Right along with the rest of the Hollywood drivel, it is refreshing to see that the highlighted movies below are not 1,2,and 3.

Maybe there is a shred of hope for the American public.





The top 20 movies at U.S. and Canadian theaters Friday through Monday, followed by distribution studio, gross, number of theater locations, average receipts per location, total gross and number of weeks in release, as compiled Tuesday by Exhibitor Relations Co. Inc.:

1. "King Kong," Universal, $33,274,690, 3,576 locations, $9,305 average, $120,597,410, two weeks.

2. "The Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," Disney, $31,692,295, 3,853 locations, $8,225 average, $165,135,135, three weeks.

3. "Fun With Dick and Jane," Sony, $21,530,160, 3,056 locations, $7,045 average, $29,105,916, one week.

4. "Cheaper By the Dozen 2," Fox, $15,340,679, 3,175 locations, $4,832 average, $20,622,433, one week.

5. "Memoirs of a Geisha," Sony, $10,165,114, 1,547 locations, $6,571 average, $13,254,749, three weeks.

6. "The Family Stone," Fox, $10,009,399, 2,469 locations, $4,054 average, $29,209,405, two weeks.

7. "The Ringer," Fox Searchlight, $7,702,439, 1,829 locations, $4,211 average, $7,702,439, one week.

8. "Rumor Has It," Warner Bros., $7,515,000, 2,815 locations, $2,670 average, $7,515,000, one week.

9. "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," Warner Bros., $6,500,000, 2,521 locations, $2,578 average, $263,215,000, six weeks.

10. "Munich," Universal, $6,040,860, 532 locations, $11,355 average, $6,040,860, one week.

11. "Syriana," Warner Bros., $4,910,000, 1,725 locations, $2,846 average, $30,550,000, five weeks.

12. "Wolf Creek," Weinstein Co./dimension, $4,703,210, 1,749 locations, $2,689 average, $4,703,210, one week.

13. "The Producers," Universal, $3,303,541, 975 locations, $3,388 average, $3,546,792, two weeks.

14. "Brokeback Mountain," Focus , $2,951,071, 217 locations, $13,599 average, $7,888,312, three weeks.

15. "Walk the Line," 20th Century Fox, $2,474,226, 1,534 locations, $1,613 average, $87,128,009, six weeks.

16. "The Polar Express Imax," Warner Bros., $1,377,113, 66 locations, $20,865 average, $8,003,571, five weeks.

17. "Yours, Mine & Ours," Paramount, $1,268,701, 1,746 locations, $727 average, $48,312,538, five weeks.

18. "Pride & Prejudice," Focus, $1,153,458, 556 locations, $2,075 average, $31,634,097, seven weeks.

19. "Chicken Little," Disney, $675,451, 922 locations, $733 average, $130,266,798, eight weeks.

20. "Aeon Flux," Paramount, $452,813, 852 locations, $531 average, $24,523,382, four weeks.

___

But they will be the movie's that win all the "awards".

Yeah....I was gonna mention something along those lines and I forgot, you're right.

Quoted: But they will be the movie's that win all the "awards".

But the rewards are granted/awarded by those that made those very movies, so it is kinda like sucking your own member while patting yourself on the back, so in the end, none of it means sh#@.

[Nelson] Ha Ha![/Nelson]

Munich has an agenda?

Quoted: Munich has an agenda?

Explicitly, "fighting terrorism is as bad as terrorism itself."  Just asinine, and to push the message Spielberg has to rewrite history and the attitudes of all involved. The Israelis had about as few qualms going after those fuckers as they did going after the Nazis.

Quoted: Munich has an agenda?

Two words:

Moral Equivalence:

Misguided ‘Munich'

By MITCH WEBBER
December 20, 2005


The most misleading line in Stephen Spielberg's "Munich" comes near the beginning. Israel's prime minister, Golda Meir, tells her cabinet, "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." The implication is that Meir was reluctant to hunt down the terrorists responsible for the Munich massacre, and that doing so was contrary to Israeli, and civilized, values.

The truth is just the opposite. Meir understood that Israel's chief obligation is to ensure that Jews will never again be slaughtered with impunity, simply for being Jewish. Holding mass murderers accountable is not a compromise; it is Israel's reason for being.

