Sex and the City: The Movie - Page 5

Broadway · 06-02-2008, 12:37 PM

'Sex and the City': A Big Box Office Win

Carrie Bradshaw is now Mrs. Big at the box office. On one of the most exciting weekends in recent multiplex memory, the Sex and the City movie stunned observers by earning a staggering $26.1 mil on Friday...only to experience a substantial decline on Saturday and Sunday. Still, the film seduced audiences enough for a hugely impressive estimated $55.7 mil opening — making it the best R-rated comedy opener ever and helping it knock Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull out of the top slot. At the same time, The Strangers turned out to be a brilliant piece of horror counterprogramming, scaring up a $20.7 mil debut. So — phew! — lots to talk about.

First: Sex and the City, whose monster bow exceeded expectations (including mine) in pretty much every way. Take that $26.1 mil opening day, which was better than even the $25 mil that Indy 4 earned on its first day (although that was a Thursday). The huge initial gross, fueled by strong anticipation among women and mammoth advance ticket sales, portended a weekend take in excess of $70 mil. So why didn't Carrie & Co. wind up earning that much? One explanation could be a simple one: Everybody who was really dying to see the movie saw it on day 1. Additionally, it stands to reason that a flick for grownups would do well on Friday, when kids are still in school, and then fall off over the weekend, when families invade the multiplex.

Either way, that $55.7 mil premiere is one for the history books. It is by far the best of all time for a romantic comedy, and it's also tops for a TV adaptation. It ranks as the No. 5 opening for an R-rated film (following those for a bunch of man-baiting movies like 300 and Hannibal). And when final weekend figures come out on Monday, it could be the fifth-top debut ever for New Line, the 40-year-old studio that was recently downsized to become a part of Warner Bros.

Whether the film can sprout the sexy legs it needs to become a major long-term hit, however, remains a bit unclear. If, in fact, everybody who really wanted to see Sex and the City has already seen it, and if it can't attract any new fans (i.e. men), then it'll have some trouble in the long run. But if the movie gains word-of-mouth momentum, overcomes a modest critical reception, and capitalizes on the fact that it's the only film for adults of all genders for many weeks to come, then it could do quite well. It stands a chance of becoming a $200 mil-plus hit — or even approaching the $241.4 mil that My Big Fat Greek Wedding banked a while back. (And, to be honest, I hope it does: I saw Sex and the City at a jam-packed 10 a.m. Saturday showing...and I really liked it! Sorry fellas.)

Strong as it was, Sex and the City won the weekend because of one other thing: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (No. 2) couldn't hang on to its lead. The film dropped 54 percent to earn $46 mil — a respectable decline that was, for the second straight week, exactly as I predicted. Nonetheless, Indy 4 became the seventh-fastest movie ever to crack the $200 mil mark; it now has $216.9 mil in the domestic coffer and appears to be somewhat immune to all that carping from its core audience.

The weekend's third big story was the very-impressive $20.7 mil opening for the Liv Tyler-Scott Speedman shock-fest, The Strangers (No. 3). That sum is basically twice as much as most pundits predicted, and it's one of the best this year for a horror movie; on a regular non-summer weekend, the fright flick likely would have been an easy victor. Truly, Universal's Rogue Pictures genre division deserves kudos for recognizing an absence of fresh youth-baiting fare in the marketplace, making The Strangers savvy counterprogramming opposite Sex and the City and Indy 4.

Oh, and lest we forget the rest: Iron Man (No. 4 with $14 mil) and The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (No. 5 with $13 mil) rounded out the top five on a busy weekend whose cumulative gross was up a whopping 30 percent from the same frame a year ago. And if you'll excuse me now, I've gotta go transcribe a love letter from Beethoven and e-mail it to my fiancée.

Google · Sponsored Links

**waywyrd** · 06-07-2008, 12:44 PM

For those who were asking about Carrie's tie-dyed dress, I found a link to it. Don't know how much it costs, though. Probably don't want to know.

Carrie's dress

Broadway · 06-07-2008, 10:01 PM

Oh my.... I had forgotten about that website!! Thank you thank you, waywyrd!!!

