| CINEMA! | WEEKEND! | PER! | TOTALE! | |
| 1 | $53,000,000 (-58.6%) | $12,073 | $212,160,000 | |
| 2 | Robin Hood | $37,114,000 | $10,595 | $37,114,000 |
| 3 | Letters to Juliet | $13,750,000 | $4632 | $13,750,000 |
| 4 | Just Wright | $8,500,000 | $4,642 | $8,500,000 |
| 5 | How to Train Your Dragon | $5,120,000 (-23.4%) | $1,954 | $207,764,000 |
| 6 | A Nightmare on Elm Street | $4,700,000 (-48.5%) | $1,528 | $56,109,000 |
| 7 | Date Night | $4,000,000 (-26.6%) | $1,612 | $86,699,000 |
| 8 | The Back-Up Plan | $2,465,000 (-51.0%) | $987 | $34,202,000 |
| 9 | Furry Vengeance | $2,300,000 (-48.6%) | $853 | $15,147,000 |
| 10 | Clash of the Titans | $1,255,000 (-49.9%) | $965 | $160,151,000 |
This just in: The illusion of safety.
Let’s not fuck around, shall we? Robin Hood‘s numbers are terrible if you consider domestic the whole shebag. Universal is going to have to struggle a bit to get the picture anything much more than $100, which is not a gimme. Though it will not collapse like it, Robin Hood is only above A Nightmare on Elm Street‘s opening by four million and change. Of course, Robin Hood isn’t as front loaded by nature, but if the film cost $237 Million, then… well. But with a picture like this it’s all about trumpeting the international. And if this picture is already at $200 Million all in, there’s that. If those numbers are on the money, then Universal didn’t necessarily make a bad investment, and Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott may yet work together again. I like to think they’ll do a civil war film next, with a trailer cut to Limp Bizkit’s “Nookie.” The Scott oeuvre needs more cannons and Fred Durst. I’m sorry (I’m fucking around a bit).
Letters to Juliet was stronger than Just Right, but even though Fox News will make you paranoid about it, there are still more white people in America than anyone else. The Latifah movie has not been generating much word, but I have heard good things about Juliet, so perhaps one or both can coast for a bit. Amanda Seyfried is a starlet in search of a following. Boobs.
Dragon‘s doing
16 comments
I'll never understand how they can have "weekend" numbers by noon on Sunday.
The Iron Man thing is puzzling. People loved the first one. The second one certainly isn't bad. The reviews aren't terrible (75% on RT). The A rating from Cinemascore would indicate good word of mouth. RDJ is a bigger star now than he was 2 years ago. Anybody besides me as to why this thing isn't huger than it is?
"because even the most ardent admirers of the sequel aren't going to argue it's much better than the original" — MUCH BETTER? don't think so. I don't even think it's better than the 1st one (most people seems to think that too, man)
Dre, RH is not at $200 mio WW. It made $37 mio in US and $74 mio overseas. That doesn`t equal $200 mio but $111 mio. Bad start in US and decent but hardly spectacular one overseas.
I understand why it's considered a failure, but I'm stunned Robin Hood made over $18 million (Speed Racer numbers) to be honest. The movie had ZERO buzz, a terrible ad campaign, disappointing reviews, and Crowe and Scott haven't been setting the box office on fire lately. Not the total disaster I, and I'm sure others, were expecting.
Finke suggested a $200 weekend. Just quotin' her.
Iron Man 2 was totally pointless. It wasn't terrible…it just has no reason to exist. The first one had no danger to it, the characters never in jeopardy, and this one had less. Sure, RDJ was funny and charming, but he's also funny and charming in the Soloist. A much better movie, btw.
Finke is even more wildly wrong this week than usual. Cumes wildly wrong– Date Night is at 36 to date? Furry V at 40? Not a credible source, as if we didn't know that.
Comment #1—-I also don't get the doom and gloom that surrounds a film's performance when the estimates end up being high. Last weekend, Iron Man came in at like 5 million lower than the early estimates (which were posted before most theaters on the East Coast had even opened for business on Sunday), but from reading the articles, you would think that the film had LOST 5 million bucks instead of EARNING 128 million, and that it was somehow "disappointing". I doubt it has much of an effect one way or the other, but I wonder if early estimates for a film's weekend business influence a movie's Sunday take, particularly with the "It didn't make much, so it must not be good" fence-sitters? Hmmm.
@#2: Yeah, I'm surprised too. Fanboy internet sniping aside, Iron Man 2 is a fun movie and with a great Cinemascore word of mouth should be strong. Most of the people I know liked it; maybe it's not playing as well with teens?
"because even the most ardent admirers of the sequel aren't going to argue it's much better than the original" — MUCH BETTER? don't think so. I don't even think it's better than the 1st one (most people seems to think that too, man)
You need to re-read the sentence you quoted, because you certainly don't seem to understand what he's saying.
@ comment #3. Nice reading skills.
Love the shoutout to Kurtis Blow, Andre. Break it up, break it up, break it up.
So are we still acting like "Nightmare" doing $60 domestic on a $25 budget is a bad thing? Or has that moment passed?
Comment #12 just totally pwned Comment #3!!!
@#7: Stark was never in jeopardy in #1? Have you actually seen it? Or do you mean it in "We know he won't die because he's the main character!!" sense. If so, you need to stop watching movies pretty much right now.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.