BOX OFFICE: ‘America,’ f*** yeah

Posted by · 4:22 pm · July 24th, 2011

So “Captain America: The First Avenger” managed to hold the Harry Potter buzz wave to one weekend crown by coming out on top this week. I think it’s a pretty solid number given the givens, but anyway, my eyes are on that #10 spot. Woody Allen’s locomotive keeps chugging along.

(Courtesy: Box Office Mojo)




→ 21 Comments Tags: , , , , | Filed in: Box Office

21 responses so far

  • 1 7-24-2011 at 4:25 pm

    red_wine said...

    Food for thought: Harry Potter makes more money in half a day than the highest grossing movie of Woody Allen’s career makes in its entire run.

  • 2 7-24-2011 at 5:27 pm

    Dana Jones said...

    Why would anyone want to go see Zookeeper is beyond me… top 10, sad.

  • 3 7-24-2011 at 5:31 pm

    JJ1 said...

    For as average as I found ‘Capt. America’ to be (while not bad), I found ‘Friends with Benefits’ to be a riot.

    Predictable as the day is long, but funny, poignant, has a great supp. cast, and the chemistry btwn. JT and Kunis sold it for me.

    My prudish 58 yr. old mom even liked it; I was shocked. haha. Then again, she rarely goes to the movies.

    As for the box office, sightly surprised by that enormous Harry drop.

    And I also am abhorred by those seeking out The Zookeeper.

    Midnight in Paris? Ordinarily, I’d be over the friggin’ moon that a Woody film was doing this business. I just wish it were for a different film. MiP was ok for me, but not one of my Woody faves.

  • 4 7-24-2011 at 5:43 pm

    SC said...

    Good opening for “Cap”; should at least match “Thor”‘s domestic performance, and with the comparatively weak August competition ahead of it, even do better. Overall I think Marvel should be very pleased with how the various Avengers tentpoles have gone.

  • 5 7-24-2011 at 9:11 pm

    Maxim said...

    “think it’s a pretty solid number given the givens”

    It’s kind of interesting how a movie called “Captain America” can’t open to over $100 millions.

  • 6 7-24-2011 at 9:31 pm

    SJG said...

    I love, love, love Midnight in Paris and I keep hoping that somehow it will be the little engine that could…. steal Best Picture from the Spielberg bait. I don’t see that happening… but if there’s anyone who would be well-liked enough by the Academy to pull it off, it would be Woody Allen.

    I mean, it’s not like Spielberg wouldn’t have an obvious frontrunner just next year–frankly, what looks to be the more credible and deserving awards powerhouse than this weird-ish War Horse thing–so he wouldn’t have to wait long to get his due reward.

  • 7 7-25-2011 at 1:10 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    …so he wouldn’t have to wait long to get his due reward.

    Spielberg has three Oscars, plus the Thalberg. Is he really “due” a reward?

  • 8 7-25-2011 at 6:37 am

    Steven Kaye said...

    SJG, it would indeed be terrific if Midnight in Paris won (it will definitely get a nomination), but it won’t. The simple reason? Woody Allen won’t be there.

  • 9 7-25-2011 at 7:11 am

    JJ1 said...

    “it will definitely get a nomination”.

    Really? I’m not against that happening. But Woody box office and good reviews automatically means it makes the 5-10?

  • 10 7-25-2011 at 7:24 am

    SJG said...

    Guy–

    Essentially, my point with his “due reward” was tongue-in-cheek. I have a sneaking suspicion that the ‘narrative’ of this election cycle is that War Horse deserves to sweep everything as some kind of testament to the magic of Spielberg.

    I may be way off-base… but it’s been a while since the Academy has had an obvious opportunity to recognize Spielberg and I get the impression that people want him to join the Wyler/Capra club.

    All of which leads to…. “he’s due!”

  • 11 7-25-2011 at 7:59 am

    red_wine said...

    I really really really doubt that the members of the Academy think in terms of numbers like Oh Speilberg is so great he should be a 3 time winner, ditto Meryl Streep. I think we should have Kate Winslet equal her record.

    I really doubt this enters even their sub conscious as a remotely developed line of reason for voting for something. For the most part they are literally just looking at the year and vote for whatever is the big story. They might think if some actor or director who should have one does not but thinking if past winners need more, it kinda does even the academy members a disservice to imagine that they would think this way.

