2019 At The Box Office (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

Last weekend of 2019

1 (1) Star Wars: The Rise o… Walt Disney $72,000,000 -59% 4,406 n/c $16,341 $361,796,342 2
2 (2) Jumanji: The Next Level Sony Pict… $35,300,000 +33% 4,227 n/c $8,351 $175,456,805 3
3 N Little Women Sony Pict… $16,525,000 3,308 $4,995 $29,000,000 1
4 (3) Frozen II Walt Disney $16,500,000 +27% 3,265 -400 $5,054 $421,290,889 6
5 N Spies in Disguise 20th Cent… $13,200,000 3,502 $3,769 $22,087,856 1
- (5) Knives Out Lionsgate $9,725,000 +50% 2,022 -513 $4,810 $110,237,095 5
- (15) Uncut Gems A24 $9,550,000 +3,856% 2,341 +2,336 $4,079 $21,074,669 3
- (4) Cats Universal $4,830,000 -27% 3,380 n/c $1,429 $17,820,175 2
- (6) Bombshell Lionsgate $4,700,000 -8% 1,480 n/c $3,176 $15,631,427 3
- (7) Richard Jewell Warner Bros. $3,010,000 +17% 2,502 n/c $1,203 $16,064,186 3
- (9) Ford v. Ferrari 20th Cent… $1,800,000 -3% 793 -640 $2,270 $106,138,359 7
- (8) Queen & Slim Universal $1,760,000 -5% 699 -379 $2,518 $40,168,280 5
- (11) A Beautiful Day in th… Sony Pict… $1,445,000 +8% 1,014 -510 $1,425 $55,868,042 6
- (10) Black Christmas Universal $910,000 -50% 1,514 -1,111 $601 $9,628,330 3
- N 1917 Universal $570,000 11 $51,818 $1,008,099 1
- (12) Parasite Neon $552,956 +15% 170 -57 $3,253 $22,328,628 12
- (-) 21 Bridges STX Enter… $250,000 229 $1,092 $27,680,000 6
- (16) Jojo Rabbit Fox Searc… $250,000 +31% 208 -22 $1,202 $20,917,369 11
- (14) A Hidden Life Fox Searc… $208,000 -16% 118 +12 $1,763 $756,065 3
- (22) Maleficent: Mistress … Walt Disney $178,000 +65% 155 -25 $1,148 $113,231,744 11
- (13) Dark Waters Focus Fea… $175,000 -45% 140 -311 $1,250 $10,532,219 6
- (18) Playing with Fire Paramount… $165,000 +3% 188 -99 $878 $44,067,851 8
- (19) Midway Lionsgate $142,000 -11% 142 -141 $1,000 $56,203,922 8
- (21) Harriet Focus Fea… $130,000 +20% 112 -91 $1,161 $42,481,420 9

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Good weekend for both Disney and Sony. Incredible legs on Knives Out.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Good weekend for both Disney and Sony. Incredible legs on Knives Out.

When you make a good movie with positive reviews and regular folks willing to talk about such a good movie then you get these type of box office results.

 

[Malcolm R]

Nice improvement for the Jumanji sequel. The last film also had a similar 2nd week bump.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Jumanji is taking advantage of the holiday play period for sure.

Little Women and Frozen II are so close in
the estimates for the three-day weekend that they could swap places tomorrow once the actual numbers for Sunday come in.

I saw Frozen II again this morning but also saw Little Women on Wednesday so still supported its five-day take.

It's very telling that Spies in Disguise opened lower than Frozen despite the latter being in its sixth week. I've got to wonder what Disney expected from it. As they inherited it from Fox, they had no choice but to release it, but I don't think it got quite as big of a push as one of their own animated films. I think it looks terrible personally, but with Fox being in a period of transition and Disney not really needing another animation studio, it's going to be interesting to see what the box office results for this film mean for the future of Blue Sky.

 

[Wayne_j]

I haven't seen Spies in Disguise but it is getting decent critic scores and good audience scores.

 

[Tino]

Box office guru analysis.


THIS WEEKEND The final frame of the year/decade went to Disney's Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker which fell 59.4% in its second weekend to an estimated $72M bringing its domestic total up to $361.8M. It's a fairly steep decline but better than 2017's The Last Jedi which fell 67.5% in its second weekend where its total stood at $368.1, a scant $7M more than where Rise of Skywalker currently stands. Overseas Skywalker added an additional $94.3M for an international total of $363M and a worldwide total of $725M.

In second place for a second straight weekend was Jumanji: The Next Level which jumped 33% from last weekend to an estimated $35.4M, bringing its total up to $175M after three weekends. I presume there will be another level coming soon.