The most misleading omission from "Munich" is Germany's response to the massacre. Germany released the Black September terrorists less than two months after they had killed 11 innocent civilians. Israel had to hunt down Black September, because Germany didn't value Jewish lives enough to capture, try, and imprison those who kill Israelis on German soil. (Also missing from the film is any mention of Germany's refusal to allow the Israeli Olympians their own security detail, despite credible threats to their safety, and Germany's refusal to let Israel conduct a rescue operation.) Meir said that she was "literally physically sickened" by Germany's capitulation. She continued, "I think that there is not one single terrorist held in prison anywhere in the world. Everyone else gives in."
Nobody can accuse Stephen Spielberg of insensitivity toward Jews and Israel. But by trying so hard to appear evenhanded, he has made an incomplete and imbalanced movie. In "Munich," those who would murder racist butchers are no better than the butchers themselves. Conservative columnist Warren Bell put it best when he described "Munich"'s simple-minded morality like this: "When good guys kill bad guys, they're as bad as bad guys." Liberal writer Leon Wieseltier concurred: "Munich prefers a discussion of counterterrorism to a discussion of terrorism; or it thinks that they are the same discussion. This is an opinion that only people who are not responsible for the safety of other people can hold."
If both sides of the political spectrum can agree that a nation is not only right, but obligated, to act as Israel did, why does "Munich" try so hard to say otherwise?

A large part of the blame belongs to the screenwriter, Tony Kushner, whose literary accomplishments ("Angels in America," among other brilliant plays) are too often overshadowed by an extreme left-wing political agenda. Why on earth would anyone entrust a script about Israel to someone who declared, "I wish modern Israel hadn't been born?" (So much for impartiality.)

Messrs. Spielberg and Kushner end up glorifying Jewish victims, but deploring those who would keep Jews from becoming victims. Their sense of Jewish tragedy blinds them to the possibility of Jewish heroism.

And yet, even if "Munich" had gotten the dialogue, plot, and tone right, there would still be something missing. Rather, there would be someone missing, a character, Avery Brundage. The reason Munich matters so much to American Jews has nothing to do with Arab terrorism or European appeasement. Those complementary stories were familiar to the world decades before Munich. It was Avery Brundage, an American, who so outraged. The same Avery Brundage who, as head of the U.S. Olympic Committee in 1936, had insisted on sending an American delegation to "Hitler's Games" in Berlin; the same Avery Brundage who, in 1941, was expelled from the anti-war America First Committee for his Nazi allegiance; the man who, in 1972, was president of the full International Olympic Committee.

According to Time Magazine, during the standoff, Brundage's chief concern was with "remov[ing] the crisis from the Olympic Village," as if to say, "There's no way we can save the hostages. Let's at least save the Games." After the murders, despite strong opposition within the IOC, including from the German organizers, Brundage insisted that everything go on as if nothing had happened. He refused even to mention the dead Israelis in the following day's memorial ceremony. Los Angeles Times columnist Jim Murray summed up Brundage's decision like this: "Incredibly, they're going on with it. It's almost like having a dance at Dachau."

Murray's comparison is apt. It was Dachau that taught my grandfather's generation the importance of Israel as a haven in a world that is too often either hostile or indifferent to Jews. And when he was my age, my father watched Munich, the massacre, live on television, and he learned the same lesson. Thirty-three years later, "Munich," the movie, forgets to explain why Israel acted as it did.

That's the story Steven Spielberg missed.

