ROTTEN TOMATOES: Big Ape Swings Through the Weekend Box Office

Big Ape Swings Through the Weekend Box Office

by Scott Weinberg | December 19, 2005

OK, so "King Kong" didn't exactly storm out of the gates following its release last Wednesday, but the lovestruck gorilla enjoyed a rather impressive 3-day weekend all the same. The monkey's mega-movie grabbed just over $50 million over the weekend, giving it a total tally of $66.2 million from over 3,500 screens.

Variety's Ben Fritz sums up the Kong-quest rather nicely: "The big ape is already catching a second wind.

Swinging to a respectable weekend after a weaker-than-expected start on Wednesday, "King Kong" grossed $50.1 million Friday-Sunday; five-day cume was $66.2 million. "King Kong" averaged $14,055 per play at 3,568 locations.

Universal is pinning its hopes on "Kong's" strongest stat: a 40% jump from Friday to Saturday. That's significantly better than any of the "Lord of the Rings" pics, all of which also opened Wednesday a week before Christmas.

"This movie is setting its own pattern," asserted Marc Shmuger, U vice chairman in charge of worldwide marketing and distribution. "It's a new one for those of us in the business and who study it. Who knows where it could go?""

Pulling in at second place, with a pretty impressive $31.1m second weekend, is Disney's "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," which has now earned $112.5m from the moviegoers. Third place went to the newly-arrived ensemble comedy "The Family Stone," which netted $12.7m from 2,400 theaters.

Fourth and fifth place went to a pair of old pals: "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" ($5.9m, $252.5m total) and "Syriana" ($5.4m, $22.3m total).

Next week sees the arrival of five new wide releases: "Fun with Dick and Jane" and "Cheaper by the Dozen 2" on Wednesday, "The Ringer" on Friday, and "Rumor Has It" and "Wolf Creek" on Sunday ... which means there will be a little for something for everyone at the multiplexes.

As always, you can check out a closer look at the weekend numbers by visiting the Rotten Tomatoes Box Office Page.

Related Items

Movie:	King Kong
	Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
	The Family Stone
	Rumor Has It...
	Fun with Dick and Jane
	Cheaper By the Dozen 2
	The Ringer
	Wolf Creek
	Syriana

(1-20 of 34 posts) | Reply

antickpix writes:
on Dec 19 2005 05:35 AM

Dimension have totally killed Wolf Creek with their publicity campaign

(Reply to this)

South_park300 writes:
on Dec 19 2005 08:49 AM

it is rather upsetting that Kong didn't get the numbers everyone thought it would get. the movie really deserves it. here's hoping Kong will have satying power in the theaters so it can earn lots of money!

as far as Wolf Creek goes, i haven't seen much publicity, but I have seen enough to make me wanna see it. it looks very scary and gritty.

(Reply to this)

nogard64 writes:
on Dec 19 2005 09:09 AM

[b]not that shocking[/b]
the theatre experience has turned into a mainly suburban elementry school kids experience. Adults now can afford to get a widescreen TV and a nice surround sound system for the home at Walmart for around $500. The only crowds who does show up and pack the theatres are children. And I really didn't see the movie advertised well on kids cartoon hours. (think of the big openings, Spiderman, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Narnia) But I think the movie well make it up in a long run because the word of mouth is really strong for Kong.

(Reply to this)

gianash writes:
on Dec 19 2005 09:16 AM

[b]misleading numbers...[/b]
This piece sites a 40% increase from Friday to Saturday. That really isn't all that impressive when you look at the actual dollars and cents. If I were the studio, I'd be asking "why did we make so LITTLE on Friday???"

All in all, I am pleased that the "Kong's" box office totals weren't as high as anticipated. While the visuals of the movie were stunning (not a surprise with P.J. at the helm), the movie felt every second of the 3+ hours that it lasted. There wasn't a moment that I wasn't saying to myself, "get on with it!!!"

(Reply to this)

puablo writes:
on Dec 19 2005 09:52 AM

[b]Absurd criticism[/b]
This article (thankfully) doesn't report it quite like other news sources have, claiming that "Kong isn't doing so well". Since when did a $50 mil weekend become "not so good?" Meanwhile, craptastic movies make $25 mil in a weekend and as long as they were #1 they're touted as hits. People are acting like this is the long lost part 4 of the Lord of the Rings and expect the same numbers. Kong doesn't have as huge of a following to make it a "I must see this on opening day" movie, and at over 3 hours, people are likely too busy preparing for the holidays to make that time investment. Realistically, $66 mil in the 5-day opening is really good, and given that it is somewhat family friendly I bet it will continue to do well over the holidays and I suspect out gross Narnia.

(Reply to this)

lovelykeira writes:
on Dec 19 2005 11:38 AM

I liked King Kong, you just have to kinda go with it cause obviosly the storyline is a little different and it's kinda long. But it's a good film. I still need to see The Family Stone and I'm glad that Potter is still doing well. I'm looking forward to Fun with Dick and Jane, The Ringer, and Rumor Has It.

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Dec 19 2005 11:44 AM

I don't know about the numbers, but this was pure movie magic at its finest and if ever there was a movie that deserves a big return, this is it. I'll definitely be paying to see it again. A movie in three parts is how I saw it and Spielberg is no longer the dinosaur king after seeing Jackson's take on them. Kudos to Jackson and his team for the movie of the year; now bring on The Hobbit!

