Weekend Box Office: 'King Kong' climbs.... the top of the chart!

[The Clown Prince]

After all the hype, after all the advertising, and all the extremely great reviews (82% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. 141 postitive, 30 negative. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/king_kong/)), King Kong opened in first place with $50.1 million which is below studio estimates and what many movie industry experts thought it was gonna make. It's 5 day total since opening on Wednesday is now up to $66.2 million. With a production budget of $207 million, it's hard to say if it'll make it back here in the states, but at the worldwide box office, it's more than likely. The upcoming Christmas weekend and New Years weekend will be important to capitalize on everyone being off of work and school.

In second place was The Chronicles of Narnia which enjoyed a pretty good second weekend dropping 52% and making $31.1 million for a two week total of $112.5 million.

Debuting in third place was The Family Stone with $12.7 million.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire dropped to fourth place with $5.9 million and it's total is now up to $252.5 million. It now becomes the first Harry Potter film to succeed another 'Potter' film as it passes Prisoner of Azkaban's $249 million total.

And rounding out the top 5 is Syriana with $5.4 million and a $22.3 million total.

Brokeback Mountain made it in to the top 12 this weekend as it expanded to only 69 theaters, but snagged an eighth place spot with $2.3 million and a $3.3 million total. It's estimated average of $31 thousand per theatre is expected to be the highest for the weekend.

And Memoirs of a Geisha made it into twelfth place with $1.2 million and a $2.2 million total. It opens wide next weekend.

Out of the top 12 this weekend is The Polar Express- IMAX Experience (13th), Chicken Little (14th), and Rent (15th).

Opening next weekend for Christmas are 8 new movies over the course of 3 different days. 2 of those films are bigger name movies opening in limited theaters in time of hoping to get Oscar consideration.

First up this Wednesday we have Cheaper by the Dozen 2 (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=10634) (rated PG) starring Steve Martin, Bonnie Hunt, Hilary Duff, Tom Welling, Piper Perabo, Eugene Levy, and Carmen Elektra.

Also on Wednesday we have Fun with Dick and Jane (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=6260) (rated PG-13) with Jim Carrey, Téa Leoni, Richard Jenkins, Angie Harmon, Vincent Curatola, Jacob Davich, Alec Baldwin, and Stacey Travis.

On Friday we have The Ringer (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=5986) (rated PG-13) with Johnny Knoxville, Brian Cox, Katherine Heigl, Zen Gesner, John Taylor, and Jed Rees.

Memoirs of a Geisha (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=5565) (rated PG-13) expands to it's wide release on Friday and stars Zhang Ziyi, Ken Watanabe, Michelle Yeoh, Gong Li, Kaori Momoi, Tsai Chin, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, and Suzuka Ohgo.

Also on Friday, but in limited theaters is Steven Spielberg's new film Munich (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=8395) (rated R) and stars Eric Bana, Daniel Craig, Geoffrey Rush, Mathieu Kassovitz, Hanns Zischler, Ciaran Hinds, and Brian Goodman. It opens wide January 6th.

Then on Sunday Christmas Day we have the horror thriller Wolf Creek (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=8178) (rated R) with John Jarratt, Cassandra Magrath, Andy McPhee, Kestie Morassi, Guy Peterson, Nathan Phillips, Gordon Poole, Jenny Starwall, and Aaron Sterns.

In a wider release from it's current limited release, the big screen version of the Broadway play The Producers (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=5000) (rated PG-13) hits theaters as well Christmas Day starring Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, Uma Thurman, Will Ferrell, Gary Beach, and Roger Bart. It fully opens wide January 13th.

We also have Rumor Has It (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=6199) (rated PG-13) starring Jennifer Aniston, Kevin Costner, Shirley MacLaine, Mark Ruffalo, Richard Jenkins, and Mena Suvari.

