UPDATE: ‘Gravity’ Strong with Nearly $40 Million in Second Orbit

Gravity Movie

'Captain Phillips' strong in No. 2 position with $24 million

Despite the bow of Tom Hanks’ well-reviewed “Captain Phillips,” Alfonso Cuaron’s “Gravity” continues to breathe heavily at the domestic box office.

According to early ticket sales, Sandra Bullock 3D space drama was off just 34% Friday afternoon and rising to nearly $40 million this weekend for its second consecutive No. 1.

5 Reasons Sandra Bullock Could Win the Oscar (Again)

The Warner Bros. hit has already generated over $100 million worldwide and marks the best start of both Bullock and co-star George Clooney’s careers.

Online ticket site Fandango indicates that “Gravity” is outselling all second weekend performers in 2013 aside from Disney/Marvel’s “Iron Man 3,” which earned a monster $72 million in its sophomore frame.  3D and Imax premium prices are only boosting “Gravity” sales.

Sony’s “Captain Phillips,” meanwhile, is hardly adrift in the No. 2 position.

The modern-day pirate adventure film, having already amassed $600,000 Thursday, could earn a brawny $24 million this weekend.

PHOTOS: ‘Captain Phillips’ Premieres in New York

The “Gravity”-“Captain Phillips” duo reps one of the strongest showings from adult audiences all year. Both pics, rated PG-13, skew to the 25-over crowd and are lavishly benefiting from positive reviews.

“Captain Phillips” is directed by Paul Greengrass and tells the true story of the 2009 hijacking by Somali pirates.

Also bowing wide this weekend is Open Road’s “Machete Kills,” which observers expect to gross between $7 million and $9 million. Open Road acquired Robert Rodriguez’s sequel for $2 million from Aldamisa Entertainment.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 55

Leave a Reply

55 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Gravity-travesty, walked out after 65 minutes nothing happened, the worst movie I ever saw. A insult to women scientists, and real heroines,

  2. Mark says:

    Why do all the right wingers in here insist on injecting hate and politics into a movie that has nothing to do with it? You people are insane. It’s a great movie, just enjoy it, for Pete’s sake.

  3. No, they’re hyping it because it is a movie worth seeing. Clooney may be billed as a co-star, but this movie is carried by Sandra Bullock. And she did just fine.

    I wish you folks would stop injecting politics into a box-office thread. One, it’s not a movie about politics. Two, Clooney’s politics is neither my business or yours — so why are you bringing it up?

  4. Patric Henry says:

    George Clooney disgusts me. I can’t watch it.

  5. Mike0oSS says:

    Bummer…there was a time when all this was real…not Holliweird “special effects”….we have sure fallen short as a society.

    • FlyoverMike says:

      When he is outspoken about his politics, it becomes relevant. I don’t know anything about the political thoughts of Sandra Bullock, or a large number of other performers. But if I disagree with someone who wants to affect my life in ways I don’t like, I’m not going to help them by giving them money, directly or indirectly. That being said, I saw “Gravity” last week, and it’s a fantastic movie. Whether you like Clooney’s politics or not, it is worth seeing on the big screen. A very good movie; visually intense and thought-provoking.

  6. Lee Staples says:

    People complaining about the plot of this movie proves how bad Hollywood has “dumbed down” their audience over the years. I would imagine the people who didn’t like it were disappointed because some evil army of alien lifeforms didn’t show up to try and recruit Bullock and Clooney to join them in an evil plot to take over the world. People, this is a movie about astronauts facing a crisis in space. Has anyone ever given thought about how desolate a place that is and maybe that’s what the director was trying to convey? This isn’t the Avengers with it’s sensory overload! This movie at times scared the hell out of me because I could put myself in Bullocks shoes and imagine being stranded in space alone and hundreds of mile from Earth. If some of you can’t get the “enormity” of that that situation, then maybe you should stick to films with Hobbits, and Men In Black, and sorcerers and wizards and whatever fantasy nonsense garbage that passes for entertainment in Hollywood these days.

    Gravity = One of the best movies I’ve ever seen.

  7. Sara says:

    People complaining about plot. They were in a tragic event and HAD to escape. You want there to be a LOVE STORY TOO? That would be unbelievable. As for Clooney’s role- believe it or not there are real life heroes who stay calm under pressure IN ORDER TO save others around them. That was Clooney’s role here. What do you think people saving lives everyday do? Panic, cry and run around? No. His job calls for staying cool under pressure and if he and Ryan BOTH panic what good would that have done?? He knew that.

  8. Sara says:

    Are they in space or the atmosphere? You can’t fall in space, there is no gravity, you can maintain a speed if you are propelled.

  9. Nala says:

    This is the best film that I’ve ever seen…Sandra deserves another Oscar!

  10. Twoiron says:

    My wife and I saw the movie in 3-D this week. Biggest waste of $30 ever. It would have been more entertaining if I had lit three $10 bills on fire and watched them burn.

