| Alexandra Daddario in the Percy Jackson Movie |
***Update*** After week #4, Percy is sitting at $78mil in the US and $173mil worldwide. On a budget of $95mil, is that enough for a second Percy movie? Stay tuned to find out...
Weekend two of Percy Jackson did well...from Box Office Mojo:
Compared to Wolfman and Valentine's Day, Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief's 51 percent dip seemed normal, but it was quite a bit more precipitous than past Presidents' Day fantasies, Bridge to Terabithia and The Spiderwick Chronicles, at the same point. Percy, though, had a higher tally than those pictures, generating $15.3 million over the weekend for a $58.7 million tally in ten days, and it did hold much better than The Golden Compass and Eragon.
From the opening weekend: Alllllright, Percy Jackson is out and it's exceeded expectations by pulling in $38.M (estimated) in US box office and 28 M (estimated) in 40 non-US markets over the first weekend, 4 days thanks to the holiday. The actuals are in: 38.7M. Not bad!
Things aren't looking too good at rotten tomatoes, presently sitting a bit below 50% positive. Yahoo shows quite a disparity between the critics at C+ and users at A-, so the guess here (at least until we see it) is that the people who've read the books liked the flick, but those that haven't (read: movie critics) don't like it standing alone...as soon as we see it, we'll see who's right!
**Update** Ok, now we've seen the movie, and here are our thoughts:
First off, full disclosure: all 5 Percy Jackson books are very big in our house, so we're coming into this with the perspective of one who has read the books closely and really liked them.
With that in mind, I think it's safe to say that the movie is moderately good. Not great. Not bad. Nothing special, really, which is disappointing. It could have been great, either from the perspective from one who read the books or from someone coming in with no knowledge of the books at all, but it wasn't. Where the movie fails is where the book exceeds - getting you to like the characters and root for them as underdogs. None of that in the flick. You get the feeling that director Chirs Columbus wanted to put action and special effects in front of character building and plot line development. I can see how those who have read the books will be angry at the plot changes, because all of the changes subtract, none of them add. And much of what is subtracted is what made the books so great. And I can see how someone coming in from the cold would be indifferent about the flick...why care about these people? Why are they doing what they're doing? It's just not explained. Mucho action, mucho effects, good actors, but bad screenplay, and that's hard to overcome. Furthermore, the mystery is missing from the movie. What draws you into the book is wondering about Percy and his identity, which isn't revealed in the book until after you're hooked. The friggin' OPENING SCENE of the movie gives this away, before you've even met him. No wonder people who haven't read the books (read: movie critics) are giving the flick indifferent "C's". That kind of score reflects a technically good film, with good actors and production values, but with a story that just makes you go "meh."
Alexandra did well in it (which is what's really important at this site, at least!), but that comes with a qualification. She was perfectly cast for the character Annabeth as Annabeth is portrayed in the movie. She was pretty poorly cast for Annabeth as Annabeth is portrayed in the books. If you went into the theater expecting Annabeth from the books, you likely came out disappointed. Which is unfortunate for Alexandra, because she truly excelled in her part.
Think about it from Chris Columbus' perspective: he knows that for whatever reason he's not going to portray Annabeth the same way as in the book. Certainly not physically (blonde, grey eyes, much younger at the beginning book). And not with the same depth (no back story at all about her history with Luke, very little about her life at the camp, nothing about her mortal non-camp life, very little about how she interacts with others in the camp, nothing about her relationship with Chiron, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT HOW BEING A DAUGHTER OF ATHENA MAKES HER SPECIAL, etc. etc...I could go on here, get the point?). So really he was looking for an actress who can ply her trade (i.e., has good acting chops), look good, and play the part of Hermione to Percy's Harry (sorry Grover, that makes you Ron Weasley). The "movie Annabeth" has to be a good physical fighter, so whispy stick figure models need not apply. We all know that Alexandra is gorgeous, totally physically fit (no waif here) and an excellent actress (can you tell we're biased?), so she fit what the movie roll called for. And she did quite an admirable job in that roll. It's just too bad the role itself was so different from what was expected by Percy fans.
So, all you Percy fans out there who are giving Ms. Daddario a hard time, lay off! She's not the Annabeth that is in the book. She wasn't hired to be. She was (and is) the Annabeth in the movie. And in that role she did a tremendous job, likely better than anyone else we can think of.
And to all talent agents, note how well she did! More rolls, please! More of Alexandra, please! We're waiting....!
Here's a production shot and trailer, both including our favorite you-know-who!