I found a really cool strapless tiedye dress at catalogfavorites.com and ordered it that night. Much cheaper, I am sure, but it gave me that feeling. I wish it were a halter like Carrie's, tho.

tiedye dress

tvaholic · 08-02-2009, 06:48 PM

OK, So I know that this movie is 500 years old and that everyone has already seen it BUT once a movie has hit cable it should be reevaluated. I was a HUGE fan of the series. This movie (at first) satisfied my need for more of the show. Now that I've watched it (probably 50 times) on cable I've changed my opinion of it. WHY and I repeat WHY did they even have Jennifer Hudson in this movie? I only like the first part, when she isn't in it. They could have used one of the regular cast members( like Stanford) to fill the void. I care more about him than her. Not only is she a bad actress but the story line sucks. Maybe the first few times that you listen to the whole "St. Louise from St. Louis" thing it's not so bad but several times, IT STINKS! Sure, maybe I shouldn't watch it so much but it's kinda like I'm amazed that the writers even wrote this stuff! Didn't we (as fans) already have enough of an investment in the characters to care about just them? Did the production company think that this franchise needed some kind of ethnic diversity to make it more popular? I HATE that they didn't stay true to form and follow the lives of the characters that we already knew. It's fine that Carrie hired an assistant but because of the amount of story line that they "gave" Jennifer Hudson we didn't get more of the characters that we cared about! I want to know if Anthony and Stanford hook up and just what is it that Carrie likes about "Big". Honestly, I don't know why she likes him. He's kind of a one note guy. PLEASE try to show me why she is so hooked on this guy. WHY IS IT LOVE? I don't give a flying f--- about Jennifer Hudson and her boyfriend from St. Louis! I HATE!!!!!EVERY scene that she is in. She doesn't belong in this movie!!! OK, I feel better now! think that I'll go see what's on cable!

norealityhere · 08-02-2009, 08:45 PM

Often, when something is made into a movie, they seek to make it as commercially viable as possible. I think Jennifer was brought in for that reason. She's not my favorite actress, but I thought she wasOK.
As far s Mr. Big, I guess you eeither get it or don't. Some of us find Chris Noth incredibly sexy and manly whatever he is in. I guess if you didn't really care for him, there were enough scenes of the naked French guy. I think it's all a matter of preference. And, not everybody is going to like everyone.So, they had enough characters to appeal to a very diverse audience.

tvaholic · 08-03-2009, 04:12 PM

Sure Chris Noth is sexy. No argument there but that's ALL we ever really knew about him. My problem isn't really about him it's about Jennifer Hudson getting so much screen time. A little bit of time would have been plenty but it's weird the way that they worked her in. A lot of fans questioned this also, when it first came out, but I didn't see it in the theater so at the time I didn't have an opinion. I have a bad habit of just leaving my TV on, for sound and I'll put on what ever movie that I don't hate. If "Sex and the City" is on I change it once the girls get back from Mexico. The second half is REALLY awful! "I'm Louise, from St. Louis", "Louis became St. Louise for me", "Thank you St. Louise for giving me my life back", "And thank you for giving me St. Louis (Vutton) And there's more of the same stuff. I also have a problem with one of Carrie's lines and I just have to tell someone! (this is also a sign of me watching it WAY too many times). Carrie makes a reference to the story "Wuthering Heights", she says "Withering Heights" (with an "I") a VERY common mistake BUT Carrie is suppose to be a writer AND an a book lover. Carrie would NEVER make this mistake but I guess that Sarah Jessica Parker would! I'm surprised that no one caught this. Look, I'll still go see the next "Sex" movie! I just hope that they leave Jennifer Hudson out of it. She wasn't at the "wedding breakfast" so she shouldn't be in the next movie!

