BOX OFFICE: ‘Cowboys’ and ‘Smurfs’ photo finish

Posted by · 11:38 am · July 31st, 2011

After winning the day Friday, “The Smurfs” (which somehow has an audience) managed to dip down and line up neck and neck with the under-performing “Cowboys & Aliens.” Meanwhile, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” is on course to be the fastest worldwide billion-dollar grosser, and is likely to take the domestic crown, too (a first when the franchise was up against a “Transformers” installment). “Midnight in Paris” dropped out of the top 10 again but still managed a million more bucks.

(Courtesy: Exhibitor Relations)

→ 40 Comments Tags: , , , , | Filed in: Box Office

40 responses so far

  • 1 7-31-2011 at 1:10 pm

    JJ1 said...

    With all the superhero/sci-fi blockbusters out this Summer – for me – this has also been the season of the Comedy.

    Bridesmaids – My favorite of the year.
    Midnight in Paris – Woody resurgence.
    Horrible Bosses – Stupid, but undeniably funny.
    Friends with Benefits – Sexy fun.
    Crazy, Stupid, Love – Just saw it. Enjoyable.
    Bad Teacher – Not my favorite, but not awful.
    Larry Crowne – Flat, but it had it’s moments.

    I found almost all of these comedies to be good or very good. And though I wish some of them had more breathing room to make $$, I think most of them have done very well with audiences considering how bunched up they’ve been with all the superhero/sci-fi stuff.

  • 2 7-31-2011 at 2:02 pm

    /3rtfu11 said...

    ““The Smurfs” (which somehow has an audience)”

    How is this surprising? 80s properties are all the rage.

  • 3 7-31-2011 at 2:32 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    It just didn’t register to me. I could’t imagine legitimate Smurf nostalgia yielding a considerable turnout. It’s not like Transformers or G.I. Joe, really. Clearly, I was wrong. But I’m baffled. I guess the He-Man project will get a new fire lit underneath it.

  • 4 7-31-2011 at 2:58 pm

    m1 said...

    How the hell did The Smurfs make that much?

  • 5 7-31-2011 at 3:28 pm

    Fitz said...

    That’s a shame that those two are leading when Crazy, Stupid, Love is a much better film.

  • 6 7-31-2011 at 3:28 pm

    matsunaga said...

    Probably because if kids want to watch it, they have to bring their parents? So that’s at least 3 tickets already…

  • 7 7-31-2011 at 3:40 pm

    AdamA said...

    matsunga’s got the right idea. When you combine a parent-kid movie with the 20-30-something nostalgia, you’ve got a decent shot at a hit, especially with the NPH appeal.

    Speaking of NPH, has a movie helmed by an openly gay actor ever been #1 before?

  • 8 7-31-2011 at 3:40 pm

    AdamA said...


  • 9 7-31-2011 at 3:54 pm

    SC said...

    My two preteen cousins (a nine-year-old boy and a six-year-old girl) were visiting this summer, and both were very enthusiastic about going to see “The Smurfs”; it was, needless to say, dispiriting for me.

  • 10 7-31-2011 at 4:26 pm

    Speaking English said...

    I’m sure the success of “The Smurfs” has very little to do with nostalgia and very much to do with it being extraordinarily appealing to little kids (who, as was already mentioned, drag their parents along). This is basically just another “Alvin and the Chipmunks.”

    On a different subject, is “Cars 2” going to be the lowest grossing Pixar feature? Yikes.

  • 11 7-31-2011 at 4:36 pm

    Ben M. said...

    Cars 2 has already passed A Bug’s Life in both domestic and international b.o., but adjusted for inflation I believe it will become their lowest grossing movie.

  • 12 7-31-2011 at 6:05 pm

    Graysmith said...

    I’m absolutely appalled by the choices parents today are making. On one end you’ve got the new Winnie the Pooh movie with a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes making about $25m total, and on the other end you have the likes of The Smurfs and Zookeeper making that money many times over despite terrible reviews and looking like something that ought to make every parent in the movie theater want to take out a gun and shoot themselves after five minutes. Seriously, what the fuck?

    Yes, yes.. Kids nag, and nag, and nag. They have no sense of taste and they usually get their way. But I do wish there were more parents who would simply tell their kids that they won’t spend money on taking them to see garbage.

  • 13 7-31-2011 at 6:17 pm

    JJ1 said...

    I could not agree with Graysmith more. Ugh. Poor Pooh. To me, there is absolutely nothing appealing-looking about The Smurfs or The Zookeeper. Even my much-younger siblings think they look like pure crap. I also blame the parents.

  • 14 7-31-2011 at 6:27 pm

    m1 said...

    12-I feel guilty about not seeing Pooh. But I’ll definitely check it out on DVD. By the way, has anyone on this site seen it?

  • 15 7-31-2011 at 7:13 pm

    Glenn said...

    TBH, I wouldn’t want to spend upwards on $50 for tickets to see “Winnie the Pooh” if it’s only 63 minutes long.

  • 16 7-31-2011 at 7:25 pm

    RyanT said...

    Guys, you were kids once. Think about it. If you REALLY wanted to see a film and your parents say NO and take you to another film, even if that other film turns out great, YOU WOULD STILL BE PISSED and act out accordingly.