And finally opening in limited theaters is The New World (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=5280) (rated PG-13) with Colin Farrell, Christopher Plummer, Christian Bale, August Schellenberg, Wes Studi, David Thewlis, Yorick van Wageningen, Q'orianka Kilcher, and Will Wallace. It opens wide January 13th.

Whew! Here are your numbers....


1) King Kong- $50,148,000 ($66,200,000) NEW!
2) The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe- $31,184,000 ($112,516,000)
3) The Family Stone- $12,725,000 ($12,725,000) NEW!
4) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire- $5,905,000 ($252,551,000)
5) Syriana- $5,465,000 ($22,322,000)
6) Walk the Line- $3,625,000 ($82,544,000)
7) Yours, Mine & Ours- $3,415,000 ($45,107,000)
8) Brokeback Mountain- $2,359,000 ($3,325,000)
9) Just Friends- $1,950,000 ($29,441,000)
10) Aeon Flux- $1,675,000 ($23,139,000)
11) Pride and Prejudice- $1,503,000 ($29,162,000)
12) Memoirs of a Geisha- $1,235,000 (2,207,000)

The Clown Prince

[Tobias]

When's Brokeback Mountain going to go nationwide? I've been wanting to see that.

Might check out the Chronicles of Narnia this week, seeing as to how nothing interesting (to me at least) is opening this week.

[Strollymonster]

Good to see that Kong made it to number 1, even with all of the negative speculation surrounding it. Narnia dropped off a lot more steeply than I expected it to, though...

And HP4 puts the movie series into an upswing, after three consecutively less-successful films.

Interesting stuff.

[Bearpod91]

I'm going with Jim Carrey's new movie to be on top next week. But that might just be from wanting to see it so bad. :anime: Go Kong! :cool:

[Captain Harlock]

After all the hype, after all the advertising, and all the extremely great reviews (82% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. 141 postitive, 30 negative.), King Kong opened in first place with $50.1 million which is below studio estimates and what many movie industry experts thought it was gonna make. It's 5 day total since opening on Wednesday is now up to $66.2 million. With a production budget of $207 million, it's hard to say if it'll make it back here in the states, but at the worldwide box office, it's more than likely. The upcoming Christmas weekend and New Years weekend will be important to capitalize on everyone being off of work and school.
I've been reading reports that Kong's budget with production / advertising is as high as $300 million. Personally, I'm glad to see it get off to such a slow start and hope that it puts a stop on all of these 'EPIC' movies for a while.

[mookie75]

I've been reading reports that Kong's budget with production / advertising is as high as $300 million. Personally, I'm glad to see it get off to such a slow start and hope that it puts a stop on all of these 'EPIC' movies for a while.I still think Kong will easily make back the money it cost to produce it -- slow start and all. (Or at least the original $200 million reported cost.)

So what exactly do you have against "epic" movies? To paraphrase a tired old saying, "If you don't like them, then don't go and see them." Or does your attitude come out of some idealistic disgust at the cost of movies nowadays.

Mind you, I'm just curious about your thought process. You can think whatever you please. Personally, I'd prefer a memorable "epic" to some meaningless film that will come and go from both the theaters and our collective memories within a month or two. :anime:

[Caffeine King]

I've been reading reports that Kong's budget with production / advertising is as high as $300 million. Personally, I'm glad to see it get off to such a slow start and hope that it puts a stop on all of these 'EPIC' movies for a while.
Have you even seen the movie?

And I wouldn't count on Hollywood abruptly stop making "epics" because King Kong could be a possible flop.

If Titanic was the most successful film of all time then something watchable like King Kong should (hopefully) be able to make it's budget back and then some...


I'm going with Jim Carrey's new movie to be on top next week.
Oh I definetly wouldn't count on that...

[Condiment King]

I also have to admit having little to no interest in Peter Jackson's 3 hour King Kong saga. I'm not one for three hour movies unless they have a great story behind it and what negatives I've heard of the film have been that the story isn't a three hour story. Special effects can be great and all, but they almost never bring me to see a movie.

