Blind-Sided

If there was any doubt that “New Moon’s” record-shattering would end with its opening weekend, it must surely be eradicated now. Out of left field comes “The Blind Side,” an inspirational Sandra Bullock drama which opened last weekend, and yet has made a bid to claim this weekend’s crown. I’ve been saying for awhile that the entire “Twilight” series has a huge repeat viewer problem; that is to say, they don’t have any. It represents the ultimate in opening-weekend thinking: plant them in the seats on Friday night, who cares what happens after. These aren’t good movies, even a fan will probably tell you that if you don’t catch him/her on opening night. I think Summit Entertainment gets fooled by what is in some ways communal denial: their target demographic feigning a deeper commitment to the material for the sake of the social event. No one can deny that the cliffhanger drop-off in ticket sales for both of these films is stunning, and more importantly it’s evidence that most “Twi-hards” aren’t quite as blind as you think. They talk a big game, hiding behind the “you’ve got your geeky things and I have mine” defense (which is the conversational equivalent of pleading the 5th), but deep down they’re perfectly aware that these motion pictures suck. Some guys I know get frustrated when the ladies in question won’t admit this, but of course they won’t if you put them on the defensive. Try getting a “Twilight” fan away from her girlfriends, be nice to her, and see if she doesn’t admit this stuff is a guilty pleasure.

Anyway, my point is very simple: “Twilight” has no legs, not even with its core audience. It’s a financial sprinter. That’s fine, because Summit makes these things for chicken scratch (comparatively), and yet I can’t help but wonder why the company doesn’t long for something more. Brand awareness is an open door to limitless potential profit, you’ve overcome the first and most inscrutable obstacle to a phenomenon. Why not fight harder? Why do you care so little about the fourth weekend? Give that script another pass, man, pay good money and get yourself an actual writer. Chris Weitz was an inspired choice to direct, but it doesn’t make any difference, because the producers of this series are such control freaks that the two flicks are indistinguishable. It makes the Bond people look hands-off. I wonder what the point is of even hiring someone like that if you’re just going to walk them like a dog on set anyway. Why not just get some dude who does commercials that no one cares about? It’s so bizarre, Hollywood’s habit of drafting talent and then cutting them off at the knees.

“The Blind Side” really did originate from nowhere, I never saw this movie coming. Bullock is apparently more bankable than I realized, she’s gained a lot of steam amongst women. I never would have imagined “Side” to be a hit, but now that it is, I’m forced to look for reasons to explain it. My feeling was that a football-related movie aimed at women made little to no sense, since it would theoretically come out neither fish nor fowl. Perhaps I was wrong, and older male audiences were less picky than I know my age range would be. I think there are two other basic components to their victory:

1. Timing. Thanksgiving weekend was a good call, someone deserves a promotion. You’ve got families all over America spending time together, and they have to find something grandma can sit through. Boom. It’s also kind of better than the Christmas season, because you don’t have to stick to certain subject matter—there’s very little conception of a “Thanksgiving movie,” so you’ve got more thematic latitude. This has been tried before with varying success, however, and the sports connection notwithstanding, I still insist this flick had very little appeal to men. I don’t deny they agreed to go to it because their wives were giving them the stink eye, but that’s hardly a compliment. There must have been something else, which brings me to the second major asset “The Blind Side” had…

2. Quality. It sounds nuts, but the reviews for this thing were all positive, and it’s amazing what that can do for the indecisive nuclear family standing in the theater lobby, staring blankly at the showings. Anyone who cast a wayward glance at Rotten Tomatoes or the Washington Post probably noticed that the press was shrugging and smiling, and they stored that information away. “The reviews are good” can be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, so long as it’s not some kind of Oscar-baiting art drama that no one wants to sit through.

That’s my best shot at an explanation. It’s a little flimsy, although I would contend both of the above-mentioned factors were instrumental in “The Blind Side’s” success. I’m just not positive I’ve gotten the whole picture yet, I feel like there’s a variable I’m missing. Oh well. I’m a little tired at the moment, but next time I’ll review “2012″ for you. I’ve seen it twice, and have some interesting insights.

PS: “Old Dogs” tanked. Nice work, Dear Reader.