SUMMER SLUMP? Will Smith’s ‘MIB3′ Slows … 
Cannes Finale: The Jury Talks And Hammond’s Analysis … 
Nicole Kidman Speaks Out On Taking Risks, Roles And Taking … 
Oscilloscope Takes U.S. Rights To ‘Reality’ 
‘Mud’: Did Cannes Save One Of The Best For … 
Cannes Podcast: Pete Hammond On ‘Lawless’, … 
Over-Achievers Of This Year’s Upfront 
Aussie Pay-TV Shakeup Impacts Hollywood 
USA: ‘Rebounding’ & ‘Modern … 
Interview: Philip Kaufman At Cannes With ‘Hemingway … 
R.I.P. Television Mogul Lee Rich 
Cannes Biz Shines Despite Wind & Rain 
Full 2011-2012 TV Season Series Rankings 
2011-12 Season Network Rankings: Fox Still On Top But Down, … 
HLN Set To Air Daytime Emmy Awards 
Grant Bowler Cast As Richard Burton Opposite Lindsay Lohan … 
UPDATE: Dish Network And Broadcasters Ask Courts To Decide … 
Cannes Surprise Screening: Change Of Plans On Juan Antonio … 
Kevin Hart In Talks To Join Kevin James In ‘Valet … 
Anthony Hopkins Up For ‘Red 2′ Villain; Can … 
Cannes Conflicted Over ‘The Paperboy’ As … 
SUNDAY AM: I heard Tom Cruise did Lions For Lambs for “virtually nothing” to help kick-start his revival of United Artists. Without that, the R-rated movie starring Cruise, Meryl Streep and Robert Redford, who also directed, never would have gotten off the ground. Maybe that would have been kinder. Because even with a very moderate budget of $35 million, the political polemic was killed by moviegoers and reviewers alike this weekend, opening to a paltry $6.5 million from 2,215 theaters with an anemic per screen average as well. Even with only a 92-minute running time, the pic even fell far short of the studio’s rock-bottom expectations of $8 million.
Jerry Seinfeld’s Bee Movie was the weekend’s big winner since the PG toon continues to attract both young and old alike. Saturday kiddie matinees made the big difference, and the DreamWorks Animation holdover distributed wide by Paramount raked in $26 million from 3,944 venues ($6.2 mil Friday and $11.3 mil on Saturday) for a fat new cume of $72.2 mil. 
Note that it is very rare for a film to jump to the No. 1 spot after opening at No. 2 its first week in release. (2005′s The Wedding Crashers and 2003′s Elf both did it.)
In second place, R-rated American Gangster continues to heavily draw adult and urban audiences its 2nd weekend out, making $24.2 million (down 44%) from 3,059 dates for a hefty new cume of $80.6 mil. The Imagine/Universal biopic starring Oscar-nodded Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe and directed by Ridley Scott, looks to have the same legs as Academy Award winner The Departed. Could Best Picture also be in American Gangster‘s future?
Taking the 3rd spot, Warner’s Vince Vaughn laugher Fred Claus tried to market itself as Elf 2. But it wasn’t as funny nor as sweet, and potential audiences sensed that. I’m told tracking showed that even though kids wanted to see the PG pic, their parents weren’t sure it was suitable for children. And it does seem kinda early for a Christmas-themed release. Studios varied wildly on the Fred Claus wide debut, with Warner’s claiming it made $20 mil from 3,603 plays, others saying $19.2M, still more estimating $18.2M, and a few maintaining only $17.7M. We’ll know for sure on Monday.
UA/MGM’s Lions For Lambs placed 4th. But the question Hollywood is asking today is what sank the movie: its star Tom Cruise or its controversial Iraq War subject matter? Judging from the exit polling, I’d have to say the latter, 
because the attendance for this film split straight down political lines already sharply drawn in this country. It was stronger on both coasts than in the middle of the country, and it played better in Blue states than Red states, and it appealed to older, more upscale, and educated audiences. United Artists noted that Lions For Lambs “performed much better” than other anti-war themed movies In The Valley Of Elah and Rendition but that’s not saying much — all focused on the war and flopped at the box office. The film got some of the worst reviews ever for a prestige project like this — only 27% positive according to Rotten Tomatoes, and Redford’s direction was roundly criticized as was the talky script that played like a stage production. If it weren’t for the marketing campaign claiming it was presenting both sides, the pic might have tanked even worse. 