Sony's Little Women launched itself into the Oscar race with an estimated $16.5M debut this weekend from 3,308 theaters for a per screen average of $4,995. Its total stands at $29M after a Christmas Day opening. Critics are over the moon for the film while paying audiences gave the film an A- CinemaScore. Good word-of-mouth and serious awards buzz could have this playing well into the new year.

Disney returns again with Frozen II which also saw a jump from last week adding an additional $16.5M this weekend, according to estimates, bringing its cume up to $421.3M after six weeks. Internationally it has taken in just under $800M for a worldwide bonanza of $1.21B. It is within shouting distance of the original film which ended its run with $1.27B.

Debuting in fifth place was the animated Spies in Disguise which managed to pull in an estimated $13.2M from 3,502 theaters for a per screen average of $3,769. Its total is at $22M over its 5-day opening. Critics were mostly positive while audiences gave the film an A- CinemaScore.

Knives Out continued its strong run jumping a whopping 50% from last weekend to an estimated $9.7M bringing its cume up to $110.2M for Lionsgate. Studio A24 has one of their biggest hits on their hands with Adam Sandler's Uncut Gems which went into wide release this weekend and took in an estimated $9.5M bringing its total up to $20M. However a CinemaScore of only a C+ does not bode well for the future, even though critics are raving about the film.

Speaking of dim futures, Universal's Cats fell 27% in its second weekend, despite releasing a new version of the film into theaters. It took in a paltry $4.8M, according to estimates, bringing its total up to $17.8M. Bombshell took ninth place with an estimated $4.7M bringing its total up to $15.6M. And Richard Jewell went up a few ticks and took in $3M this weekend, according to estimates, bringing its disappointing total up to $16M

www.boxofficeguru.com

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Just out of curiosity: for you regular multiplex dwellers, any idea of the approximate size of the non-premium screens you see movies on?

My local Regal still has the old fashioned chairs that don’t recline and aren’t padded or plush, so they’re fairly small. Most of the screens there are only about ten seats wide. Some might be closer to twelve but others more like eight.

Just wondering if that’s abnormally small for Regal or about what you’re getting wherever you’re going.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Just out of curiosity: for you regular multiplex dwellers, any idea of the approximate size of the non-premium screens you see movies on?

My local Regal still has the old fashioned chairs that don’t recline and aren’t padded or plush, so they’re fairly small. Most of the screens there are only about ten seats wide. Some might be closer to twelve but others more like eight.

Just wondering if that’s abnormally small for Regal or about what you’re getting wherever you’re going.

We have three Regal multiplexes in the immediate Albany area, not including one in the suburbs about a half-hour or so north and another in the Berkshires just over the border in Massachusetts.

One is an 18-screen theater in the area's biggest mall that was originally built as a Hoyts and was the first multiplex around with stadium seating. All of the screens are common height screens (opens up for 2.39:1 pictures). There are two massive theaters on the first level (one a digital IMAX) and two nearly as massive theaters on the second floor. The auditoriums get progressively smaller from there. The center section remains roughly the same width, but the number of rows drops significantly and there isn't the same amount of seating on the two sides.

The second, across the Hudson, is a standalone eight-screen multiplex that was built as a standalone building in the parking lot of what is now a Walmart. I don't spend much time on that side of the river, so I don't know its pre-Regal history. But it feels very much like a multiplex from the eighties, where you walk through rather than past the snack bar and with a gently sloping floor rather than stadium-seating. The auditoriums I've been in have felt uniformly on the smaller side.

The third, in the area's second biggest mall, was built by Regal about a decade ago and is the most recently built multiplex east of Schenectady. It has 13 screens, all common width screens (closes from top and bottom for 2.39:1 pictures). Those auditoriums seem to vary more in size with the smallest being smaller than the smallest at the other two locations, but all have the reclining chairs.

 

[Wayne_j]

We have three Regal multiplexes in the immediate Albany area, not including one in the suburbs about a half-hour or so north and another in the Berkshires just over the border in Massachusetts.

The second, across the Hudson, is a standalone eight-screen multiplex that was built as a standalone building in the parking lot of what is now a Walmart. I don't spend much time on that side of the river, so I don't know its pre-Regal history. But it feels very much like a multiplex from the eighties, where you walk through rather than past the snack bar and with a gently sloping floor rather than stadium-seating. The auditoriums I've been in have felt uniformly on the smaller side.

I first remember going to this cinema in 1991 while watching Terminator 2. Other than the digital projectors everything else is pretty much exactly the same.

The theater 30 minutes North is similar to the one in the 2nd largest mall with all screens common width.

 

[Malcolm R]

Analysis of 2019's biggest bombs:

https://deadline.com/2020/04/box-office-bombs-2019-list-1202918753/