Quoted: Quoted: Munich has an agenda? Two words: Moral Equivalence: Misguided ‘Munich' By MITCH WEBBER December 20, 2005 The most misleading line in Stephen Spielberg's "Munich" comes near the beginning. Israel's prime minister, Golda Meir, tells her cabinet, "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." The implication is that Meir was reluctant to hunt down the terrorists responsible for the Munich massacre, and that doing so was contrary to Israeli, and civilized, values. The truth is just the opposite. Meir understood that Israel's chief obligation is to ensure that Jews will never again be slaughtered with impunity, simply for being Jewish. Holding mass murderers accountable is not a compromise; it is Israel's reason for being. The most misleading omission from "Munich" is Germany's response to the massacre. Germany released the Black September terrorists less than two months after they had killed 11 innocent civilians. Israel had to hunt down Black September, because Germany didn't value Jewish lives enough to capture, try, and imprison those who kill Israelis on German soil. (Also missing from the film is any mention of Germany's refusal to allow the Israeli Olympians their own security detail, despite credible threats to their safety, and Germany's refusal to let Israel conduct a rescue operation.) Meir said that she was "literally physically sickened" by Germany's capitulation. She continued, "I think that there is not one single terrorist held in prison anywhere in the world. Everyone else gives in." Nobody can accuse Stephen Spielberg of insensitivity toward Jews and Israel. But by trying so hard to appear evenhanded, he has made an incomplete and imbalanced movie. In "Munich," those who would murder racist butchers are no better than the butchers themselves. Conservative columnist Warren Bell put it best when he described "Munich"'s simple-minded morality like this: "When good guys kill bad guys, they're as bad as bad guys." Liberal writer Leon Wieseltier concurred: "Munich prefers a discussion of counterterrorism to a discussion of terrorism; or it thinks that they are the same discussion. This is an opinion that only people who are not responsible for the safety of other people can hold." If both sides of the political spectrum can agree that a nation is not only right, but obligated, to act as Israel did, why does "Munich" try so hard to say otherwise? A large part of the blame belongs to the screenwriter, Tony Kushner, whose literary accomplishments ("Angels in America," among other brilliant plays) are too often overshadowed by an extreme left-wing political agenda. Why on earth would anyone entrust a script about Israel to someone who declared, "I wish modern Israel hadn't been born?" (So much for impartiality.) Messrs. Spielberg and Kushner end up glorifying Jewish victims, but deploring those who would keep Jews from becoming victims. Their sense of Jewish tragedy blinds them to the possibility of Jewish heroism. And yet, even if "Munich" had gotten the dialogue, plot, and tone right, there would still be something missing. Rather, there would be someone missing, a character, Avery Brundage. The reason Munich matters so much to American Jews has nothing to do with Arab terrorism or European appeasement. Those complementary stories were familiar to the world decades before Munich. It was Avery Brundage, an American, who so outraged. The same Avery Brundage who, as head of the U.S. Olympic Committee in 1936, had insisted on sending an American delegation to "Hitler's Games" in Berlin; the same Avery Brundage who, in 1941, was expelled from the anti-war America First Committee for his Nazi allegiance; the man who, in 1972, was president of the full International Olympic Committee. According to Time Magazine, during the standoff, Brundage's chief concern was with "remov[ing] the crisis from the Olympic Village," as if to say, "There's no way we can save the hostages. Let's at least save the Games." After the murders, despite strong opposition within the IOC, including from the German organizers, Brundage insisted that everything go on as if nothing had happened. He refused even to mention the dead Israelis in the following day's memorial ceremony. Los Angeles Times columnist Jim Murray summed up Brundage's decision like this: "Incredibly, they're going on with it. It's almost like having a dance at Dachau." Murray's comparison is apt. It was Dachau that taught my grandfather's generation the importance of Israel as a haven in a world that is too often either hostile or indifferent to Jews. And when he was my age, my father watched Munich, the massacre, live on television, and he learned the same lesson. Thirty-three years later, "Munich," the movie, forgets to explain why Israel acted as it did. That's the story Steven Spielberg missed.

If you can's spot the "agenda" in that movie, you need a fawking brain transplant.

Merlin

Quoted: Quoted: Munich has an agenda? Explicitly, "fighting terrorism is as bad as terrorism itself."  Just asinine, and to push the message Spielberg has to rewrite history and the attitudes of all involved. The Israelis had about as few qualms going after those fuckers as they did going after the Nazis.

