Ben is back, but Julia Roberts isn’t.

After 17 days, Peter Hedges’s extremely well-directed, well-written drama “Ben Is Back” is DOA at the box office.

Not only that: its $950K take is heading star Julia Roberts to her lowest box office ever. You’d have to go back to the ill-conceived “Full Frontal” in 2002, which made a total of $2.5 million.

The “Ben is Back” box office failure hurts more because Roberts– who can be strident in films–gives one of her best, warmest, and most direct performances ever. She is matched by Lucas Hedges, who plays her late teen/adult son, and is the toast of the town these days. Lucas’s talented filmmaker dad, Peter, wrote and directed the movie. Rotten Tomatoes scored it a very favorable 81%.

If “Ben is Back” had been released by a real indie distributor, or Fox Searchlight or Focus, it might have had a chance. But Roadside Attractions, the poor cousin of Lions Gate, is famous for botching its releases. Their only  hit this year was a Christian film, assigned to them by Lions Gate. “I Can Only Imagine” came with its own faith-based marketing.

The rest of Roadside’s 2018 list consisted of the much-reviled “Forever My Girl,” which made $16 million, and “Viper Club,” which took in just $60,000. Without “I Can Only Imagine,” Roadside would have barely existed this year.

“Ben Is Back” might have had a chance if there’d been some awards buzz. But Hedges was already tied up with “Boy Erased,” an indie hit with $6.5 million in the till– and also a competitor in the demographic of troubled young men and their parents. The other similar film, “Beautiful Boy,” struggled to scare up $7 million with Hedges’s best known “rival” Timothee Chalamet– also an excellent film with very strong performers.

As for Roberts, she may have been busy with her Amazon series, “Homecoming.” Roberts certainly doesn’t need the money from “Ben.” She’s got cosmetics commercials running everywhere. And at 51 years old, she’s had an exciting run of hits from “My Best Friend’s Wedding” (1997) to “America’s Sweethearts” (2001). Plus she starred in the iconic “Pretty Woman” (1990). Her Oscar is from “Erin Brockovich” (2000).

Christmas Day brought joy to the distribution staff at Warner Bros. “Aquaman” rebounded from lack of interest on Monday to $22 million on Tuesday. The bounce back pushed the DC comics effort up to $105 million since Friday. That’s not exactly “fast” in superhero comic book movie terms, but it’s better, as my grandmother would say, than a kick in the bustle!

That kick was given to Sony’s “Holmes and Watson.” The Will Ferrell- John C. Reilly Sherlock Holmes comedy has a ZERO on Rotten Tomatoes. 12 out of 12 critics hated it. No one else saw it, I guess. Anyway, for its opening on Christmas Day this unloved spectacle actually made $6.425 million. Does it have legs? We’ll see. Cost of this film is listed at $42 million, which means $50 million. It’s a long way to Tipperary.

Good news: Clint Eastwood’s “The Mule” delivered $5 million on Christmas Day, it’s up to $42 million. 

keep refreshing…

What’s going on with out friend, Aquaman?

On Monday– yesterday, Christmas Eve– his movie dropped at least 42% from Sunday. It was the biggest drop among blockbuster holiday movies.

“Aquaman” only took in $10.95 mil on Monday after making more than $18 mil on Sunday. Whoa! Monday should have been a big day for people who weren’t working and had nothing whatsoever to do.

But “Aquaman” has $83.6 million after four days in US release. So that’s not shabby. And of course, internationally, Warner Bros. already made their money back. to the tune of $415 million. So they can splash around as much as they like!

Even worse: Peter Jackson’s “Mortal Engines” is deader than dead. It took in the same amount as “Green Book” but played in 4.5 times as many theaters. “Mortal Engines” is a total write off in the millions of millions.

Updates coming…

It’s a good thing Disney bought all those other companies like LucasFilm, Marvel,  and Pixar.

Back in the actual Mouse House, it hasn’t been such a happy year for the studio’s live action films.

“Mary Poppins Returns” made just $31 million this weekend in its opening. What happened? I — and a lot of other people– thought this Rob Marshall reboot would be a smash. Marshall made a terrific film, too. But audiences have not clamored to see it. Emily Blunt and co. are wonderful. Maybe once the Christmas holiday sets in…

Disney has already had a bad time marketing these live action films. That’s not good news considering the next ones are “Aladdin” (which looks dreadful) and “The Lion King.”

This year the studio struck out with “The Nutcracker and the Four Realms” and “A Wrinkle in Time.” The movies went awry in a big way during production, and the arrived to jeers.

You could almost put “Solo: A Star Wars Story” in the same category. It was from LucasFilm, but it was also an original drama with actual actors, not animated ones. Disney could not put it over, or overcome advance bad buzz that was unwarranted. It’s very similar to the “Mary Poppins” situation.

Emily Blunt has a lot of awards interest coming up– maybe that will help, too. She is delightful as Mary. Don’t miss her!

Robert Zemeckis is not used to box office failure. His resume includes some of the biggest and best movies ever made: all three “Back to the Future” installments, “Forrest Gump,” “Cast Away,” and “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” are among his achievements.

But his new “Welcome to Marwen,” based on an odd documentary, is one of the biggest bombs of 2018– if not the biggest. The whole weekend produced just $2.4 million. Universal dumped it, and the audience responded by staying away. The budget is $40 million, but you know that number is probably closer to $50 million. And all of it will be lost.

Steve Carell and Leslie Mann star in this strange narrative take on “Welcome to Marwencol” a documentary about the true story of Mark Hogancamp, a man living with PTSD. After a physical assault, Hogancamp memory was erased so he created a fictional village to ease his pain.

Unfortunately, the whole thing just didn’t come off with Zemeckis’s uusual aplomb. Critics hated it. There was no way of describing it to the public. So “Marwen” repeats the failure of last year’s “Downsizing”– something interesting that appeals to a small group and can’t be explained.

For Zemeckis that’s three disappointments in a row, after “The Walk” (which had a $1.5 mil opening and was a bigger disaster) and “Allied,” a Brad Pitt movie everyone slept through. Zemeckis will be back, no doubt. So will Carell, who’s always good. This was just a bad concept going in.

“Aquaman” is not Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman.

The DC Universe water works brought in just $72 million for the weekend (including Thursday previews). That puts it well below the top five of DC Extended Universe films, below reviled movies like “Batman v. Superman” and “Man of Steel.”

This is not good news for more “Aquaman” movies or even more DCEU films. The Warner Bros. franchise continues to have deep problems compared to the huge success of Marvel Films.

“Aquaman” doesn’t get to set any records. It falls at around number 106 on the all time list of domestic opening weekends. You can’t really trumpet that in ads or PR.

As I wrote yesterday, Warner Bros. handled this movie brilliantly. They went to China, without reviews, and just hype. They made all their money back internationally right away, knowing the tepid reviews in the US would lead to trouble here. So they’re safe no matter what happens.

Maybe now Warners can put more effort into Clint Eastwood’s “The Mule,” which already has $28 million with little fanfare. It also has growing word of mouth. Eastwood and Dianne Wiest should be nominated for Oscars. Clint should be celebrated for his subtle, fun work. His character is not a racist– even though someone’s been planting those items. “The Mule” is a substantial piece of work!