As for Cruise’s career as a movie star, I believe the real test of his appeal will come the next time he stars in an action thriller, his speciality. If that pic tanks, then even Tom will know he’s toast.
The only other newcomer to the Top 10 was P2 which is the first release by the recently created production and distribution entity Summit Entertainment. It gave this Christmas Eve-themed thriller a soft launch because the R-rated pic was made and financed before Summit’s cash infusion via Merrill Lynch and its transition from a leading foreign sales company that took equity in select films. Placing only 9th, Summit said P2 debuted with $2.2 mil from 2,131 runs (that number of theaters showed exhibition’s willingness to embrace a new distributor). The small take was expected, but Summit’s only exposure is a limited P&A spend because international sales more than covered the film’s budget.
The rest of the Top 10 were familiar titles: 1. Bee Movie [wkd $26M], (cume $72.1M); 2. American Gangster [wkd $24.2M], (cume $80.6M); 3. Fred Claus [wkd [$19.2M], (cume $19.2M); 4. Lions For Lambs [wkd $6.5M], (cume $6.5M); 5. Dan In Real Life [wkd $5.8M], (cume $30.6M); 6. Saw IV [wkd $5M], (cume $58M); 7. The Game Plan [wkd $2.4M], (cume $85.4M); 8. P2 [wkd $2.2M], (cume $2.2M); 9. 30 Days Of Night [wkd $2.1M], (cume $37.3M); 10. Martian Child [wkd $1.7M], (cume $6M).
As for this weekend’s other debuts, Miramax’s R-rated No Country For Old Men from the Coen Brothers starring Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem had the best per screen average — $17,219 on Saturday — of all the films in release. It opened with $1.2 mil from just 28 theaters — an incredible feat. And Sony’s PG newcomer Saawariya debuted in 85 venues and took in $600K.
This was the first “down” weekend after 1 “up” weekend following 6 “down” weekends compared to last year.
NOTE: For the first time, I have opened my weekly box office reports to comments. Monitored comments. Please confine your remarks to the movies at hand, especially when it involves your general political comments. This is a film, not a political, forum.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
Couldn’t happen to a better group! As far as Tom being toast, don’t you mean he’s shortbread?
you all still don’t get it. I am a 55 year old executive with a theatre room in my basement I don’t use unless I want to watch an old Gene Hackman movie. I don’t want to go to a movie that is anti anything. I want to be entertained. Today’s movie stars have killed the goose that laid the golden egg because now their names are associated with politics or fringe religion instead of “star appeal”. When I watched, and loved, The Sting or The Firm, I never once considered the personal views of the actors, which is no doubt why I enjoyed them. Unfortunately, those days are over. And so are the good old days for Hollywood. You have Bill and Hillary to thank for that too.
Moviegoers are getting tired of seeing these Hate and Blame America polemics — as well as seeing these perpetrators of Anti-America propoganda.
Hopefully, this shows that the pendulem is, indeed, swinging back.
We need Hollywood to defend our western civilization, rather than tear it down.
Why are you singling Cruise out? This sounds like it was Redford’s project all the way.
There are two reasons all these films are tanking. 1- the subject matter (hey, honey, let’s go see that new movie about the Iraq war!) and 2- they’re all negative and written from a liberal perspective. Moviegoers know this instinctively, even if they don’t read the reviews; hence, they’re staying away in droves.
I work at a high-profile prodco, and the consensus around here has been that Tom Cruise lucked out with Lions for Lambs. Meaning that UA and Tom’s people can claim that audiences rejected the movie for its anti-war content and not specifically because of Tom. That gives him more time to hide the fact that his star has fallen so much. Almost everyone here thinks he’s a nutjob with a Napoleon complex. Interestingly enough, lots of people here have voiced respect for Pat Kingsley for keeping the nutjob contained for so long.