Was it basically a remake of Sword of Giddeon? Same type of story and agenda it seems.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Munich has an agenda? Two words: Moral Equivalence: Misguided ‘Munich' By MITCH WEBBER December 20, 2005 The most misleading line in Stephen Spielberg's "Munich" comes near the beginning. Israel's prime minister, Golda Meir, tells her cabinet, "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." The implication is that Meir was reluctant to hunt down the terrorists responsible for the Munich massacre, and that doing so was contrary to Israeli, and civilized, values. The truth is just the opposite. Meir understood that Israel's chief obligation is to ensure that Jews will never again be slaughtered with impunity, simply for being Jewish. Holding mass murderers accountable is not a compromise; it is Israel's reason for being. The most misleading omission from "Munich" is Germany's response to the massacre. Germany released the Black September terrorists less than two months after they had killed 11 innocent civilians. Israel had to hunt down Black September, because Germany didn't value Jewish lives enough to capture, try, and imprison those who kill Israelis on German soil. (Also missing from the film is any mention of Germany's refusal to allow the Israeli Olympians their own security detail, despite credible threats to their safety, and Germany's refusal to let Israel conduct a rescue operation.) Meir said that she was "literally physically sickened" by Germany's capitulation. She continued, "I think that there is not one single terrorist held in prison anywhere in the world. Everyone else gives in." Nobody can accuse Stephen Spielberg of insensitivity toward Jews and Israel. But by trying so hard to appear evenhanded, he has made an incomplete and imbalanced movie. In "Munich," those who would murder racist butchers are no better than the butchers themselves. Conservative columnist Warren Bell put it best when he described "Munich"'s simple-minded morality like this: "When good guys kill bad guys, they're as bad as bad guys." Liberal writer Leon Wieseltier concurred: "Munich prefers a discussion of counterterrorism to a discussion of terrorism; or it thinks that they are the same discussion. This is an opinion that only people who are not responsible for the safety of other people can hold." If both sides of the political spectrum can agree that a nation is not only right, but obligated, to act as Israel did, why does "Munich" try so hard to say otherwise? A large part of the blame belongs to the screenwriter, Tony Kushner, whose literary accomplishments ("Angels in America," among other brilliant plays) are too often overshadowed by an extreme left-wing political agenda. Why on earth would anyone entrust a script about Israel to someone who declared, "I wish modern Israel hadn't been born?" (So much for impartiality.) Messrs. Spielberg and Kushner end up glorifying Jewish victims, but deploring those who would keep Jews from becoming victims. Their sense of Jewish tragedy blinds them to the possibility of Jewish heroism. And yet, even if "Munich" had gotten the dialogue, plot, and tone right, there would still be something missing. Rather, there would be someone missing, a character, Avery Brundage. The reason Munich matters so much to American Jews has nothing to do with Arab terrorism or European appeasement. Those complementary stories were familiar to the world decades before Munich. It was Avery Brundage, an American, who so outraged. The same Avery Brundage who, as head of the U.S. Olympic Committee in 1936, had insisted on sending an American delegation to "Hitler's Games" in Berlin; the same Avery Brundage who, in 1941, was expelled from the anti-war America First Committee for his Nazi allegiance; the man who, in 1972, was president of the full International Olympic Committee. According to Time Magazine, during the standoff, Brundage's chief concern was with "remov[ing] the crisis from the Olympic Village," as if to say, "There's no way we can save the hostages. Let's at least save the Games." After the murders, despite strong opposition within the IOC, including from the German organizers, Brundage insisted that everything go on as if nothing had happened. He refused even to mention the dead Israelis in the following day's memorial ceremony. Los Angeles Times columnist Jim Murray summed up Brundage's decision like this: "Incredibly, they're going on with it. It's almost like having a dance at Dachau." Murray's comparison is apt. It was Dachau that taught my grandfather's generation the importance of Israel as a haven in a world that is too often either hostile or indifferent to Jews. And when he was my age, my father watched Munich, the massacre, live on television, and he learned the same lesson. Thirty-three years later, "Munich," the movie, forgets to explain why Israel acted as it did. That's the story Steven Spielberg missed. If you can's spot the "agenda" in that movie, you need a fawking brain transplant. Merlin

I havn't seen the "fawking" movie yet so I wouldnt know, Maybe thats why I asked...Or is that too simple

If you want the true story, read "Vengeance" by George Jonas.

I've read what really happened which is why I was intersted in the movie, now..., probably not so much

You have to look at how many theaters they are in.
The film companies deicide how many prints go out, not the consumer, thrust me the film companies screw up quite abit.

Also they pulled this stunt with Feriheit 9/11.

It opens at number 1 first week or what ever.