I'm holding out hope that Jim Carrey's new funny movie Fun with Dick and Jane is actually funny. I didn't enjoy his last attempt in Bruce Almighty because I thought he relied too much on comedy schtick he's done in past movies or zany sight gags. He didn't really create a character like in say, Liar, Liar. I'm hoping that this movie has well thought out characters and a good story behind it, as well as the humor. It'll be tough for it to top the hilarious Steve Carell's 40 Year Old Virgin.

Munich intrigues me. I've heard hype about it sprinkled throughout the year, and I'm interested to see if Steven Spielberg's labor produces good fruit.

[Hades]

I have a feeling Kong will make more money as the word of mouth travels. I'm not surprised to see it only make $50 mil though, as my theater wasn't as packed as it was for Narnia or Potter. Awesome movie though, and one I will definitely be buying on DVD.


I also have to admit having little to no interest in Peter Jackson's 3 hour King Kong saga. I'm not one for three hour movies unless they have a great story behind it and what negatives I've heard of the film have been that the story isn't a three hour story. Special effects can be great and all, but they almost never bring me to see a movie.
Um, hello, you do know this movie HAS A STORY right? If it didn't, it wouldn't be 3 hours long now would it? As for negatives, what negatives? I've read nothing but positive reviews for this movie. Anyone who finds something negative about it just didn't want to like it to begin with. Kong is truly in the top 3 best movies of the year.

[Captain Harlock]

So what exactly do you have against "epic" movies? To paraphrase a tired old saying, "If you don't like them, then don't go and see them." Or does your attitude come out of some idealistic disgust at the cost of movies nowadays.

Mind you, I'm just curious about your thought process. You can think whatever you please. Personally, I'd prefer a memorable "epic" to some meaningless film that will come and go from both the theaters and our collective memories within a month or two.
Well, as with most mediums, I'm just getting tired of the emphasis on style over substance. With that said, in the vain of "Troy", "Alexander", "Star Wars Episode 3", "Chronicles of Narnia" - all of these movies are big budget and overblown. The scripts are lackluster and just make for generally boring films. "King Kong" is no exception. At three hours, the film is just too long. There really is alot of material that could have been cut during the middle of the film, but the matieral stayed to showcase the effects.

Another problem I have with "King Kong" is that the original wasn't even that good to begin with. When I watch a film, I want to be enjoyable. So far, through the original and two remakes - "King Kong" is as boring as ever. I didn't see the need in a second remake. Speaking of directors, I'm not sold on Peter Jackson. In "LOTR" and "Kong", his films look stunning, but frankly the story becomes muddled and dragged down by the over-the-top effects.


And I wouldn't count on Hollywood abruptly stop making "epics" because King Kong could be a possible flop.

Well, then I hope it makes them think twice about it. I've come to see in recent times that the lower budget films are often better films. It's just a shame to see the big 'epic' films take up much of the publicity both good and bad, while smaller, better films are given the shaft. The lack of "Kong"'s boxoffice leads me to believe that American movie goers won't always be swayed by pretty visuals.


Have you even seen the movie?
I wish I hadn't.

[Condiment King]

Um, hello, you do know this movie HAS A STORY right? If it didn't, it wouldn't be 3 hours long now would it? As for negatives, what negatives? I've read nothing but positive reviews for this movie.
I suppose it does have a story, since just about every movie has a story. I didn't say it didn't. I was merely questioning it being 3 hours long as a reason for me not having any real interest to see it. And yes, there have been reviews (both positive and the few negative) which have cited the length as a weakness, that's not news.


Anyone who finds something negative about it just didn't want to like it to begin with. Kong is truly in the top 3 best movies of the year.
What? That's a ridiculous statement. There are Citizen Kane haters that aren't stupid for hating it, they just didn't like Orson Welles' classic film. People hate Casablanca. I don't think that the only reason that people might dislike King Kong is because they wanted to going in.

