Bigger isn't always better. Why Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters may represent the future of big-scale studio movies.

I wrote a few weeks ago about how something released this year or perhaps last year might be a signal for the future of the would-be blockbuster, a film whose respective success would spawn a decade or so of like-minded would-be tentpoles. What if I were to tell you that a possible template for future would-be blockbusters had already arrived this very year?  What if I were to tell you that the future of big-scale filmmaking may be none-other than Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters?  Laugh if you wish, but let's take a look at what the film represents.

Weekend Box Office (02/05/12): Chronicle and The Woman In Black both debut to around $20 million while Big Miracle tanks.

As I wrote yesterday (HERE), I don't care which of the two big releases end up at number one for this weekend.  Chronicle and The Woman In Black are both low-budget over/under $15 million releases that are somewhat abnormal in terms of what's considered a mainstream release, both were exceedingly well-marketed (as opposed to 'saturation marketing'), and both are unqualified hits after their first three days.  But since I have to choose which film to discuss first, I will pick Chronicle (review), which A) I've seen and B) is the unofficial #1 film this weekend with $22 million (as opposed to The Woman In Black, which made 'just' $21 million).  Chronicle announces the arrival of director Josh Trank (and writer Max Landis, son of John).  The quite compelling and thoughtful character study, which is plays with the genre trappings of as super-hero origin story through the 'found footage' format, cost just $12 million and drew a large chunk of young audiences of both genders (it played 45% female).  I have no idea what the legs will be like on this downbeat morality play (it received a B from Cinemascore), but I'd argue its artistic and box office success pretty much kills Warner Bros's planned live-action Akira remake and hurts Sony's The Amazing Spider-Man (which is advertising itself as a more low-key and emotionally-gritty superhero origin story... whoops).  Come what may, a very good and creative little movie just opened very well, and that's a win for everyone.

Weekend Box Office (01/29/11): The Grey tops, while One For the Money and Man On a Ledge somewhat stumble.

In a somewhat refreshing turn of events, this weekend had three wide releases, all budgeted below $45 million and all technically geared towards adults.  And for the fourth straight weekend this month, an R-rated new release topped the box office yet again.  The top film of the weekend was Joe Carnahan's wilderness survival drama, The Grey.  The Liam Neeson vehicle, concerning plane crash survivors struggling to fend off death by various forms of nature (including wolves), opened with a solid $20 million.  Yes, that's slightly below the $21 million debut of Unknown and the $24 million debut of Taken around this time in 2011 and 2009, but those films were PG-13 while The Grey was rated R.  The picture scored a B- from Cinemascore, which is not surprising.  On one hand, it's a good movie, a thoughtful and introspective mediation on several men coming to terms with their forthcoming demise.  On the other hand, the film was sold as an action picture featuring Liam Neeson fighting wolves with his bare hands.  Without going into spoilers, that's not entirely accurate.  Still the film obviously has fans, as the picture scored a relatively rare 3x weekend multiplier.  Anyway, the film cost Open Road Films just $35 million, so this should be a solid moneymaker for the mini distributor even if the somewhat false advertising causes it to drop hard next weekend.

Weekend Box Office (01/22/11): Underworld: Awakenings and Red Tails score. while Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close and Haywire falter slightly.

 Like clockwork, the fourth entry in the ongoing Underworld franchise debuted in the third weekend of January to take the top spot at the box office with a $20 million+ debut.  While the original opened in September of 2003, the rest of the films have all used the mid-January berth every three years.  As so it is that Underworld: Awakenings (trailer) debuted with $25.4 million this weekend.  In pure numbers, that's the second biggest debut of the series, behind the $30 million opening of Underworld: Evolution back in 2006.  But in terms of inflation/tickets sold/etc, it's actually a bit under the $22 million debut ($28 million adjusted for inflation) of the original Underworld.  Considering the last entry, Rise of the Lycans, was a stripped-down prequel lacking franchise star Kate Beckinsale, it's arguably more fair to compare this fourth entry to the first two films in the series.  As such, it's slightly lacking. The budget was $70 million (way up from parts 1 and 3, which cost just #22 million and $35 million respectively, and a bit up from the second film's $50 million budget) and the film had a theoretical 3D price-bump, yet the results weren't even up to the series's peak.  Still, Sony is playing a different game this time around...

Underworld: Awakening gets a trailer. Won't be seeing this one either...

After a detour into 'new director' and 'new star' prequel land, it appears that the Underworld series is returning to its.. uh... roots?  Anyway, Kate Beckensale and director Len Wiseman are back, for those of you who care about such things.  I will say that I saw this trailer before Fright Night and the 3D work was pretty solid, and the images were suitably brightened up so you could actually see what was going on (unlike Fright Night, which was like watching a VHS copy-of-a-copy taped off of an antenna-feed UHF airing).  The film also looks like it has been shot with the brightest blue filter ever created for cinema.  I had not seen any of the Underworld films until just a couple months ago.  How bad is the first Underworld?  Well, not only is it an insanely long 134 minutes, it was so dull and uninspired that I have thus far resisted my OCD-completest urge to rent the rest of the franchise.  It's hard, strolling through Blockbuster with my mail-order DVD/Blu Ray rental... with the other two films in the franchise just sitting there on the shelf.  I have thus far resisted, and hopefully I can stay strong.  If you've seen any of the sequels, are they worse than the original?  Anyway, this one comes out January 20th, 2012.  As always, we'll see.  Well, you're see.  I certainly will not see.

Scott Mendelson