But as the intrest goes down they keep releasing it to more theaters to make it look like its still going storng, it started with like 200 theaters and ended up with about 3000, we got it at about the 2000 mark, I bet we never had more than 2 dozen people in there.

Its right 10% of the time, 100% of the time.

That reminds me, I haven't seen Syriana yet.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Munich has an agenda? Two words: Moral Equivalence: Misguided ‘Munich' By MITCH WEBBER December 20, 2005 The most misleading line in Stephen Spielberg's "Munich" comes near the beginning. Israel's prime minister, Golda Meir, tells her cabinet, "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." The implication is that Meir was reluctant to hunt down the terrorists responsible for the Munich massacre, and that doing so was contrary to Israeli, and civilized, values. The truth is just the opposite. Meir understood that Israel's chief obligation is to ensure that Jews will never again be slaughtered with impunity, simply for being Jewish. Holding mass murderers accountable is not a compromise; it is Israel's reason for being. The most misleading omission from "Munich" is Germany's response to the massacre. Germany released the Black September terrorists less than two months after they had killed 11 innocent civilians. Israel had to hunt down Black September, because Germany didn't value Jewish lives enough to capture, try, and imprison those who kill Israelis on German soil. (Also missing from the film is any mention of Germany's refusal to allow the Israeli Olympians their own security detail, despite credible threats to their safety, and Germany's refusal to let Israel conduct a rescue operation.) Meir said that she was "literally physically sickened" by Germany's capitulation. She continued, "I think that there is not one single terrorist held in prison anywhere in the world. Everyone else gives in." Nobody can accuse Stephen Spielberg of insensitivity toward Jews and Israel. But by trying so hard to appear evenhanded, he has made an incomplete and imbalanced movie. In "Munich," those who would murder racist butchers are no better than the butchers themselves. Conservative columnist Warren Bell put it best when he described "Munich"'s simple-minded morality like this: "When good guys kill bad guys, they're as bad as bad guys." Liberal writer Leon Wieseltier concurred: "Munich prefers a discussion of counterterrorism to a discussion of terrorism; or it thinks that they are the same discussion. This is an opinion that only people who are not responsible for the safety of other people can hold." If both sides of the political spectrum can agree that a nation is not only right, but obligated, to act as Israel did, why does "Munich" try so hard to say otherwise? A large part of the blame belongs to the screenwriter, Tony Kushner, whose literary accomplishments ("Angels in America," among other brilliant plays) are too often overshadowed by an extreme left-wing political agenda. Why on earth would anyone entrust a script about Israel to someone who declared, "I wish modern Israel hadn't been born?" (So much for impartiality.) Messrs. Spielberg and Kushner end up glorifying Jewish victims, but deploring those who would keep Jews from becoming victims. Their sense of Jewish tragedy blinds them to the possibility of Jewish heroism. And yet, even if "Munich" had gotten the dialogue, plot, and tone right, there would still be something missing. Rather, there would be someone missing, a character, Avery Brundage. The reason Munich matters so much to American Jews has nothing to do with Arab terrorism or European appeasement. Those complementary stories were familiar to the world decades before Munich. It was Avery Brundage, an American, who so outraged. The same Avery Brundage who, as head of the U.S. Olympic Committee in 1936, had insisted on sending an American delegation to "Hitler's Games" in Berlin; the same Avery Brundage who, in 1941, was expelled from the anti-war America First Committee for his Nazi allegiance; the man who, in 1972, was president of the full International Olympic Committee. According to Time Magazine, during the standoff, Brundage's chief concern was with "remov[ing] the crisis from the Olympic Village," as if to say, "There's no way we can save the hostages. Let's at least save the Games." After the murders, despite strong opposition within the IOC, including from the German organizers, Brundage insisted that everything go on as if nothing had happened. He refused even to mention the dead Israelis in the following day's memorial ceremony. Los Angeles Times columnist Jim Murray summed up Brundage's decision like this: "Incredibly, they're going on with it. It's almost like having a dance at Dachau." Murray's comparison is apt. It was Dachau that taught my grandfather's generation the importance of Israel as a haven in a world that is too often either hostile or indifferent to Jews. And when he was my age, my father watched Munich, the massacre, live on television, and he learned the same lesson. Thirty-three years later, "Munich," the movie, forgets to explain why Israel acted as it did. That's the story Steven Spielberg missed. If you can's spot the "agenda" in that movie, you need a fawking brain transplant. Merlin I havn't seen the "fawking" movie yet so I wouldnt know, Maybe thats why I asked...Or is that too simple

Actually, I wasn't referring to anyone in particular and certainly not you.  If you hadn't asked, I wouldn't have known.  Sorry if it came across otherwise.

