discrete markets, like most kiddie fare or Madea, to a different standard than arthouse films?
Exclusive: Title Track for 'The Road' Soundtrack
Movie Popcorn is Bad for You? Who Knew?_thumbnail.jpg)
'New Moon' Smashes 'Dark Knight's' Opening Day Record!
Black Friday Movie Deals: Best Buy
Sex and Nudity Don't Draw You to the Movies?
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-20-2006 @ 5:00PM
Doug Nelson said...
Seeking critiques requires intellectual curiosity, which is rare for those who enjoy anti-intellectual movies. These are the film equivalent to mashed potatoes and gravy. You can revamp film criticism all you want and the "comfort film" crowd still won't read it.
Reply
3-20-2006 @ 6:05PM
Watson said...
The second paragraph in this article is so spot-on, and, in particular, this sentence:
"Year after year critics and movie fans alike bitch and moan and how much crap comes out of Hollywood, and year after year the critics try their darndest to point audiences to what they consider to be good, even great films, only to watch, befuddled, as audiences flock to the dreck with relentless tenacity."
I watch the box office returns closely each week; I have a strange interest in that sort of thing. All too often I'm dismayed and disappointed with what I see.
Even more frustrating to me is when I hear of friends who went to some flaming piece of garbage over the weekend, and then complain about how bad it was. Didn't they bother to look into it at all? Then there's the people who can't seem to figure out why the movie's poster had so many positive quotes from reviewers on it. It has not yet hit them that material provided by the company that made the film is not entirely reliable.
Now, I enjoy variety when it comes to films. I’ll happily go to a good popcorn flick as well as a thinking, artistic film, but the box office results are just getting more and more depressing for me, because I know that if I were an executive watching these, It'd be clear what kind of films should be getting made.
The problem, though, is that most people just aren't interested in movies as much as I am. They don't research them ahead of time, or look up on IMDb to see what different people are doing. It's not high enough on their list of interests to warrant that kind of attention.
While it's somewhat depressing, I take solace in the fact that this, to my understanding, has been going on for quite awhile. Critics complained about audiences not listening a decade ago, and while there are indeed a lot of awful movies out there, there are still good films being made. I hope this will continue.
Oh, and keep up the good articles.
Reply
3-20-2006 @ 6:45PM
Morgan said...
I love it. I absolutely love watching movies meant for entertainment whoop it up on sanctimonious sermons from the most boring people on the planet.
The reason for the disconnect is very simple. Critics review movies for their job. People watch movies for entertainment. Big surprise, things like Madea and Big Momma do pretty well with audiences, rather than scores of ponderous "smart" movies about as entertaining as paying to listen to Benny Hinn.
Besides, where's the fun in seeing some serious artsy movie in the theater? So you can listen to some turtlenecked geek behind you harumphing and laughing when he thinks no one else will to prove he understands the movie better than you? Yeah, I'll watch the DVD by myself, thanks.
What's especially fun is just watching the box office decline and listening to people wonder how everyone's so stupid and unsophisticated. It's a lot like lefty politics, with critics and artists being cluelessly arrogant and thinking people are just too dumb to make decisions for themselves, especially when those decisions are different from their own.
And then you read that Susan Sarandon will be playing Cindy Sheehan. Yeah, that'll turn it around.
Reply
3-20-2006 @ 7:50PM
Watson said...
Morgan, your point is good, but it doesn't address one issue: If it's only critics who disaprove of these films, why does everybody seem to feel like less good movies are being made?
I have no interest in "ponderous 'smart' movies." I like to be entertained as much as anyone else, and films CAN be both entertaining and well-made. That's what I look for.
You also have to bear in mind that not all critics fit into the stereotype of being snooty, sophisticated, turtle-neck wearing, out-of-touch people. There are those kinds, yes, but there are many who are not like that at all, and it's not fair the lump them all together.
Reply
3-20-2006 @ 9:00PM
Nick Lundgren said...
As far as kids movies go, simply remember that the kids are barraged with advertisements for crap like Daddy Day Care, Baby Geniuses and The Pink Panther, whereas only parents (or film concious older siblings like myself) are going to see ads for Duma and the like. Having three younger siblings, I can tell you that their opinion holds a lot of swaying power when it comes to going to see a movie as a family, Warner Independent seems to have understood this and marketed very heavily to children. Therein lies the difference. That's that as far as family films: in respect to those others, well i'm just as cunfounded as you :)
-Nick
Reply
3-20-2006 @ 9:04PM
Mia Riverton said...
As an independent producer preparing to release an award-winning, critically acclaimed film (RED DOORS http://www.reddoorsthemovie.com), I find the seeming lack of correlation between critical opinion and box office success to be very frustrating. With a miniscule marketing budget and a cast of relative unknowns, we are relying heavily on critical attention to bring audiences into theaters.
In the case of DUMA, a fantastic film from a legendary director (Carroll Ballard of THE BLACK STALLION), the producers basically had to self-distribute the film with almost no marketing budget. This is because Warner Bros decided not to support the film theatrically (despite massive support from critics and test audiences). The Matrix: Revolutions, on the other hand... Enough said.
Reply
3-20-2006 @ 11:08PM
Marco Rogers said...
I see a couple of problems.
It's not fair to talk about films that critics love as "artsy" and "intelligent" (read boring) and characterize the critical bombs as low-brow or only for entertainment value. I think we all know it's not that simple. But it's fair to admit the trend is disturbingly skewed.
Working from that standpoint I'm going to take a stand and say that it's deluded to think that genuine critical reviews reach a larger percentage of the movie-going population. They don't care. They can't name any critics except for Roger Ebert and they have no idea what he's up to. Most people make their movie choices based on trailers and posters. And to a lesser degree word of mouth. So with just tha realization I can safely say that critical reviews have little bearing on box office return these days. Sad but true.
The final issue is one that has already been mentioned. Most people don't want to see a well done, "intelligent" film. If they see one and they like it, it's usually by accident and they are surprised they liked it. Those movies will always be boring to the average movie-goer. Not because they are all not smart, but because they don't go to movies to have to think over-much. They don't want to sit in theater and puzzle over the meaning of things. They want just enough mystery to keep them tantalized, or more action, or high drama without all the subtle undertones. These movie-goers are people of all kinds. They don't all have some affliction that makes them this way. The only thing that connects them is that they don't want to sit in the same spot for two hours and ponder a movie. The just want to escape for a while. Let the movie carry them and their imagination. It's the same reason people don't vote. They can't be bothered. They feel they have better things to do with their time.
Finally I'd like to say that while I sympathize with our side on this debate, I can't really agree. If all movies were like the ones I liked, I'd be broke. I couldn't see them all which would bother me to no end. And more importantly, I wouldn't be able to contrast a great movie with a crap one to know how great it was. Genius is only such in the presence of lesser intellect.
Reply