(Reply to this)

Insert_witty_name writes:
on Dec 19 2005 12:04 PM

[b]Not too shabby[/b]
According to a Yahoo! article the domestic take was 66 mil, but worldwide the movie took in over 143 mil since Wednesday. Also factor in that the movie is long and cannot be shown as much other films, and that it is good and should get positive word of mouth, this movie should have some staying power. Needless to say, Universal is not going to lose any money on this one.

(Reply to this)

South_park300 writes:
on Dec 19 2005 12:31 PM

true, i never thought about the fact that since the film is nearly twice as long as the average film that there aren't as many showings. good point.
for anyone that likes a good movie, you are doing yourself a disservice by NOT seeing this movie in the theater. long live the hobbit gorilla king! haha

(Reply to this)

Jethro Floyd writes:
on Dec 19 2005 12:38 PM

When all's said and done, Kong will gross a little more than Goblet and much more than Narnia, while falling short of Episode III. I think it'll rake in just over $300M.

(Reply to this)

nogard64 writes:
on Dec 19 2005 12:53 PM

[b]ok people are really starting to piss me off![/b]
I cant believe people are dismissing Kong and already proclaiming its a flop, a bomb, with how much its taken in for just 5 days world wide its doing very well. And quit complaining about the length! PJ made it long out of respect for the audience he wanted to give everyone their moneys worth. Quit complaining! thats like getting a hamburger and saying oh I hate it when they put extra beef in it, or I hate it when I get too many pepperoni slices on my pizza! The only way this movie would be too long is if you have A.D.D. and you have the mental focus of a 3 year old! I really liked this movie and I will see it again soon probably when I get the free time after Christmas! LONG LIVE KING KONG!!!!!

(Reply to this)

puablo writes:
on Dec 19 2005 02:08 PM

In reply to this comment (#829066)
[b]Agreed, until...[/b]
I agree almost wholeheartedly on most of your points. People claiming it is bombing are clinically insane, as it's doing better than most other movies ever hope to do and will very likely not suffer a 70% dropoff in ticket sales like most releases. And people shouldn't complain about a movie's length IN THEORY - myself, I like stories that take the time to flesh out details. Anyone knocking the length of Lord Of The Rings, for example, needs to be smacked upside the head because you need that time to tell the story properly.

I disagree with King Kong though. There are definitely a few scenes that needed to be edited, not from an ADD perspective, but from a "this is just taking too long" perspective. Bill Hunt over at thedigitalbits.com had a perfectly written review pointing out this very problem. He and I both disagree with most critics saying "they take too long on the boat", it's really the remainder of the movie that needed shortening.

Nonetheless, it is still an excellent film which deserves to hit that $300 mil mark.

(Reply to this)

BatmanFan28 writes:
on Dec 19 2005 02:47 PM

This movie did NOT feel like 3 hours, it was very well paced!

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Dec 19 2005 03:21 PM

[b]My Hunch Is That It Will Be Even Longer On DVD.[/b]
I think by the time it's released on DVD, there will be an extended version of King Kong that'll add at least another 30 mins. to the length. As it stands now, the story takes a giant leap from Kong lying in the water to being on stage in New York and that just doesn't seem like Jackson�s style; especially after the extended versions of the Rings trilogy. I expect we'll see scenes added that'll show the actual capture and transport of Kong; more of the Skull Island tribe, and a flashback that�ll explain the relationship between Carl and Jack.

(Reply to this)

Symmetrical writes:
on Dec 19 2005 04:40 PM

[b]mixed reviews[/b]
alright people... back to work, we gotta remake this thing one time just to be sure... looking forward to the sequel as well

(Reply to this)

Elixir writes:
on Dec 19 2005 05:06 PM

In reply to this comment (#829057)
kong doesn't deserve shit.

jackson spent millions to give us a weaker jarrasic park .

(Reply to this)

gowansy writes:
on Dec 19 2005 05:36 PM

every1 stating this film a success in the box office is wrong. u gotta look at in a percentage. kong cost a fortue to make. its weekend opening is weak, simple as that. it shudda pulled way more money in on the friday. word of mouth is okay but not fantastic, theres already a lot of people whining about the length.

its already a certified flop.

(Reply to this)

r_curl04 writes:
on Dec 19 2005 06:17 PM

In reply to this comment (#829069)
in the 1933 one they never show how they get Kong to NYC either. And Mr. Jackson said this movie was what wanted him to make movies, so i think if anything he wanted to be really true to the original. And quite frankly he was.

All in all this movie is fantastic. I saw it Thursday and Friday and am going again tomorrow. The length was no hassle to me as the movies pace was fine.
What bugs me is when people complain about the first hour where this is no Kong. I just take it that people are used to the crap now a days where there is no character development in the movies. Because Mr. Jackson sure knows how to do this. I had no problem with the first hour as for me it made me care about the characters.

But yeah Kong was sweet! Go see it. And although it didn't make the expected amount of money it did make alot, and good word of mouth will only help it.

(Reply to this)

Macedonian writes:
on Dec 19 2005 07:02 PM

im thinkin kongs gonna build up the same way titanic did, titanic only opened to 28 mil its opening weekend and overtime got more and more popular, so i expect the same for this

(Reply to this)

South_park300 writes:
on Dec 19 2005 07:38 PM

i dont think it flopped, i just hoped it would make tons more. some were saying this would be the next titanic as far as money goes, and i really wanted it to because of how great the movie is.

as far as someone calling it a weaker jurassic park, you haven't seen Kong yet.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links