Merlin

10 and 11 aren't bad,and Brokeback Mtn is doing reasonably well for having such limited release.It was higher earlier in its release when it was in fewer theatres.

Enlighten me on whats bad about Munich, other than the fact it doesnt show the true aftermath of fucking with the wrong jews.

Quoted: If you want the true story, read "Vengeance" by George Jonas.

... or watch this instead: One Day in September

I highly recommend it.

What is Syriana about?
can't say I've seen much on it.

I saw Munich after much hesitation,

It allows a Palestinian terrorist to give a speech about how Israel will fall, and his people will 'get back to their olive trees'. But it is part of an argument with an undercover Mossad agent, and imo, the Israeli wins the argument and reveals the pally's hateful approach to a homeland.

The even handedness or equivalence is showing the targets as humans. I have no problem with that, as they are human. Evil, hate filled humans. To make them shallow, cartoon villians would diminish the horror of terrorists. Hunting Snidley Whiplash down is a no brainer. Hunting a terrorist who is an educated, family man is far more painful, and requires a resolute force of will combined with a moral imperative, Survival. Until palestinians halt targeting civilians, they are evil.

The other problem folks see with this movie, and I agree with, is the amount of soul searching the Mossad agents go through over the nastiness of the wet work. This is not Spielberg's idea, as the earlier movie based on the same book, Sword of Gideon, has the same remorse. I dislike portraying Israeli tuff guys as such wusses. But who's to say what we'd do after a few assassinations were under our belt? I have such a hate for Islamic radicals that I can't imagine blinking an eye over revenge.

OH please, you read to much into this "munich thing". When they talk about "compromising" their core values basically they are trying to have their cake and eat it too! They are so "GOOD" that when they HAVE to kill someone they "lament" whaa whaa whaa about how bad it is! thus making them look even more rightous as they climb up on that martys cross. it's just a way of getting the watcher of the film to really sympathise with the reluctant hero who has no choice but to seek justice in a world that denies it to them! Oh gosh gee willa-kers! I dont want to take another  human life, i'm a sympathetic sensative human being! When i slit his throat with a butter knife i was crying the tears of angels! Of angels i tellz ya! O the humanity...................................

Spielberg has never been much of a thinker. Technically proficient flims, sure. But forget about a serious thought.

For example Saving Private Ryan, the single most aggravating line: "Someday we might look back on this and decide that saving Private Ryan was the one decent thing we were able to pull out of this whole godawful mess. "

Well, sure. That and smashing Fascism. Plus saving Western Civilization, putting an end to the death camps, liberting assorted European countries, and kicking Nazi ass. Grrrr.

Quoted: Spielberg has never been much of a thinker. Technically proficient flims, sure. But forget about a serious thought. For example Saving Private Ryan, the single most aggravating line: "Someday we might look back on this and decide that saving Private Ryan was the one decent thing we were able to pull out of this whole godawful mess. " Well, sure. That and smashing Fascism. Plus saving Western Civilization, putting an end to the death camps, liberting assorted European countries, and kicking Nazi ass. Grrrr.

+1

Speilberg has an agenda and no matter how good of a director he is, he'll NEVER get full credit from me until he makes a TRUE effort to make films that are REALISTIC and uncolored by his personal beliefs. I realize that many say that's impossible, or at least that the whole point of film-making is for the maker to get their point across. But when we're dealing with a historical FACT, I want THE FACTS and I want to decide myself what to think about it -- not to have some whiny liberal telling me that there's no difference between terrorists and those who punish them. I just don't get the average whiny, liberal, American Jew. Their politics and their beliefs undermine the strength and security of their fellow Jews who are in harm's way. I think that more of them spent some years in their "home land", they might have less sympathy for those bent on destroying Isreal.