Skip to comments.
Gods and Generals opening weekend box office stats
movieweb ^
Posted on 02/25/2003 9:35:25 AM PST by Sir Gawain
(Gross ticket receipts in $millions)
|Feb. 23|Feb. 17 | | Weeks
|Weekend|Weekend |Total| in
Movie (Studio) | Gross | Gross |Gross|Release
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--| 1| 1. Daredevil (20) | $18.1 | $45.0 $ 69.5 2
--|--| 2. Old School (DW) | $17.5 | $ -.- $ 17.5 1
1| 2| 3. How to Lose a Guy... (PA) | $11.6 | $20.7 $ 64.6 3
--| 4| 4. The Jungle Book 2 (DS) | $ 8.7 | $14.1 $ 25.2 2
3| 3| 5. Chicago (MM) | $ 8.2 | $14.5 $ 94.1 9
--|--| 6. The Life of David Gale (UN) | $ 7.1 | $ -.- $ 7.1 1
2| 5| 7. Shanghai Knights (TO) | $ 6.5 | $12.8 $ 44.5 3
--|--| 8. Gods and Generals (WB) | $ 4.7 | $ -.- $ 4.7 1
--|--| 9. Dark Blue (UA) | $ 3.9 | $ -.- $ 3.9 1
4| 6|10. The Recruit (TO) | $ 3.4 | $ 7.3 $ 44.3 4
5| 7|11. Final Destination 2 (NL) | $ 3.0 | $ 6.2 $ 40.3 4
13|10|12. The Hours (PA) | $ 2.4 | $ 3.9 $ 30.0 9
7| 8|13. Kangaroo Jack (WB) | $ 2.0 | $ 5.0 $ 61.9 6
10|11|14. The LOTR: The Two Towers (NL) | $ 1.9 | $ 3.6 $328.2 10
6| 9|15. Deliver Us from Eva (FO) | $ 1.8 | $ 4.4 $ 14.7 3
11|12|16. About Schmidt (NL) | $ 1.7 | $ 3.5 $ 55.5 11
18|17|17. The Pianist (FO) | $ 1.2 | $ 1.7 $ 12.9 9
23|18|18. The Quiet American (MM) | $ 1.1 | $ 1.4 $ 4.3 7
12|13|19. Catch Me If You Can (DW) | $ 0.8 | $ 2.5 $161.1 9
8|14|20. Biker Boyz (DW) | $ 0.8 | $ 2.5 $ 20.5 4
9|15|21. Darkness Falls (CO) | $ 0.7 | $ 2.4 $ 30.9 5
19|16|22. Gangs of New York (MM) | $ 0.7 | $ 2.0 $ 73.6 10
20|19|23. Adaptation (CO) | $ 0.6 | $ 1.3 $ 19.4 12
21|21|24. The Lion King (DS) | $ 0.4 | $ 0.6 $ 12.9 9
27|22|25. Talk to Her (SC) | $ 0.4 | $ 0.6 $ 6.3 14
14|20|26. Just Married (20) | $ 0.3 | $ 1.0 $ 54.4 7
TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: godsandgenerals
I didn't fix the links. That's not a very impressive opening weekend. I saw it the night it opened and the theater was pretty full.
To: Sir Gawain
Considering the nearest theather showing it is over sixty miles away, it looks like it is doing pretty good.
2
posted on
02/25/2003 9:42:47 AM PST
by
dts32041
(Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a "4".)
To: dts32041
Why did Rich Lowry call it a box office flop? I think he was expressing sarcasm.
To: Sir Gawain
Doesn't surprise me . . . same thing happened to "The Patriot". Whenever Jay Leno interviews people for "The Tonight Show" he usually stands outside a movie theater and we get a firsthand look at the number of people for which ignorance is a virtue.
FWIW, I've almost finished reading the book (my 16 yr. old daughter has already finished it) and then we're all going to the movie this Sat. What did you think of it?
4
posted on
02/25/2003 9:51:09 AM PST
by
w_over_w
(Standing Athwart History 24/7)
To: Sir Gawain
Daredevil: excluding the last Batman flick, has there ever been a gayer looking comic book / action movie?
5
posted on
02/25/2003 9:59:25 AM PST
by
avg_freeper
(Why the heck did super heroes ever start wearing tights?)
To: w_over_w
This is an outstanding movie I think you will enjoy it.
6
posted on
02/25/2003 10:18:00 AM PST
by
arly
To: Sir Gawain
You have to remember that some of these movie going liberals could not identify a photo of Harry Truman or tell you who the current secretary of State is, let alone enjoy a historical movie of this magnitude!
7
posted on
02/25/2003 10:20:57 AM PST
by
arly
To: w_over_w
It was alright I suppose. Bring a cushion.
To: avg_freeper
Daredevil: excluding the last Batman flick, has there ever been a gayer looking comic book / action movie? I'm sorry I wasted my time seeing "Daredevil." I thought it would be like "Spiderman," but it was NOT GOOD. Plus, it's too violent for little kids.
To: Sir Gawain
Quite respectable, considering:
- It's in fewer theaters than any other movie in the top ten (less than half as many as Daredevil).
- It can only be shown two or three times a day due to its length.