    It’s the summer. Parents are NOT looking for a fight especially over something like the films their kids want to see in theaters over the summer.

  • 17 7-31-2011 at 7:31 pm

    Dana Jones said...

    Can I say it? Can I???

    The box office got smurfed.

  • 18 7-31-2011 at 8:10 pm

    SC said...

    @ Graysmith

    I asked my aforementioned cousins about “Pooh”, and neither was enthusiastic about it (the boy was very vocal about how he didn’t want to see it, in particular).

  • 19 7-31-2011 at 8:45 pm

    Mr. F said...

    Poor Pooh. Such a fun, wholesome, and great animated movie will struggle to make $25 million, and the movie about product placement and rapping blue people (I haven’t seen it, but you know that at some point they will rap) makes that in less than two days. What a shame.

    But hey, guess which one will have a longer shelf life.

  • 20 7-31-2011 at 9:33 pm

    Speaking English said...

    ***TBH, I wouldn’t want to spend upwards on $50 for tickets to see “Winnie the Pooh” if it’s only 63 minutes long.***

    $50??? What the heck kind of theater are you going to?

  • 21 7-31-2011 at 9:33 pm

    red_wine said...

    The Smurfs trailer looked just abysmal, like awful beyond words. I would not even except money to watch that.

    Honestly I am surprised too that it has an audience, the previews are repulsive. But like some said those Alvin movies become hits too.

  • 22 7-31-2011 at 9:56 pm

    Trailer said...

    Hi !
    Thank you for the article and all your site, I really like it and had a nice time reading everything :)
    If you want you can check my site too ( with updated articles about Films !!

  • 23 7-31-2011 at 10:32 pm

    Rashad said...

    Speaking English: Tickets here in NY are 13, so a family of 4 is 52 on tickets alone. (Though I’m unsure how much kids tickets cost, but still.)

  • 24 8-01-2011 at 5:12 am

    matsunaga said...

    Yeah, I hope they watch Winnie the Pooh instead of The Smurfs… But I guess kids would prefer to watch Pooh and Co. on Disney Channel than to see them in the big screen…

  • 25 8-01-2011 at 6:02 am

    JJ1 said...

    I’m from Suffolk County, Long Island. Tickets here in multiplexes are a little over $11 for adults, and around $8.75-9.25 for matinee prices. I’m not sure about senior citizen & children’s prices, but I’m pretty sure they’re $7ish.

    But then there are old, smaller theaters out here that offer $5 movies at matinee price for most of the week.

  • 26 8-01-2011 at 7:57 am

    Matthew Starr said...

    OT since we don’t have a forum or cinejabber anymore.

    Anyone find it strange there is so much footage and so many photos of TDKR? Has any film production ever been this well documented? I feel like a behind the scenes feature on the blu ray won’t even be necessary with all this online footage.

  • 27 8-01-2011 at 11:06 am

    Speaking English said...

    ***Tickets here in NY are 13, so a family of 4 is 52 on tickets alone.***

    $13 all day long? Surely they aren’t so pricey for first showings or showings before noon?

  • 28 8-01-2011 at 1:52 pm

    al b. said...

    Cowboys and Aliens wins!… kinda

  • 29 8-01-2011 at 2:47 pm

    Chad Hartigan said...

    I see no difference between paying to see The Smurfs and paying to see Transformers.

  • 30 8-01-2011 at 3:09 pm

    Rashad said...

    Matthew: I hate that too. And what bugs me even more are the sites reporting the stuff

    $13 all day long

    Only one AMC I go to has matinee prices before noon.. And all the indie theaters don’t have matinees either.

  • 31 8-01-2011 at 3:37 pm

    Speaking English said...

    Dang, that’s what you get for living in New York I guess.

  • 32 8-01-2011 at 3:54 pm

    JJ1 said...

    Happy CSL got up to 19.1 million (I’m assuming from word of mouth) after the 14 million it was tracking about 5 days ago.

  • 33 8-01-2011 at 5:02 pm

    Matthew Starr said...

    Chad, what exactly is the difference between paying to see any movie as opposed to another? What exactly whats your point here?

    Also every AMC in Manhattan has $6 tickets before noon (I think).

  • 34 8-01-2011 at 5:44 pm

    Rashad said...

    Lincoln Square yes, but not Times Square.

    Not sure about 34th st.

  • 35 8-01-2011 at 6:56 pm

    Maxim said...

    Not such a photofinish, after all. I’d say the much superio Cowboys & Aliens has a pretty definite lead.

  • 36 8-01-2011 at 8:07 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    $800,000 is most definitely still a photo finish in this game.

  • 37 8-01-2011 at 8:51 pm

    Matthew Starr said...

    Rashad I have paid $6 before noon at both 42nd AMC and 34th AMC.

  • 38 8-01-2011 at 8:51 pm

    Glenn said...

    “$50??? What the heck kind of theater are you going to?”

    Family. $50 for a family.

    Although, having said that, ticket prices are ridiculously out of control in Australia.

  • 39 8-01-2011 at 8:51 pm

    Glenn said...

    You REALLY thought I meant $50 for one ticket though, didn’t you?

  • 40 8-01-2011 at 9:30 pm

    Rashad said...

    Well every time I went it was full price. Same for Regal across the street