06-02-2008, 12:37 PM	#41
Broadway One in every crowd.. Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Michigan Posts: 18,763	Re: Sex and the City: The Movie 'Sex and the City': A Big Box Office Win Carrie Bradshaw is now Mrs. Big at the box office. On one of the most exciting weekends in recent multiplex memory, the Sex and the City movie stunned observers by earning a staggering $26.1 mil on Friday...only to experience a substantial decline on Saturday and Sunday. Still, the film seduced audiences enough for a hugely impressive estimated $55.7 mil opening — making it the best R-rated comedy opener ever and helping it knock Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull out of the top slot. At the same time, The Strangers turned out to be a brilliant piece of horror counterprogramming, scaring up a $20.7 mil debut. So — phew! — lots to talk about. First: Sex and the City, whose monster bow exceeded expectations (including mine) in pretty much every way. Take that $26.1 mil opening day, which was better than even the $25 mil that Indy 4 earned on its first day (although that was a Thursday). The huge initial gross, fueled by strong anticipation among women and mammoth advance ticket sales, portended a weekend take in excess of $70 mil. So why didn't Carrie & Co. wind up earning that much? One explanation could be a simple one: Everybody who was really dying to see the movie saw it on day 1. Additionally, it stands to reason that a flick for grownups would do well on Friday, when kids are still in school, and then fall off over the weekend, when families invade the multiplex. Either way, that $55.7 mil premiere is one for the history books. It is by far the best of all time for a romantic comedy, and it's also tops for a TV adaptation. It ranks as the No. 5 opening for an R-rated film (following those for a bunch of man-baiting movies like 300 and Hannibal). And when final weekend figures come out on Monday, it could be the fifth-top debut ever for New Line, the 40-year-old studio that was recently downsized to become a part of Warner Bros. Whether the film can sprout the sexy legs it needs to become a major long-term hit, however, remains a bit unclear. If, in fact, everybody who really wanted to see Sex and the City has already seen it, and if it can't attract any new fans (i.e. men), then it'll have some trouble in the long run. But if the movie gains word-of-mouth momentum, overcomes a modest critical reception, and capitalizes on the fact that it's the only film for adults of all genders for many weeks to come, then it could do quite well. It stands a chance of becoming a $200 mil-plus hit — or even approaching the $241.4 mil that My Big Fat Greek Wedding banked a while back. (And, to be honest, I hope it does: I saw Sex and the City at a jam-packed 10 a.m. Saturday showing...and I really liked it! Sorry fellas.) Strong as it was, Sex and the City won the weekend because of one other thing: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (No. 2) couldn't hang on to its lead. The film dropped 54 percent to earn $46 mil — a respectable decline that was, for the second straight week, exactly as I predicted. Nonetheless, Indy 4 became the seventh-fastest movie ever to crack the $200 mil mark; it now has $216.9 mil in the domestic coffer and appears to be somewhat immune to all that carping from its core audience. The weekend's third big story was the very-impressive $20.7 mil opening for the Liv Tyler-Scott Speedman shock-fest, The Strangers (No. 3). That sum is basically twice as much as most pundits predicted, and it's one of the best this year for a horror movie; on a regular non-summer weekend, the fright flick likely would have been an easy victor. Truly, Universal's Rogue Pictures genre division deserves kudos for recognizing an absence of fresh youth-baiting fare in the marketplace, making The Strangers savvy counterprogramming opposite Sex and the City and Indy 4. Oh, and lest we forget the rest: Iron Man (No. 4 with $14 mil) and The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (No. 5 with $13 mil) rounded out the top five on a busy weekend whose cumulative gross was up a whopping 30 percent from the same frame a year ago. And if you'll excuse me now, I've gotta go transcribe a love letter from Beethoven and e-mail it to my fiancée. __________________ Never let the things you want make you forget about the things you have.

06-07-2008, 12:44 PM	#42
waywyrd dazed and confused Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: South Carolina Posts: 11,988	Re: Sex and the City: The Movie For those who were asking about Carrie's tie-dyed dress, I found a link to it. Don't know how much it costs, though. Probably don't want to know. Carrie's dress __________________ I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me.

