Putting Adam Driver on screen with some dinosaurs seems like a pretty entertaining time.
What could possibly go wrong?
Well, everything, it seems.
There were a lot of factors working against Sony's newest sci-fi flick, "65."
Ever since "Jurassic Park" hit theaters nearly 30 years ago, Universal Pictures has all but
owned a monopoly on dinosaur blockbusters with that franchise.
But Universal can't trademark dinosaurs as a concept.
So why haven't more people made dino-filled movies?
"A Quiet Place" writers Scott Beck and Bryan Woods swooped in to try to add Sony to the
mix in that regard with their latest film "65," a sci-fi flick starring Adam Driver
and, yes, a ton of dinosaurs.
Unfortunately, the film arrived with a relative thud at the box office the weekend of March
10, 2023, despite a very audience-friendly premise and an A-list star at its center.
As of now, it's safe to say that "65" is a box office flop.
*tantrum*
So, what happened?
"Scream VI" topped the box office over the weekend with $44.5 million, while "Creed III"
continued its very strong run, adding another $27.1 million to its ever-growing total.
Sadly, that didn't leave much room for "65," which came in a distant third place with just
$12.3 million.
It seemed audiences would rather spend time with Ghostface or step back into the ring
with Adonis Creed than battle some dinosaurs with the guy who played Kylo Ren.
The result was not what the studio was hoping for when they were putting together a movie
from the guys behind "A Quiet Place" produced by Sam Raimi and starring Adam Driver.
The only good news here is that the budget is said to be in the $45 million range, far
less than the original $90 million budget that was circulating online several weeks
back.
Even so, with only $8.5 million from several international markets, the film debuted with
just $20.8 million worldwide.
In its favor, it will be rolling out in more territories throughout March and April, with
a somewhat rare release in China set for March 31.
Given that "Godzilla vs. Kong" made $188 million in China and "Jurassic World Dominion" made
$157 million there, that does bode well.
But is it going to be enough to get this movie to the $150 million or so it probably needs
to break even through ticket sales?
Currently, the math is not looking great.
"No!"
Part of what got in the way, undoubtedly, was the critical and early-audience response
to Beck and Woods' latest directorial effort.
"65" currently holds a pretty rough 38% approval rating from critics on Rotten Tomatoes.
The audience score is better at 63%, but those numbers aren't going to get great word-of-mouth
going.
Even more damning, perhaps, is the lousy C+ Cinemascore.
This all suggests that the movie is not going to hold well in the weeks that follow, making
its financial prospects even more dire.
Timing also wasn't on Sony's side here.
March is a crowded movie month, it's only going to get worse this upcoming weekend as
"Shazam!
Fury of the Gods" is arriving in theaters, along with Focus Features' thriller "Inside."
While "Shazam!"
figures to take the bulk of the attention, more competition is going to complicate matters
greatly for "65."
And let's not forget that "John Wick: Chapter 4" is on the horizon as well.
For a movie that was probably going to play best for horror and genre crowds, it's downright
wild that Sony released this movie directly against "Scream VI," all while a huge superhero
movie was just around the corner.
That's a hell of a sandwich for any movie to contend with, particularly one that is
relying on a sizable crowd to justify its expense.
Did Sony look at the early response and decide to just dump this one and cut its losses?
"Then you don't have to look at it anymore!"
Perhaps, though, it seems like the execs there would at least want to consider a less crowded
release window elsewhere on the 2023 calendar.
August seems like it would have been far more fertile.
Whatever the case, this is going to go down as a sure disappointment for those who want
to see more high-concept original cinema.
In the end, Sony will probably be fine, as the studio has a lucrative deal in place with
Netflix that will allow it to further capitalize on "65" after it finishes its theatrical run.
So it probably won't lose money in the long run.
But in a world where this seemed like a potential dark horse moneymaker, it's a shame it played
out this way.