The Hobbit Defeats Jack Reacher, Repeats as Box Office Champion

by at . Comments

Tom Cruise hasn't been given much reason to celebrate this holiday season, as his latest action flick fizzled at the box office.

Jack Reacher, a movie based on a best-selling collection of Lee Child novels, garnered a mere $15.6 million on Friday and Saturday, a scant improvement over Cruise's previous vehicle, Rock of Ages.

So much for talk of a franchise.

The Hobbit Photo

The Hobbit, meanwhile, banked another $36.7 and its two-week haul has now pushed past $150 million domestically.

We've listed the top five movies from the weekend below:

  1. The Hobbit: $36.7 million
  2. Jack Reacher: $15.6 million
  3. This Is 40: $12 million
  4. Rise of the Guardians: $5.9 million
  5. Lincoln: $5.6 million

The force-feeding continues. After the audience and I who saw the trailer for Jack Reacher stopped laughing, I realized a few things. One: HE IS NO STEVE MCQUEEN. Then, I realized I had seen someone trying hard to sell their "star" as someone so tough, it would make Dirty Harry die of laughter--HE IS NO CLINT EASTWOOD. Then, I recalled another cringe-worthy piece of "reporting" from a few weeks ago, that he was planning on remaking The Magnificent Seven, with himself in the lead role, and realized--HE IS NO YUL BRYNNER. But whatever his camp wishes to force-feed us, there are still plenty of cinema-goers who are not going to spend a dime on this "comedy." BTW, another spin piece on him being the "highest paid" last year--is that salary or earnings (makes a difference considering others were paid higher salaries)? Also, this controversy DID occur before, with Ann Rice, who felt “Huck Finn” was playing her character; that controversy was gone, after Ms. Rice was to receive a considerable monetary deal for the adaptation with Cruise. Rock of Ages bombed. MI4 earned most of its money overseas, especially in places such as China, where most well-crafted US action films make a profit, regardless of its star. And why, why--do we have to keep being bombarded with PR-placed "theories" as to whether or not audiences will choose to see his films or not because of what they feel about his personal life? Is it not possible that they choose to not see his films simply because they have little interest or have a distaste for the films themselves? "Doing all his own stunts." Please. The insurance and production would never allow it. And why not give the credit to his stunt people who are very hard-working, too (and more humble)? Lessons learned: Question what you read now more than ever in this digital age, and don’t be afraid to laugh out loud in a movie theater.