[RD!]

Um, hello, you do know this movie HAS A STORY right? If it didn't, it wouldn't be 3 hours long now would it?Length is not proportional to story. Let's not forget Mulholland Drive, which is almost 2.5 hours of non-story.

[The Clown Prince]

When's Brokeback Mountain going to go nationwide? I've been wanting to see that.
Well, technically it did this weekend even though 69 theaters is clearly something that people don't think is wide. For the definition of "wide", as long as it's playing in the major markets across the country, it's wide no matter how many theaters it's in sadly.

I think because of the movie that it is, it's gonna be a gradual release. The studio will monitor how it does (which so far it's doing great) and then slowly open it in more theaters in the coming weeks. I live in the Portland Metro area in Oregon, and only one theater in Oregon (located in Portland) has Brokeback Mountain, however they have 3 prints of it because of the demand in Portland to see it.

Check Fandango.com to see if there is anything remotely in your area that might have it.

The Clown Prince

[Hades]

There is something else I forgot earlier we have to take into consideration, its time period. I know A LOT of people that refuse to watch any movie that does not take place in modern day. Sad, but true.

Oh, and I'm going to defend, Troy, Alexander, and Star Wars. First off, RotS is the best SW movie ever. It has everything that makes the entire series enjoyable. Troy, while it altered the story quite a bit, was still one enjoyable ride. As for Alexander, I saw the Director's Cut, and I have no idea why this movie has such a large field of hatred towards it. Surely, it is indeed flawed, but it isn't even half as bad as the critics have been saying. In fact, it is a very enjoyable movie and does things different from the norm. Granted, it is no Gladiator, but if I wanted Gladiator, I'd watch Gladiator. If there is any complaint I have against Alexander, it is that it was far too short.

[Peter Paltridge]

I also have to admit having little to no interest in Peter Jackson's 3 hour King Kong saga. I'm not one for three hour movies unless they have a great story behind it and what negatives I've heard of the film have been that the story isn't a three hour story. Special effects can be great and all, but they almost never bring me to see a movie.

I'm holding out hope that Jim Carrey's new funny movie Fun with Dick and Jane is actually funny. I didn't enjoy his last attempt in Bruce Almighty because I thought he relied too much on comedy schtick he's done in past movies or zany sight gags. He didn't really create a character like in say, Liar, Liar.
I'm with you on the Kong comment. I think this is what mainly kept the movie from earning what the estimators were hoping for. There are very, very few subjects that I'll be willing to spend THREE HOURS sitting through. LOTR was the rare exception because it lent itself to that sort of thing. But this is King Kong....

And I saw no difference between Carrey in Liar Liar and Bruce Almighty; he was still the same rubberface acting bizarre in elevators.
I think it's a real stretch to call his Liar Liar guy a "fully-fleshed, three-dimensional character." Carrey's Bruce was actually more realized.....he dealt with theological issues and losing his girlfriend....he learned a lot over the course of the movie. In Liar Liar, Carrey just screamed a lot and went into spasms.

[Condiment King]

And I saw no difference between Carrey in Liar Liar and Bruce Almighty; he was still the same rubberface acting bizarre in elevators.
I think it's a real stretch to call his Liar Liar guy a "fully-fleshed, three-dimensional character." Carrey's Bruce was actually more realized.....he dealt with theological issues and losing his girlfriend....he learned a lot over the course of the movie. In Liar Liar, Carrey just screamed a lot and went into spasms.
Yeah but Liar, Liar was less gimmicky. Fletcher Reed, even though he had THE CLAW, was more of just an ordinary man (easily driven to insanity). All the little things that Bruce did seemed like custom made catchphrases like ITS GUUD, which just felt really forced every time it came out, especially when Morgan Freeman uttered it. Plus, again, typical Morgan Freeman role. He's a great actor but the more times he shows up in his typical straight man role, it seems more and more annoying to me. Plus, Fletcher's wife was more involved with the plot than Jennifer Aniston, who just seemed to be there. Some of the solo Bruce scenes like the Walter Kronkite impersonation just came out of nowhere with no real reasoning.