  • 12 7-25-2011 at 5:23 pm

    Steven Kaye said...

    JJ1 – the reviews and the box-office have been excellent. Besides, if Little Miss Sunshine and Sideaways could get nominated, then Midnight in Paris will.

  • 13 7-25-2011 at 5:24 pm

    Steven Kaye said...

    Sideways.

  • 14 7-25-2011 at 8:09 pm

    Afrika said...

    Spoken with the ignorant douchiness of an American frat boy. My goodness gracious me…

  • 15 7-25-2011 at 10:35 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    Afrika, what are you talking about?

  • 16 7-26-2011 at 9:24 am

    Maxim said...

    “Spielberg has three Oscars, plus the Thalberg. Is he really “due” a reward?”

    Guy, let’s take the “due” factor out of it. Forget due, or the fact that there are plenty of directors or other people out there who have more Oscars (Seriously).

    You comment makes it sound like he is spoiled (in fact considering how hard he had to work to even get himself nominated he’s anything but). He had earned every Oscar he won so far and he easily deserved more using both the absolute scale of merit and a relative scale of the work he was nominated or non-nominated for (in my opinion).
    Consider also the fact that he’s not really an-Oscar chaser and isn’t known for unfair campaigning. If he makes a movie that wins big (and these things don’t get won on reputation alone) it should be a welcome thing. He has directed 8 films that went on garner a best picture nomination but only one for one them won. If you look at it through this perspective, as you would have, if you were interested in more than a finding a way to dismiss, you’d see that if the word due is to mean someone who has been unjustly ignored then that applies to our guy perfectly.

    I am not saying he is the most ignored flmmaker out there (of course not). I am saying that he’s the most deserving to be in the company of Capra, Wyler and Ford and Jaws, Raiders, whatever, could have gotten him there already.

    And that’s what makes people feel he’s due. And of course, he is. As far as I see it if he wins Oscars back to back (nothing is a given so let’s not get all up in arms and pretend like it is) then it will happen because he earns them and these would be some of the very best picks the academy will make.

  • 17 7-26-2011 at 1:57 pm

    SJG said...

    I really doubt this enters even their sub conscious as a remotely developed line of reason for voting for something. For the most part they are literally just looking at the year and vote for whatever is the big story. They might think if some actor or director who should have one does not but thinking if past winners need more, it kinda does even the academy members a disservice to imagine that they would think this way.

    I disagree. This type of thinking clearly enters their minds when nominating, for example. I don’t, for instance, believe that Jack Nicholson or Meryl Streep has been truly deserving of every nomination they’ve received, but when one of them gives a well-received performance, they almost always get nominated, just by virtue of their past record with the Academy.

    It seems perfectly clear that the Academy enjoys awarding the statue to people by virtue of how it reflects on the Academy. I absolutely believe that the Academy wants an excuse to give Meryl Streep another Oscar eventually. I think that if there is no one who unambiguously deserves it more than Spielberg, the voters will say, “Wouldn’t it be nice to see Steve join Capra and Wyler?” I think that impulse will become even greater next year with Lincoln if Spielberg loses out with War Horse.

    Maybe I’m a little off-base, but I would suggest that you’re just as off-base by stating that it “doesn’t remotely enter their sub-conscious”. Many Academy voters are outright shallow, and “the narrative” of the win is often as important as the quality of the work. I don’t really see how anyone could argue otherwise.

    You yourself say they look at “the big story”. It seems pretty clear to me that this year’s “big story” could very well be–

    STEVEN SPIELBERG TO JOIN TWO OF THE GREATEST DIRECTORS OF ALL TIME AS A THREE-TIME BEST DIRECTOR WINNER!

    Don’t tell me that that kind of narrative won’t earn him some votes all by its lonesome.

  • 18 7-26-2011 at 2:43 pm

    Fitz said...

    The Best Director race is the least compelling to me. It will with all probability come down to which (with all due respect) old guy to give the Oscar to.

  • 19 7-26-2011 at 5:42 pm

    Speaking English said...

    ***It will with all probability come down to which (with all due respect) old guy to give the Oscar to.***

    And yet look at the last two winners…

  • 20 7-26-2011 at 6:28 pm

    Rashad said...

    4 actually. Boyle and the Coens ain’t young.

  • 21 7-27-2011 at 4:44 pm

    Fitz said...

    I meant between Spielberg, Eastwood and Scorsese, but the point remains the same.