I think it was the marketing itself that hurt the movie. Even in the commercials, Tom Cruise AND Meryl Streep performances were so flat they seemed to be doing a table read.
Why not do a movie on Fallujah where the Marines kicked butt ??, no, we have to be sensitive to the rage and frustation of the World against the USA.
I am glad this movie and another anti-Iraq movie (ie: Redacted) is bombing.
Gosh, how about one movie at least thanking the troops for their service.
If Redford hadn’t come out beforehand with all of his usual snobbish, I’m-smarter-than-everyone-else trash-talk, I might have gone to see it. Now I wouldn’t even rent it if it comes out on DVD because I see that there’s an agenda behind it. I’m more than willing to see movies about Iraq. That’s not the issue. It’s the actors like Redford who should try being actors first instead of big-mouthed political activists with axes to grind.
Hollywood simply refuses to get it. No matter what your political persuasion, on balance you simply can’t make a movie that alienates at least 1/2 of the potential audience and expect it to do gangbusters business.
There are exceptions, of course. Michael Moore’s F/11 was the most successful documentary ever made, earning over $100 million. But at least that was snarky and fun, and played to a nation heading into a national election. Emotions were high on both sides. In the right dynamic, it could work.
But the dynamics are different in 2007. Seeing this self important crew $hill for Lions for Lambs just turned people off. Would you trust foreign policy ‘insights’ from a bunch of folks who dominated your high school’s theater troupe? Of course not. Nobody in their right mind would.
Films like this wallow in the kind of self loathing that just turns too many people off – even some people basically sympathetic to the message.
It’s George Bush that is anti-America. But movies are escapist fare, and most of America have enough of that in real life.
To call Lions For Lambs a prestige project is a polite misnomer for the ultimate in vanity films – a project that apparently had absolutely no sense or feeling of the marketplace, even for a “prestige” film, perhaps due to the to the top-heavy superstructure of this project, there was no one making sure the project fit a good business model for making a successful film, even on a smaller scale. Who is going to have the brass to say no to the players behind the scenes on this concept from the get-go? It has the feeling of an old 40s film “hey, let’s open a nightclub and everyone will come because they like us” but on a political level, albeit a smug one at that.
For the “new” UA to enter the marketplace with this as their keystone project establishing their name wasn’t the best of moves. Apparently the test screenings feedback didn’t register on the powers that be at “new” UA and they were unable to step back from the edge. “Not release a film with pedigree? You have to be kidding. We can’t shelf this… what would people think…”
Maybe the project should have been moved to HBO or even PBS as a tax-write off, not foisted on a marketplace that does read reviews and online pre-release sites. Perhaps via those types of entertainment vehicles they could have started more of a dialogue with the public instead of with the bean counters who in the end, judge today’s film value in the marketplace.
pb
Steve for our sake’s …
Stay in your basement…never ever come out.
It’s the only thing that will save US from you.
If Hollywood would please stop trying to influence Iraq and get back to making movies which entertain or hold you spell bound due to good acting or a great script then movies like this will continue to fail. Oh to have another Goodfellas movie come along.
I saw a pre-review on this film the other day and the writer attempted to blame a potential small box office on the subject matter. He said that people are fed up with the War, so they will most likely stay away from the film. More Hollywood hogwash. The reason there is so little interest in this and other films of it’s ilk is that these people are so far removed from the rest of the country, they cannot conceive of anyone thinking other than what they think.
They are dead wrong and this film makes my point, AGAIN!
While promoting this film, Robert Redford has been going around various talk shows and specifically making the point that this film is not propaganda.
What a hypocrite he is! Either that or delusional.
If you’re going to spout it, Mr. Redford, at least be upfront and own it.