    • Dave Belisle says:

      Thought I was the only one who wasted my money …

      • TrumpetDawg says:

        The 3D was interesting but the story was nothing but flashy explosions and flying through space. Sandra Bullock played the part in a way that made an intelligent scientist seem dumb and vacuous.

  11. SNOOPY JONES says:

    Losers support Hollywood and their disgusting propaganda inserted in all their films.They are nothing more than modern day left wing propagandists.

  12. Keith Bell says:

    Movie was average and overrated. Nice visuals but earth has always been the beautiful blue planet –a few riveting scenes — sophomoric dialogue from Clooney — Sandra Bullock was good.

  13. Emile says:

    It is a good popcorn movie, but my emotions were fairly flatline, and I can sob like a baby at real movies like Saving Private Ryan.

    But a $14 ticket?? I think H’wood is hyping this to dig out of the red ink.

  14. margaret1948 says:

    This was the WORST movie we had ever watched!! No plot, no dialog except for Bullock mumbling to herself. We couldn’t believe the movie was over because we were still waiting for SOMETHING
    to happen. We get is now. Hollywood invests in a low budget movie, then sends their trained dupes out to promote the movie – getting the public to think the movie is a blockbuster. A lot of money is spent to see this dud and Hollywood makes a huge profit.

    • Laura says:

      Folks seem to like it enough.

      • joe says:

        what are you expecting to happen? 2 people in space suits stranded in space… what could happen? a passing UFO picks them up? a romantic encounter? I think your expectations were a little misguided, don’t you?

  15. J.D.Ff says:

    This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. If you enjoy Sandra B. panting ovie for an hour, this is the movie for you.

  16. Pat says:

    Except for the CGI, which was awesome, and the IMAX 3D, more awesome, the content of the movie was bunk. I did like the gratuitous shot of Sandra’s nice butt.

  17. Peter Marcus says:

    Horrendously unrealistic when there was action. Boring when there was no action.

    Cliched “guy that is immediately willing to die to save someone” guy.

    Cliched “guy that is way too calm and playful in a stressful situation” guy.

    Cliched “unnecessary backstory on a character just so there is some backstory on a character” dialog.

    Take away the truly excellent CGI and there is barely any movie.

    It stunk.

    • Sara says:

      Believe it or not there are real life heroes who stay calm under pressure IN ORDER TO save others around them. That was Clooney’s role here. What do you think real life people saving lives everyday do? Panic, cry and run around? No. His job calls for staying cool under pressure and if he and Ryan BOTH panic what good would that have done?? He knew that.

    • Brian says:

      I’m guessing your favorite critic is Armond White. Nothing more pathetic than being a contrarian just for attention.

    • Matthew says:

      Well wasn’t it beautiful at least? Maybe you should read novels or plays instead. You don’t care about pictures

      • Peter Marcus says:

        They did a good job visually, no doubt. The opening scenes and 1st person perspective shots were really immersive.

        If it’s supposed to be a thriller, then why is Clooney being a cornball charmer the entire time…even when he’s going to die? This does nothing but take you out of the moment (unless maybe you’re a middle aged housewife).

        Sorry but there ARE some basic guidelines for telling a story in a movie, and this violated most of them.

  18. Matthew says:

    I saw it. It was really good. I don’t know whether any of it was realistic, but it was riveting!

  19. Why is this movie so heavily promoted? Isn’t the U.S. manned space program dead?

  20. Olrik says:

    So are you Americans really so stupid to believe this nonsense is somehow representative of your actual current space program? NASA’s Space Shuttle STS is no more; you have no means of putting Americans into space other than paying the Russians for the use of their old (but reliable) Soyuz systems to hitch a ride to the International Space Station. You were supposed to go back to an Apollo-like capsule and expendable launcher system, but given your current financial situation this is just a pipe dream. Ditto for your hyped up commercial schemes. The Chinese are serious though, and have the money and are obtaining the best technologies one way or another. They will establish their own space station, Moon base and then push on to Mars while the US slips further into economic and social decay…

    • Brent Andrew Hawker says:

      Olink-
      Is that what you read in the Communist Daily? As a former Aerospace Engineer who has worked for over a decade at both Rockwell International and McDonnell Douglas on the Space Shuttle, NAVSTAR Satellite, (GPS), B-1B Lancer, (a super sonic bomber, Delta Rocket and Space Station Freedom (now known as ISS and only because Bill Clinton invited the Russians along as a “Sorry You LOST The Cold War bone”, I know what I’m talking about. Although the Space Shuttle was retired after only one forth of its designed life, it’s hanging in museums in air conditioned comfort and it’s critical elements have removed by NASA but also stored just in case there is ever a need to refly. (A very little known fact) Regardless, even while in a museum, they are the world most advanced reusable space vehicle ever built by any nation. Meanwhile, the NASA Centers across the country are building a massive new rocket called SLS, which is capable of hurling over 150 TONS into orbit, and is designed to be scaled up to loft over 170 TONS, first flight is expected 2017, and will be able to loft well beyond the moon and on to Mars. The space craft that will take them is the Orion Exploration Vehicle which is undergoing testing as we speak at Lockheed and will ride seven astronauts into a test orbit Beyond the far side of the Moon in late 2014 on top of an Atlas V rocket which already launches that super secret Air Force mini Shuttle, which by the way is up there right now and can stay up for almost a year at a time.

