Lots of scary-looking weapons and a high body count married to far left paranoia: Who is “Elysium’s” target audience anyway? Hunter S. Thompson?
In an entertainment market where Mother Jones subscribers flocked to ultra-violent action movies, “Elysium” would be a surefire hit.
It turns out, you see, that the film’s apparent target demo — something like UFC fanboys who organize petition drives for the Green Party — is … elusive.
Yes, “Elysium,” opened with $29.8 million domestically to nose out Jennifer Aniston’s R-rated comedy “We’re the Millers” ($26.4 million) as the top-grossing film of the weekend. But Mr. Blomkamp’s dystopian allegory — the follow-up to his acclaimed 2009 sleeper “District 9” — cost an estimated $115 million to make.
In contrast, “Millers,” which stars Miss Aniston as a stripper, was made for a relatively frugal $30 million. (Reflecting in part, one might suppose, the savings realized on the star’s wardrobe costs).
Moreover, “Millers” gained momentum from Friday to Saturday, when its receipts rose 21 percent, while “Elysium” stalled, with a corresponding drop of 3 percent.
On Monday, the trend solidified, with “Millers” actually pulling ahead of “Elysium” for the day. On Tuesday, “Elysium” trailed the leader for a second straight day.
It gets worse. “Elysium’s” number one finish in total grosses for the weekend masked an anemic per-screen average of $9,257 for the film, which opened in 3,284 theaters. To put that in perspective: Of the 25 top-grossing films of the year to date, only 4 opened with lower per-screen averages. Even Tom Cruise’s career-threatening post-apocalyptic bomb “Oblivion” opened with a higher average in U.S. theaters.
As if all that wasn’t bad enough, consider: Among those 25 top-grossing films which, like “Elysium,” cost more than $100 million to make, only one opened with a lower average take: Disney’s resounding flop “The Lone Ranger.”
Apparently fearful that critics highlighting the film’s ideological agenda would scare off young male action film fans central to “Elysium’s” hopes for success, the film’s star and director have made some understandable, if scarcely credible, efforts at spin control.
“I don’t think it is trying to say anything. It just presents the issue — the distinct difference between the haves and the have nots,” Mr. Damon told FOX411. “A science fiction film will work if it is a whole new world, but speaks to the world that we live in, but not in a heavy-handed way. The first order of business for a big summer popcorn movie is to make a kick-ass movie with great action.”
Mr. Blomkamp has been even more blunt in disavowing any didactic aims. “‘Elysium’ doesn’t have a message,” the 33-year-old director told Wired magazine.
Nobody’s buying the disclaimers — neither the film’s conservative critics, nor its jilted allies on the left.
Mr. Blomkamp’s “flick is explicitly and pervasively political,” observed Asawin Suebsaeng for Mother Jones. “It gets its two cents in on global poverty, immigration, access to health care, and social mobility, all the while affording Matt Damon plenty of room to maim and explode bad guys.”