[William C. Maune]

We won't really start to know Kong's box offfice potential until next week. That's when we will start to find out how well it holds up week-to-week. People assume that Titanic must have had a huge opening weekend since it is the top grossing movie of all time. However, Titanic actually only made 26.8 million (http://www.boxofficeguru.com/t.htm) it's first weekend. What Titanic had was legs. It didn't open big, but it made $20 million every weekend for a long time thereafter.

[Baltofan]

I thought that Narnia would be on #1.

[Lord Dalek]

Length is not proportional to story. Let's not forget Mulholland Drive, which is almost 2.5 hours of non-story.Can't that be said of anything David Lynch does? ;)

[Cogliostro]

What's with the no mention of 'The Producers'? Correct me if I'm wrong but it's hitting theaters on Christmas. I think it has great potential to be a hilarious comedy. I can't wait to see it and hopefully it does decent at the box office. Anyone else looking forward to seeing it?

[Silly McGooses]

I'm looking forward to The Producers, but I really can't see it doing that well at all...This weekend it opened in limited release to $154,590 at 6 screens, with a so-so $25,765 per-screen average.

[The Clown Prince]

What's with the no mention of 'The Producers'? Correct me if I'm wrong but it's hitting theaters on Christmas.
It's been added now to the main post. There is just too many movies opening this week to keep track of. ;)

The Clown Prince

[Chris Wood]

And I saw no difference between Carrey in Liar Liar and Bruce Almighty; he was still the same rubberface acting bizarre in elevators.

The difference is Liar Liar is pure comic genius and Bruce Almighty is a generally unamusing bible thumpathon.

[sun]

In its llth week of release,"Good Night and Good Luck" pulled in l.l K per theater, the same as last week...That l.l K is only .3k less per theater, than "Walk the Line", which ranks 6th on the mony making list with l.4k per theater, released for 5 weeks... Strange.................but true,
............................................................Stuart.

[JLApe]

Um, hello, you do know this movie HAS A STORY right? If it didn't, it wouldn't be 3 hours long now would it? As for negatives, what negatives? I've read nothing but positive reviews for this movie. I've seen King Kong. To put it very briefly, the movie didn't need three hours to tell its story. Two-and-a-half hours max would suffice, if not less.

p.s. everyone I've talked to said it's too long.

[Silly McGooses]

I don't think it's really too long; I love everything in the movie except for maybe too many long action sequences. I enjoy an epic every now and then. This movie certainly has scope, which a long running time lends itself to.

[Hades]

I've seen King Kong. To put it very briefly, the movie didn't need three hours to tell its story. Two-and-a-half hours max would suffice, if not less.

p.s. everyone I've talked to said it's too long.
I disagree. To be blunt, with the cost of movie tickets nowadays, EVERY movie should be no shorter than 3 hours!!

[The Penguin]

Well I was not at all shocked to see Kong (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=156592) at the top of the Empire State Building that is the Weekend Box Office. Also not surprising to then see the Chronic(what?)cles of Narnia (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=156262) (hilarious SNL digital short (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/)) come in at number two.

Family Stone (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=156731) looks like it could be fun, but third seems abut right. Apparently no one around here has seen it. I saw the HBO special and I think Syriana looks fantastic. I may have to see that one when I go home. Dr. Bashir from DS9 is in it.

Next week I expect Dozen 2 will perform decent to good, but I question what Dick & Jane will do simply because I feel like it is being marketed as two seperate movies. Based on the TV spots I've seen, I'm not even sure what it's about anymore. Lotta movies coming out with the holiday weekend. I bet(/hope) at least Ringer gets left behind.