ROTTEN TOMATOES: Box Office Wrapup: "Mission: Impossible III" Big, But Not Huge at #1

Box Office Wrapup: "Mission: Impossible III" Big, But Not Huge at #1

by Gitesh Pandya | May 07, 2006

Summary

Tom Cruise climbed into his usual number one spot at the box office with his heavily-hyped spy sequel Mission: Impossible III, however ticket sales fell below most industry expectations as the debut was not spectacular. Back to Article

(1-29 of 29 posts) | Reply

dylan21484nj writes:
on May 07 2006 04:19 PM

i think the world is on Tom Cruise overload. between his relationship with Katies Holmes, his new kid with her, the whole Scientology thing, battling Brooke Shields, his couch-jumping... UGH! ENOUGH!

(Reply to this)

IMAmoose24 writes:
on May 07 2006 06:37 PM

I agree... but the movie was still really really good.

(Reply to this)

getomans writes:
on May 07 2006 08:17 PM

[b]the movie still made good money[/b]
Screw high expectations, $48 million dollars for MI3 in the weekend is still good(in fact 2nd highest opening of this year so far). I'll admit it, I expected more in this weekend(about 50-60 mil), but the opening is still solid, a way better opening than Kingdom of Heaven($19 mil) last year. The movie was great-lots of action and lots of fun, the Universal City theater in hollwood was packed so that showed that a lot of people wanted to watch the movie. Also, MI3 is the best reviewed movie of the franchise so far so that's a good sign for strong legs in the box office.

(Reply to this)

bwozar07 writes:
on May 07 2006 09:48 PM

In reply to this comment (#835281)
It was good fun and was far better than the second, but it does look like Tom Cruise's antics are finally starting to catch up at the box office. Every major star has to decline at some point (remember when Kevin Costner was the biggest name in Hollywood?) and it looks like Cruise may have helped expedite his own fall. Don't get me wrong though, I love Tom Cruise's movies and I hope I'm wrong I just think a lot of people are tired of hearing about all these bizarre things he does.

BTW I liked seeing JJ Abrams give longtime Alias costar Greg Grunberg a cameo in MI3, I think it's good to see that Arbams remembers the people who helped to get him where he is today. Here's hoping he has a long successful career directing movies.

(Reply to this)

Senh Duong writes:
on May 07 2006 11:35 PM

In reply to this comment (#835284)
Again, $48M is still good, just not spectacular :)

Kevin Costner was never the consistent draw that Cruise was/is. In fact, no one in Hollywood is. Not counting his few indie films, the guy has the longest streak of $100M grossers in Hollywood.

(Reply to this)

Flim Springfield writes:
on May 08 2006 12:22 AM

Just my opinion, obviously, but I feel that Tom's overexposure is hurting his movies. I saw MI:3 and I just couldn't take the guy seriously. I kept hoping he would try to dance. :)

(Reply to this)

HoneycombSAFARI writes:
on May 08 2006 12:30 AM

okay okay, i think we're all missing the important thing here. Tom Cruise is short. There, someone had to say it.

(Reply to this)

Senh Duong writes:
on May 08 2006 12:49 AM

In reply to this comment (#835287)
Entertainment Weekly did a special feature on how tall some of the more popular celebs are and had him listed as 6'1" :) When I saw that, I knew that entire feature was complete bull.

(Reply to this)

adml_shake writes:
on May 08 2006 04:02 AM

Well out of everyone I knew that saw it only 2 of them liked it. I doubt I'm gonna see it till it's avilable on netflix. But I think it got such a huge opening weekend because it's freaken Mission Impossible, however I'm guessing that next weekend it won't do half of what it made this one.

(Reply to this)

insanemansam5 writes:
on May 08 2006 06:46 AM

This could have something to do with the fact that the Mission Impossible fan base and Tom Cruises fan base is getting older and as we all know the older an audience the longer they wait to see a movie. I want to see what this movie does next weekend then I'll make a judgement.

(Reply to this)

South_park300 writes:
on May 08 2006 07:28 AM

i love how lots of websites talk about movies that grab the #1 spot, yet talk as if they bombed...

(Reply to this)

aconline writes:
on May 08 2006 07:59 AM

First off, MI3 was a great movie. Good plot, good action, good chemistry, and good directing. JJ is friends with Alias star Greg Grunberg. They were/are shooting a movie together for tv. Second, $48 million is good, just not good for a $150 million budget. Third, I agree that it has legs. With the only real competitor this coming weekend being Poseidon, I think MI3 has a good chance at holding number one. Poseidon overload will be its downfall. They just made that tv movie a few months ago. Did people watch it? Are people going to watch this new theatrical version? I think it will be the biggest flop of the season. Mission: Impossible 3 will get to $150 million, just not as fast as they wanted it to get there. I still think that MI4 is not out of the question, but they can't wait 6 years to make it. They also need to tie Tom up so he doesn't do anything stupid to hurt it.

For those that watch Alias, did anyone feel dissappointed with the change in country sequence? I was hoping to see the City name, and then it come at the screen like in Alias. I also thought that the score was very Alias-ish. Same guy did it though, so I guess that is to be expectd. The call signs used by the team in the field were the same, Outrigger & Pheonix. Lastly, Marshall should have been in there instead of Shaun of the Dead.

(Reply to this)

Scott Weinberg writes:
on May 08 2006 08:11 AM

I'd like to welcome BoxOfficeGuru's Gitesh Pandya to the RT Newsday page. I used to do the Monday morning box office reports, and this is a BIG improvement over my rambly little reports.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on May 08 2006 08:15 AM

In reply to this comment (#835287)
Hey, Tom Cruise is the same height as me (5'8"). I know because I stood next to him when he was working on Days of Thunder, back before he went crazy. My point is, he's not short, because I'm not short :-)

(Reply to this)

drebay40 writes:
on May 08 2006 09:24 AM

It was still good fun though, lots of great action.

