"Spider-Man," a highly anticipated comic-book hero saga, kicked off the lucrative summer movie season in North America with a record three-day gross of $114 million, according to studio estimates issued on Sunday. The film, released by Columbia Pictures, smashed the old three-day record of $90.3 million, set last November by "Harry Potter (news - web sites) and the Sorcerer's Stone." "Spider-Man" also broke the boy wizard's benchmarks for highest single-day receipts, said Jeff Blake, Columbia's president of worldwide marketing and distribution. The film revolves around a high-school geek, played by Tobey Maguire, who is bitten by a spider and is soon able to scale walls and shoot webs from his wrist. Kirsten Dunst co-stars as his love interest, and Willem Dafoe as the villainous Green Goblin. Sam Raimi directed the film, which was reportedly budgeted between $120 million and $130 million. The audience was evenly split between males and females, and between viewers aged over and under 25, Blake said. The "Spider-Man" gross of $43.7 million on Saturday broke the "Harry Potter" single day record of $33.5 million, and the new film reached $100 million in three days, while "Harry Potter" took five days.
They already greenlighted the sequel a couple of weeks ago. I don't know why, but I am actually happy that Spider-Man overtook Harry Potter's record opening. I don't know what I've got against Harry Potter, but I sure didn't like that movie holding that record.
So I guess the people who said that Harry Potter would outgross Lord of the Rings way back when were right.
While Harry Potter did take the crown, LOTR did get a lot closer than I thought it would. I think over the course of the two trilogies<sp?> LOTR will make the most $.
Afterall those horrible spidy flicks from the distant past, it looks like somebody finally got it right.
I contributed $18 to the gross today when I took my three kids to a matinee. It was worth it. I thought it was a good movie, and the kids really enjoyed it.
Ummm...Harry Potter currently has 4 books out, with at least 3 more scheduled. Don't know ho wmany they plan to film, though, but given their popularity and the first one's success, I don't see why they would stop at three.
Are me and my wife the only two people that thought Spiderman sucked ass? Hell, once that dude said "I swear on my father's grave that I'll get back at Spiderman", I knew the sequel was on... I think I'll rent the first <i>Batman</i> movie this week... "Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moon light?"
I took my kids and geez, it was better than advertised. The story was very close to the original comic book storyline with a little of the today thrown in. Makes me wonder whether or not comic book writers were involved in the "Hollywood" script. Damn it was good!
I thought it was pretty good. If nothing else, I thought it was very entertaining. The only problem is that I was sitting next to about 8 gay, black guys and they were so LOUD during the movie. I suspected they were gay because of the way they were talking before the movie and the way they smelled, which could best be described as "fruity." Any doubt I had was cleared up during the XXX preview, when Vin Diesel was shirtless they all shouted "WOOOOHOOOO!" Anyways, I thought that was kind of funny.
There's no nudity (but damn, a wet shirt shot of Dunst was awesome!), and little to no profanity. It's just the fight scenes that earns it a PG-13. My 8 yr old daughter loved it. There are a few loud "shock" scenes that might shake her up, but nothing bad.
There were a couple scenes with a little blood, but nothing a three year old can't handle, and an attempted rape. There's also that scene where Kirsten Dunst and Toby McGuire make wild, passionate spidey love, but you can cover up your kid's eyes during that.
I don't know about Spider-Man, but I heard that the script for the next Batman movie, Batman: Year One, is being written by Frank Miller, the guy who wrote and I think he also drew the Batman: Year One comic book story.
