ROTTEN TOMATOES: Mega-Meltdown at the Weekend Box Office!

Mega-Meltdown at the Weekend Box Office!

by Scott Weinberg | April 03, 2006

Silly Scrat and his "Ice Age" buddies have returned to the multiplexes ... and the result was an absolutely mammoth opening weekend frame. Fox's CG-animated sequel squeezed about $70.5 million from the first-weekend moviegoers, making "Ice Age: The Meltdown" the year's first bona-fide box office bonanza. (By comparison, the original "Ice Age" made just over $46 million during its own opening weekend.)

Hanging on in second place was Spike Lee's bank heist thriller "Inside Man," which added an additional $15.7 million to its $52.8 million grand total. Debuting in third place was WB's urban skating drama "ATL," which rolled to the tune of $12.5 million from 1,600 theaters.

Fourth and fifth place went to a pair of old pals: Paramount's "Failure to Launch" exhibited some staying power, netting an additional $6.6 million ($73.2m total), and WB's "V for Vendetta" commanded another $6.5 million ($56.8m total).

Two other newcomers fared ... not as well. Universal's strongly-reviewed "Slither" was able to scare up only $3.7 million from 1,900 theaters, while Sony's "Basic Instinct 2" netted an anemic $3.2 million from 1,400.

Next weekend sees the release of four new wide titles: Sony's sports slob-com "The Benchwarmers," MGM's gangster flick "Lucky Number Slevin," Fox Searchlight's "Phat Girlz," and New Line's dance drama "Take the Lead."

For a closer look at the weekend numbers, head on over to the Rotten Tomatoes Box Office Page!

Related Items

Movie:	The Benchwarmers
	Ice Age: The Meltdown
	Slither
	V For Vendetta
	Failure to Launch
	Take the Lead
	ATL
	Phat Girlz
	Inside Man
	Lucky # Slevin
	Basic Instinct 2
Celeb:	Spike Lee

(1-15 of 15 posts) | Reply

the_NatureBoy_WOOOOO writes:
on Apr 03 2006 10:56 AM

I don't think anyone in the world could have predicted that this movie would make 70 mil. in one weekend.

(Reply to this)

killthemall4444 writes:
on Apr 03 2006 11:11 AM

Can you say Ice Age 3?

(Reply to this)

nogard64 writes:
on Apr 03 2006 11:43 AM

a lil suprised Slither did so bad, but then again not really because comedy horror films never seem to do well. I remember when Shaun of the Dead was playing and I was trying to drag all my friends to go and they all said it looked really stupid and no way in hell they see it, well I sure made them eat their words, they all later told me they regret not seeing it, becuase that lil movie turned out to be the cult hit of the year!

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Apr 03 2006 01:47 PM

Fox did well to make Scrat the focus of their advertising, but regardless, a non-Wednesday, April weekend bow of this size is pretty incredible. While I wouldn't have predicted an intake of upwards of $70 million, I saw something like this coming.

Not that I'm condoning this, but I'm surprised Hollywood doesn't abandon their adult fare entirely and work on producing family films; at least from a financial perspective, no genre is more reliable and rarely does it falter, regardless of the quality of the individual films. "Narnia" absolutely walloped "King Kong." "Madagascar," "Robots" and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" were all huge. We saw a definite resurgence in R-rated comedies from both "Wedding Crashers" and "The 40-Year-Old Virgin," but that will run its course. The family film will never stop making money. The performance of "Ice Age" is just the umpteenth example.

And, judging by how poorly the other debuts performed ($3.7 million in 1,900 theaters for "Slither" is a certified atomic bomb), filmmakers of other genres better step up to the challenge, because producers may very well take these sentiments to heart sometime in the near future.

(Reply to this)

Senh Duong writes:
on Apr 03 2006 04:12 PM

In reply to this comment (#833096)
Straight horror films have been doing well though (White Noise, Boogeyman). For some odd reason, mixing comedy with horror isn't working nowadays.

(Reply to this)

A_Voice_of_Reason writes:
on Apr 03 2006 04:19 PM

In reply to this comment (#833096)
[b]Stop complaining about Family movies[/b]
Why all the animosity toward family films on this site? Of course the box office numbers are going to be better for Narnia than Kong; families can bring their kids to movies like Narnia, whereas kids have no business in a movie like Kong. I saw both and while Kong was a superior movie, Narnia was not at such a lower level as to warrant these anti-Narnia comments that keep popping up.

It isn't that hard to find "crappy" rated R movies any time of year, so if you are really concerned about the "crappy" R rated movie industry, put your money where your mouth is.

(Reply to this)

Surrealist5 writes:
on Apr 03 2006 04:19 PM

I'm sorta glad Basic Instinct 2 sucked.

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on Apr 03 2006 09:38 PM

In reply to this comment (#833098)
what animosity and anti-Narnia comments did you see exactly??

I think most movies make up their losses in DVD sales these days, so I don't think we have to worry about studios just making family-orientated movies alone any time soon.

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Apr 03 2006 10:20 PM

In reply to this comment (#833098)
I'm not bemoaning the success of anything. Hell, I saw "Narnia," "Charlie," "Robots" and the original "Ice Age." And I think it goes unsaid that parents and kids are a joint item when it comes to family film box office. That's just another big plus in the moneymaking column. And, though I'm still not sure why you're insinuating that I ever said any genre of film was "crappy," I'll agree that plenty of R-rated films are terrible.

But I will disagree with you on one point: Kids have plenty of business seeing a movie like "King Kong." The third graders I used to volunteer for were absolutely crazy about "The Lord of the Rings," and yes, they too can go to imdb.com and find out what project Jackson's doing next. And "Kong" got plenty of marketing push, on the backs of cereal boxes, on school merchandise, even Nickelodeon spots. "Narnia" beat it out last holiday season because of other factors, (among them being, of course, that it looked quite a bit like "Lord of the Rings" in the promos).

(Reply to this)

renny2077 writes:
on Apr 03 2006 11:09 PM

Basic Instinct 2....talk about stupid ideas. Glad that Ice Age 2 is doing well. Can't wait to watch it when it releases here. V for Vendetta, although an interesting story with great characters was ultimately disappointing for the lack of action. It was too much drama for a Wachowski movie.

(Reply to this)

Depthcharge writes:
on Apr 04 2006 10:02 AM

I just want to see a movie called Scrat. Or perhaps Scrat the TV show? Yeah there you go.

I'm also glad Basic Instinct 2 did poorly. Sharon Stone is one of the most obnoxious people on the planet.

(Reply to this)

alsanali writes:
on Apr 04 2006 10:02 AM

"ultimately disappointing for the lack of action. It was too much drama"

Well someone missed the point...

(Reply to this)

lovelykeira writes:
on Apr 04 2006 12:54 PM

70.5 is damn impressive, I kind of want to see The Benchwarmers evan though I really don't like Heder, I really want to see Lucky Number Slevin which looks completely awsome with a great cast and director.

(Reply to this)

getomans writes:
on Apr 04 2006 07:13 PM

i want to see benchwarmers and take the lead, they both look so interesting

(Reply to this)

UweBoll writes:
on Apr 08 2006 04:32 AM

Basic instinct 2 was not that bad, I think Sharon Stone was great in it. I don't understand the snobbery against it.

There have been some much worse films out over the last few months, as for Sharon Stone being obnoxious, well I'll always like like her more than those young bimbos like Jessica Alba who is so hypocritical about showing her body.

(Reply to this)

RottenTomatoes.com