06-07-2008, 10:01 PM	#43
Broadway One in every crowd.. Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Michigan Posts: 18,763	Re: Sex and the City: The Movie Oh my.... I had forgotten about that website!! Thank you thank you, waywyrd!!! I found a really cool strapless tiedye dress at catalogfavorites.com and ordered it that night. Much cheaper, I am sure, but it gave me that feeling. I wish it were a halter like Carrie's, tho. tiedye dress __________________ Never let the things you want make you forget about the things you have.

08-02-2009, 06:48 PM	#44
tvaholic FORT Fanatic Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Cypress,California Posts: 692	Re: Sex and the City: The Movie OK, So I know that this movie is 500 years old and that everyone has already seen it BUT once a movie has hit cable it should be reevaluated. I was a HUGE fan of the series. This movie (at first) satisfied my need for more of the show. Now that I've watched it (probably 50 times) on cable I've changed my opinion of it. WHY and I repeat WHY did they even have Jennifer Hudson in this movie? I only like the first part, when she isn't in it. They could have used one of the regular cast members( like Stanford) to fill the void. I care more about him than her. Not only is she a bad actress but the story line sucks. Maybe the first few times that you listen to the whole "St. Louise from St. Louis" thing it's not so bad but several times, IT STINKS! Sure, maybe I shouldn't watch it so much but it's kinda like I'm amazed that the writers even wrote this stuff! Didn't we (as fans) already have enough of an investment in the characters to care about just them? Did the production company think that this franchise needed some kind of ethnic diversity to make it more popular? I HATE that they didn't stay true to form and follow the lives of the characters that we already knew. It's fine that Carrie hired an assistant but because of the amount of story line that they "gave" Jennifer Hudson we didn't get more of the characters that we cared about! I want to know if Anthony and Stanford hook up and just what is it that Carrie likes about "Big". Honestly, I don't know why she likes him. He's kind of a one note guy. PLEASE try to show me why she is so hooked on this guy. WHY IS IT LOVE? I don't give a flying f--- about Jennifer Hudson and her boyfriend from St. Louis! I HATE!!!!!EVERY scene that she is in. She doesn't belong in this movie!!! OK, I feel better now! think that I'll go see what's on cable!

08-02-2009, 08:45 PM	#45
norealityhere May 2010 be a better year Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,285	Re: Sex and the City: The Movie Often, when something is made into a movie, they seek to make it as commercially viable as possible. I think Jennifer was brought in for that reason. She's not my favorite actress, but I thought she wasOK. As far s Mr. Big, I guess you eeither get it or don't. Some of us find Chris Noth incredibly sexy and manly whatever he is in. I guess if you didn't really care for him, there were enough scenes of the naked French guy. I think it's all a matter of preference. And, not everybody is going to like everyone.So, they had enough characters to appeal to a very diverse audience. __________________ To Thine Own Self Be True

08-03-2009, 04:12 PM	#46
tvaholic FORT Fanatic Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Cypress,California Posts: 692	Re: Sex and the City: The Movie Sure Chris Noth is sexy. No argument there but that's ALL we ever really knew about him. My problem isn't really about him it's about Jennifer Hudson getting so much screen time. A little bit of time would have been plenty but it's weird the way that they worked her in. A lot of fans questioned this also, when it first came out, but I didn't see it in the theater so at the time I didn't have an opinion. I have a bad habit of just leaving my TV on, for sound and I'll put on what ever movie that I don't hate. If "Sex and the City" is on I change it once the girls get back from Mexico. The second half is REALLY awful! "I'm Louise, from St. Louis", "Louis became St. Louise for me", "Thank you St. Louise for giving me my life back", "And thank you for giving me St. Louis (Vutton) And there's more of the same stuff. I also have a problem with one of Carrie's lines and I just have to tell someone! (this is also a sign of me watching it WAY too many times). Carrie makes a reference to the story "Wuthering Heights", she says "Withering Heights" (with an "I") a VERY common mistake BUT Carrie is suppose to be a writer AND an a book lover. Carrie would NEVER make this mistake but I guess that Sarah Jessica Parker would! I'm surprised that no one caught this. Look, I'll still go see the next "Sex" movie! I just hope that they leave Jennifer Hudson out of it. She wasn't at the "wedding breakfast" so she shouldn't be in the next movie!