      Meanwhile AMERICAN PRIVATE COMPANIES are in the process of a SPACE REVOLUTION that will bring down the price of space travel to at least three quarters of what it cost today, and building this with non-government PRIVATE MONEY. One company, Space Explorations, AKA Space X, is building rockets capable of launching seven astronauts and the whole system will eventually
      be completely reusable, they have been testing the massive first stage, called “Grasshopper” in Texas for over a year and it will land right next to where it took off. Space X early next year will be tripling the size and will the worlds largest rocket with all parts being reusable. Two other companies, Jeff Bezo’s “Blue Orgine” is a Single Stage to Orbit spacecraft that will also haul seven folks into orbit as well, and I’m sure you have heard of Sir Richard Brandson’s Virgin Galatic company getting ready for next year’s scheduled tourist flights into space? Well the makers of that spacecraft are currently building a twin 747 sized rocket hauler that will launch again seven astronauts into orbit, anytime, anywhere, unaffected by weather because it launches ABOVE THE WEATHER.

      China May want a base on the Moon, but NASA has already oh-so-quietly given that rights/contract to another PRIVATE contractor who already launched not one but two space station proto-types that are circling over your head in orbit right now. This company has already signed leases at $25 Million a month for PRIVATE ORBITING SPACE Stations. I won’t you tell who, you can easily look it up, but I think they will be my next employer!

      So decline Olink? Hardly, just an evolution from government based to a commercial revolution which is a natural transition in capitalist economy. Three private companies are currently under contract from NASA to provide TAXI service with reusable spacecraft much more economically then the shuttle could, one of them is Boeing. Maybe you heard of them. Flights begin next year.

      So although there is a pause, take a deep breath because your going to get the wind knocked out of you very soon when you see six different companies sending rockets of seven people each on very economical and privately funded and profit motivated flights to the Moon and beyond. Remember when one of the Republican Presidential candidates talked openly about the Moon becoming a US State? Just give some thought that for a moment why he would mention that in the face of certain ridicule..
      Sincerely,
      Brent Andrew Hawker
      HawkerAerospace@hotmail.com

    • D R Allen says:

      Olrik, about WHAT are you commenting?

      The Space Shuttle program didn’t end until half-way through the production of the film (which, BTW, is a work of FICTION – the Starship Enterprise isn’t real either). As for the Yank’s space program, two different civilian commercial space transport companies have successfully docked their cargo cannisters w/the ISS, and testing is proceeding on schedule for their commercial orbital passenger transport capability. Virgin Galactic’s sub-orbital flights are nearly ready to start, and both India and Israel are making progress w/THEIR commercial space programmes. Compare the two year pause between this activity and the STS missions to the TEN years that elapsed between Apollo and the STS missions, and you’ll see they are moving rather quickly.

      Of course, NONE of this includes the ultra-secret work that the USAF is doing in space. They have launched a space-shuttle-like vehicle several times now, but there is not a HINT about what they did during those missions.

      • Brent Andrew Hawker says:

        Opps, Typo, These companies will be bring down the cost of human space flight to ONE Quarter of what it costs today.

  21. AHB says:

    The only proper way to watch Gravity is in IMAX. Bullock and Clooney do a great job grounding the movie.

  22. bob says:

    The movie was disappointing. George Clooney was not an astronaut in the movie – he was George Clooney. It would have been better to have had a younger less known actor who displayed normal human emotions. Sandra Bullock who was the real star would have would have stood out more as such. The scenario of a Russian missile having destroyed a Russian satellite causing a chain reaction was very weak if not stupid. It would have made more sense having a meteor collide with a satellite with some debris entering the orbit of the shuttle.

    • Scott Stevens says:

      I could not disagree more. Clooney and Bullock are age appropriate for the role. Astronauts are not young people. Finally Hollywood put actors in a space film that are not 20 somethings.

      The scenario of the Russian missile is exactly what would happen if such a thing went wrong. Space debris is a real problem today. When the Space Shuttle program was active, the orbiters would often have to move out of the path of space junk.

      • Brian says:

        Peter apparently you’ve never heard of the Kessler syndrome.

      • Peter Marcus says:

        Debris from one satellite demolition wouldn’t domino effect in a matter of seconds and cause all of fictional-NASA comms to go offline. I let it go, but then the rest of the movie turned out to be flagrantly unrealistic as well.

        They probably just wanted to avoid the micrometeorite phenomenon because it’s what happens at the beginning of Armageddon.

  23. zatom says:

    Sandra Bullock going strong!

  24. R says:

    This is great! They won best picture of the week in competition of 0 films released this week! Way to go you guys. You did well. See you all next week!

More Film News from Variety

Loading