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on May 08 2006 09:57 AM

[b]CARTMAN 1, TOM CRUISE 0![/b]
$48 million in 4,054 theaters would be impressive for an Indie release, but not for a $150 million dollar Tom Cruise movie. Say what you want, but this is a �HUGE� blow to his ego and career. Considering its competition in the coming weeks, Mission Impossible III will be go down as this summer's first box office dud. Chaulk this one up to Trey Parker and Matt Stone; "Don't Screw With Cartman!"

(Reply to this)

nogard64 writes:
on May 08 2006 10:28 AM

I dunno man this movie blew me away, it was literally a thrill ride beginning to end, it was like a roller coaster ride, I know thats an overused cliche but trust me this movie delivered! I watch movies a lot almost 1 every weekend, and the last time I was this thrilled was at Speed with Keanu Reeves, so I think that is saying a lot becuase Speed was huge!!! it just baffles me how we are not able to separate the real world and the movie world, yes Tom is crazy in the real world, but as Ethan Hunt he kicks azz like no other.

(Reply to this)

scottybarkbark writes:
on May 08 2006 10:56 AM

[b]it sucked[/b]
it was boring took too long to get into the movie. i love charcter development in movies, but they didn't need to try for the whole emotional impact thing with the characters. all that talk about the effing "rabbit's foot" and you never find out what it is or why the terrorists want it. at least with m:i 2, you knew what chimera was. oh and the ending was too anticlimatic and upbeat. so go ahead tell me how i'm wrong and all that, just getting it off my chest. oh and Mission impossible 2 was way way, WAY better than this one

(Reply to this)

nogard64 writes:
on May 08 2006 11:12 AM

In reply to this comment (#835298)
haha so um how much did sony (RV movie) pay you to post that comment? Cuz you seem like a company plant, it really didn't seem like you even watched the movie.

Oh and I think it was a neat idea to not say what the Rabbits foot was, it reminded me of Pulp Fiction and the box, keeps the audience thinking and guessing.

(Reply to this)

scottybarkbark writes:
on May 08 2006 11:36 AM

In reply to this comment (#835299)
[b]har har har[/b]
lets see, i saw the movie opening night, hated it, posted my opinion on here. oh and unlike this movie, pulp fiction was actually smart and intelligent and the briefcase in that movie wasn't the main central plot of the movie, the rabbit's foot basically was.

(Reply to this)

lovelykeira writes:
on May 08 2006 11:58 AM

I like the new box report, not that Weinberg's wasn't good but this really has more detail. I hope that MI3 has good legs and doesn't fall much this next weekend, it was a good film but I did like the 2nd one more.

(Reply to this)

nogard64 writes:
on May 08 2006 12:52 PM

In reply to this comment (#835300)
well its probably not fair to compare it to Pulp Fiction at all, thats like comparing apples and oranges. A more fair comparison is Speed, the movie felt very much like Speed, very edge of your seat beat the clock kinda deal. And if you say the central plot is the rabbit foot then again I have to ask did you really watch the movie or did you just read some negative review and copied it? Becuase I kinda throught the plot was about Ethan Hunt trying to have a relationship despite the difficulties of his career? And the rabbit foot is just a mere symbolism for how much luck and almost divine intervention to make it work. So his search, his quest for this item ie luck is what ultimately makes everything work out in the end. BTW Rabbit's Foot is a hoodoo charm to keep away bad luck.

(Reply to this)

scottybarkbark writes:
on May 08 2006 03:17 PM

In reply to this comment (#835302)
no, i saw the movie before the reviews came out i just didn't like it. i could read a hundred negative reviews about a movie and its still wont keep me from seeing a movie that i want to see. basically what it comes down to is that with a movie like m:i 3, i wanted to know the whole thing about the rabbit's foot not justs its name and that a lot of baddies want it. for me i adds to the tension of a movie like the chimera virus in m:i 2.
but seriously, i respect your opinion bout the movie, please grant me the same courtesy

(Reply to this)

Enemy writes:
on May 08 2006 04:13 PM

I never knew how I wanted this movie to turn out. I certainly wished Tom Cruise a box office bomb, but then again there was J.J. involved who I like. So I guess I can live with this outcome; it didn't tank, but is still considered rather disappointing.

(Reply to this)

Flim Springfield writes:
on May 08 2006 05:09 PM

The Rabbit's Foot was just a plot device. Its actual function was unimportant to the plot.

(Reply to this)

getomans writes:
on May 08 2006 07:57 PM

By the way the movie got 70 million overseas, so add that up with the opening in america and you got 118 million dollars-that is pretty close to the 150 million dollar produciton budget. So crtics who say it was a bomb(even though its not)-shut the fuck up.

(Reply to this)

adml_shake writes:
on May 09 2006 04:09 AM

In reply to this comment (#835306)
Well good god between the 3rd and 5th it opened in 34 countries (not including the USA). For that many freaken opening it should have already went past the 150 million mark.

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on May 09 2006 05:11 AM

In reply to this comment (#835306)
It made $117 million worldwide because it wasn't up against anything worthwhile. If it had to go head to head with Poseidon or The Da Vinci Code it wouldn�t have made half that. It's box office take will sink faster this coming weekend than the Poseidon. It's not a bomb, it's a dud.

(Reply to this)

clearlygonemad writes:
on May 13 2006 11:04 AM

Of course it beat last year. Last year the first week of May only had stupid movies like House of Wax and Kingdom of Heaven. MI:3 was obviously going to top that crap.

(Reply to this)