I am so pleased that the anti-war movies are losing money. Maybe Hollywood will realize that their days are numbered if they continue to preach to us instead of entertaining us from the movie screen. At least the arrogant Redford can comfort himself in that his meager audience is composed of “the Elites” as stated in this article. Maybe I wouldn’t mind these kinds of movies if only the OTHER VIEW was given some play. By the way, it’s not Cruise that sunk this film, it was the sanctimonious view that America is to blame for all the world’s ills.
I agree with some of what Steve says. I did like movies a lot better when lots of details about their personal lives were not widely available. I have no idea how many children Gene Hackman has. I know Angelina Jolie has five, and I can see photos of all of them while waiting to pay for my beer on different covers.
What if Clint Eastwood is scared of horses? I wouldn’t want to know, but if he really was, I would have been told several times by now.
As far as movies about current events, I don’t go to the movies to catch a fictional portrayal about current wars or other current events. I go to the movies to forget about those things, if only for two hours.
The key is foresight vs. hindsight. The real events of Three Mile Island (TMI) added box office gross to “The China Syndrome” (TCS) when the TMI accident happened two weeks after TCS was released, but the real events of 9/11 made “The West Wing” a lot less interesting.
There’s a difference between hating America, and hating what the current administration is doing
Movies such as Lamb do better in book form. I’m sure Redford read the script and thought he was reading pure gold. However, people go to movies to see acting. You know, the expression of emotion on people’s faces… a sense of humanity… and to see things they wouldn’t see in their normal lives. To see to US Soldiers (former students of the Redford Professor) to be under equiped, under intel’ed, and put in harms way isn’t the kind of thing I’d see every day… and not something I’d like to see even if I could. You don’t have to be Anti-American to disagree about the war. You don’t have to be brain dead (or corrupt) to support the war. But as Americans, we need to get the job done, whatever that job may be. The Politicians will decide what the job is going to be, so to that end, riling up the public with phony images and speaches is neither entertaining or informative.
Steve’s right people don’t want to be depressed or have politics thrown in their face. People want to be entertained, hence the term “Entertainment”
If I wanted to see politics of which ever side I would turn on CNN or Fox News, depending on which bend I wanted to see.
Hopefully with all these political dramas about the war bombing, hollywood will wake up and make entertainment once again, just as soon as they can write something that is.
GO WGA!!!
Tom Cruise is the most public example of what’s going on in the movie business. The audience has more choices. And in business, when your customer has more choices you’re supposed to either market your product better or make it better. Hollywood has done neither. The suits allow bad coverage of their stars from magazines which THEY OWN. They kill their own brand. You can only have a good movie with a good script. Hollywood had gotten away with treating their writers like Sh_t because they could rely on star power to sell the film. Well, after 911 we’re in a postmodern age and the old ways aren’t going to work. Embrace the writers, get better stories and you might have a chance. I’m a rabid liberal and even I’m upset with the tone of the “anti war” movies. We need more pro-USA (but not pro Bush) movies.
Also, “Fred Claus” is a christmas themed movie that usually opens small, but has good legs that keep it strong through the holiday season. Sure Warners has to be disappointed by Fred’s performance, but it’s not over yet.
Tom Cruise is the most visible ex. of what’s happening. After 9-11 we’re in a Postmodern age. The old ways aren’t going to work anymore. Hollywood kills its brand by allowing TV mag shows to show the worst sides of its stars. Up till now, they relied on stars to sell the movies. The concept of “stars” has changed. Now a “star” is some kid in his underwear dancing around his bedroom on Youtube. The suits got away with treating the writers like sh_t since the beginning of film. To have a chance, they are going to have to value the writer because now, story is going to matter more than ever. I’m a rabid liberal and even I’m pissed off about the anti-soldier, anti-america tone of these Iraq movies.
When will Hollywood realize nobody wants to see or hear their anti-American rantings. You don’t mention it, but a movie that has been doing great is Bella. This is the antithesis of Hate America. It is a wonderful, feel-good movie that touches audiences. I hope Hollywood sees the difference, but I doubt it. They will continue to put out their trash and wonder why they are tanking at the box office. Good luck, fellas.
i’d rather watch my dog take a shit, then sit in a movie with the cell phone stalkers and the popcorn crunchers.