- The average movie-goer is a teenage cretin who wouldn't watch a serious historical drama if you paid him.
10
posted on
02/25/2003 10:30:12 AM PST
by
Stay the course
(primates capitulards et toujours en quĂȘte de fromages)
To: Sir Gawain; arly
Bring a cushion.LOL!
Did either of you see Bill O'Rielly's interview on "The Factor" last week of both Steven Lang (plays "Stonewall" Jackson) and Robert Maxwell (Director)? Total class acts. To listen to Lang talk about Jackson you would have thought he was still in character. Brilliant man. Director's like Maxwell genuinely care about preserving the integrity of our countries history by raising money for the preservation of historical landmarks. Just my thoughts . . .
11
posted on
02/25/2003 10:52:19 AM PST
by
w_over_w
(Standing Athwart History 24/7)
To: Sir Gawain
Doesn't state how many screens. The movie was so long that theatres with few screens wouldn't run it since it cuts into snack bar revenue.
Remember theatres make little or no money from first run movie ticket sales.
To: Sir Gawain
My wife and I saw it today as one of my birthday presents. In reviews I had read, it was mentioned that the movie was "side neutral." While that may be true from a philosophical point of view, the film is overwhelmingly aimed at the South. The Southerners are all wonderful family men, have beautiful wives and adorable children and, above all are "men of God." The Northerners were led by an idiot (Burnsides) and focus only on Jeff Daniels who is not portrayed as being overly Godly, just somewhat. I would like to have seen a more balanced approach. There were certainly many Godly men in the North at the time and a similar concentration on their charcters would have been just as dramatic and entertaining.
On a light note, Ted Turner "sneaks" into his own movie. In a scene where a male singer is entertaining the Southern troops, the camera shows Robert Duval (General Lee) and immediately behind him is Ted Turner as a soldier officer.
(Ted Turner was not listed among the dead officers from the next battle.)
To: elephantlips
In reviews I had read, it was mentioned that the movie was "side neutral." While that may be true from a philosophical point of view, the film is overwhelmingly aimed at the South. You have to remember that this movie is part of a trilogy albeit out of temporal sequence. The first movie produced was "Gettysburg" that focused on the Northern side.
The Southerners are all wonderful family men, have beautiful wives and adorable children and, above all are "men of God."
The main Northern character, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, was also portrayed as a devoted husband with a loving and gorgeous wife. Religion was a fact of 19th Century America. The one character in the movie that stated that he was a "non-believer" (on his deathbed of all places) was a Southerner.
The Northerners were led by an idiot (Burnsides) and focus only on Jeff Daniels who is not portrayed as being overly Godly, just somewhat. I would like to have seen a more balanced approach.
Hey, that's History. This movie covered the time period from the start of the war to Chancellorsville. During that time period, Union Generals MacClellan, Pope and Hooker were totally outclassed and Burnsides was outright idiot.
To change that is to change History.
14
posted on
03/01/2003 11:23:43 PM PST
by
Polybius
To: All
Folks, a lot of the problem is hardly any theaters are playing it......for a movie that has got a lot of press, this is shocking!!
I am going to have to go 60 miles just to watch this movie!!!
15
posted on
03/01/2003 11:25:21 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.")
To: w_over_w
Did Lang talk about admiring Jacksonor something? Impressive if so!
16
posted on
03/01/2003 11:27:16 PM PST
by
rwfromkansas
("No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.")
To: Polybius
You're right. I haven't seen "Gettysburg" so I have no comparison. Not being a CW fan, I wasn't aware of the disparity between the leaders of the South v. North at the beginning of the war. Chamberlain (a distant relative of mine) did have a fox for a wife in the film and the one thing I was aware of was the deep relationship the people of that time had with their Lord. I enjoyed the film. Jackson was interesting in that he was a loving, caring and compassionate man yet wanted the Northeners annihilated to the last man. That would make an interesting topic to discuss.
To: rwfromkansas
Did Lang talk about admiring Jackson or something? Very much. O'Reilly wanted to get a justification for a movie that paints a favorable picture of the South and yet the South "was in favor of slavery". What Lang pointed out was that Jackson was not for slavery but FOR Virginia's independence. Back then Virginia was not viewed as a state but rather a Commonwealth and therefore a Country. Lang further stated that Jackson began the first bible study for Negro children a fact, which was considered sacrilege back then. Finally, it was Grant who actually owned slaves during the defeat of Lee who also did not believe in slavery.
IMHO, I think O'Rielly always presents an editorial view but when it is countered with thought out factual oral argument he changes his tone to one of respect and appreciation. Both Lang and Maxwell accomplished this.
We just saw the movie yesterday and it was epic. It maintained historical accuracy not only with the various battles but also the Christian generals reference to God's Word and prayer for God's direction in their cause. We were so moved by Lang's brilliant portrayal of Stonewall Jackson. God bless . . .
18
posted on
03/02/2003 8:04:26 PM PST
by
w_over_w
(Happy Birthday Texas . . . Texas Forever!)
To: Stay the course
4. Movie reviews in the liberal papers have been dismal and unfair.
19
posted on
03/02/2003 8:32:26 PM PST
by
oyez
(Is this a geat country.....or what?)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson