OK time to look at 18-49 demo ratings changes for science fication and fantasy genre shows comparing the week of Sept 24 – Sept 30 to the week of Oct. 3 – Oct 9.

NOTE: Ratings of “2.3” means about 2.3 million households with 18- to 49-year-olds were tuned in. A “#2” behind a program’s name means it was rated as the second-most-watched show that night for 18- to 49-year-olds


  • 8 p.m.
    Surface – NBC (steady to growing)
    9-26: #11 rated with a 2.9
    10-3 #11 rated with a 3.0
  • 10 p.m.
    Medium – NBC (looks this like the post-Emmy curious didn’t stick around)
    9-26:#3 rated with a 5.0
    10-3: #5 rated with a 4.6


  • 9 p.m.
    Supernatural – The WB (Growing)
    9-27 No. 15 with a 2.1
    10-4: No. 14 with a 2.4


  • 9 p.m.
    Lost – ABC (Again, some of the Emmy curious sampled and left)
    9-28 #1 rated with a 9.4
    10-5 #1 rated with a 9.0
  • 10 p.m.
    Invasion – ABC (losing audience)
    9-28 #2 with a 5.4
    10-5 #2 with a 4.7


  • 8 p.m.
    Alias – ABC (being beaten by a WB show which is not shown in many U.S. cities)
    9-29 #11 with a 2.4
    10-6 #9 with a 2.4

    Smallville – The WB (Steady in new timeslot)
    9-29 #10 with a 2.6
    10-6 #8 with a 2.6

  • 9 p.m.
    CSI – CBS (Growing)
    9-29 #1 with a 9.1
    10-6 #1 with a 9.5

    Night Stalker – ABC (Hurting against CSI)
    9-29 # 9 with a 2.7
    10-6 #11 with a 2.2


  • 8 p.m.
    Ghost Whisperer – CBS (show is skewing old – #1 in the over 50 demo, but
    bleeding younger viewers)
    9-30 #2 with a 2.6 (probable bump from Prison Break guest star)
    10-7 #3 with a 2.9
  • 9 p.m.
    Threshold – CBS (growing an audience despite the fall off of its lead-in)
    9-30 #5 with a 2.3
    10-7 #4 with a 2.5
  • 10 p.m.
    NUMB3RS – CBS (steady Friday night hit)
    9-30 #1 with a 3.2
    10-7 #1 with a 3.2


7 out of 10
(CBS, Fridays 9/8c p.m.)

Premise: Something’s out there and it thinks humanity is in need of an upgrade.

One thing really irks me about how CBS is marketing its new science fiction drama, Threshold. The network is following the recent trend of having an obviously science fictional show – but not describing it as “science fiction.”

The Sci Fi Channel is doing the same with Battlestar Galactica. Hello, aliens’ traveling through space trying to wipe out humanity is definitely science fiction.

Anyway back to Threshold, the latest offering by Brannan Braga, the executive producer, who along with Rick Berman, is credited by many fans with ruining the Star Trek franchise with the very weak Star Trek: Enterprise on UPN. Enterprise was mercifully cancelled after four years (the fourth year was only made to ensure enough episodes for syndication, and interestingly enough was better than the first three years combined).

In Threshold, Braga develops an idea created by Bragi F. Schut (who brought us Average Joe) and, at first glance, Threshold appears to me more grounded in feasible science than Trek. Unlike Star Trek, interstellar travel is not feasible. Aliens invade Earth (this is not a spoiler, it happens in the first few seconds of the pilot episode) by using interdimensional travel.

Still, according to the CBS web site, Threshold is not science fiction. It is a so-called “suspenseful drama.” Go figure.

Anyway, this program is light years better than Enterprise in that the plots are engaging and the characters are fully drawn. The show also uses a Joss Whedonesque ensemble cast peppered with quotable, witty dialogue, not the monotonous overbearing kitschfest that was Enterprise banter.

Threshold’s Scooby Gang is set in the present day and aims to thwart an alien attack bent on wiping out the human race. (Where’s Apollo and Starbuck when you need them?)

Here’s the catch: our Scooby Gang isn’t fighting against a government cover up… Oh no, they are the government cover up. (Can’t you just imagine Braga patting himself on the back for that one?)

The Cast

Heading up the gang is a strong woman, “Dr. Molly Ann Caffrey,” Played by Carla Gugino (Karen Sisco). Gugino handles her role well, and plays well the reluctant manager called in to head up a secret government project. Being the only female in the gang, she also has to serve the role of resident Brainy Babe and occasional Damsel in Nightie.

Her key to government resources is the character “J.T. Baylock,” a National Security Advisor played by the underused Charles S. Dutton. I guess you could call his role, The Bureaucrat.

Then there is The Hunk, the covert “ghost agent” operative U.S. agent. Known only by the “Agent Cavennaugh,” (not his real name, or so we are told) the part is played by Brian Van Holt (House of Wax). It doesn’t take Van Holt’s acting prowess long to throw off the hunk-label to prove he has the acting chops to play his part well.

Rounding out the gang is a trio of nerds, stereotypical sci fi archetypes:

  • “Dr. Nigel Fenway,” a former NASA microbiologist, portrayed by Brent Spiner (Star Trek: The Next Generation) who is cast as the Know-it-All Doctor with the Bad Bedside Manner;
  • “Lucas Pegg,” a physicist portrayed by Rob Benedict (Birds of Prey, Buffy the Vampire Slayer) who is cast as Amazing Neurotic Man; and,
  • The womanizing “Arthur Ramsey,” a mathematician and linguist played by Peter Dinklage (Elf) cast as The Man with the Disability No One Mentions.

Of the bunch, Dinklage and Benedict are standouts, rising above their bit parts and turning in some of the most memorable performances. They also should be thanking the writers for some pretty great dialogue. Next up would be Van Holt’s pigeon-hole busting performance and Spiner, who successfully tosses aside his image as Star Trek’s “Data.”

In all, the series, judging as well as one can by only seeing the first four episodes, is a solid piece of work and well worth checking out.

Some adult themes and violence.

Overall: 7 out of 10
V-Chip Rating: TV-14 LV
Genre: Science Fiction.
Sex: Little to None.
Violence: Blood, CGI gore, martial arts violence, firearms.
Special Effects: Heavy use of CGI with mixed results.
Eye Candy: Gugino and Van Holt fulfill the cute quotient, but something tells me more than a few Fan Girls will be starting web sites devoted to Mr. Benedict.

IMDB listing

Carla Gugino … Dr. Molly Anne Caffrey
Brian Van Holt … Cavennaugh
Charles S. Dutton … J.T. Baylock
Brent Spiner … Nigel Fenway
Rob Benedict … Lucas Pegg
Peter Dinklage … Arthur Ramsey


5 out of 10
(NBC, Mondays 8/7c p.m.)

Premise: Something’s out there, it lives below us … and it is hungry.

When it comes to science fiction programming, NBC’s track record has been hit-or-miss – usually miss. In fact most people would be hard pressed to pick out a culturally significant sci fi show on the network since the mid-1960s when it debuted Star Trek.

As you may recall, after NBC’s short-sighted suits booted Trek to an early grave, its sci fi offerings included such dubious treats as Misfits of Science and Manimal.

There was a glimmer of hope in May 2004, as NBC merged with Universal Studios and gained the USA Network and the Sci Fi channel. With that move, the network also gained an outstanding legacy of science fiction, fantasy and horror.

Since the 1930s and 1940s, Universal films made cultural icons out of such fantastic creatures as Dracula, the Wolfman, the Mummy, and Frankenstein. Universal also is the home of E.T.

The USA network has had repeated successes with The 4400 and Dead Zone, among others. With Sci Fi, the name of the channel pretty much speaks for itself.

One of the first moves of the new NBC Universal was to green light a Sci Fi channel remake of the 1978 series, Battlestar Galactica. And it is good – very good.

So, with this influx of sci fi know-how from Universal and the programming talent of its new cable channels, the question before I plopped my butt in front of the TV for the first episode of Surface was: Does NBC now have what it takes to make a hit science fiction TV show?

From my first impression, the answer is no.

Don’t get me wrong. Surface does have its good points. The fact it replaced the god-awful Fear Factor alone has me hoping Surface grows and thrives with a healthy audience for years to come.

As a work of science fiction, the series shows promise. Some of the special effects are blended flawlessly into real footage, especially the underwater footage. The acting is topnotch. The dialogue is spot on.

But there is a problem. In general, although I love science fiction and I love TV, for some reason I don’t love Surface. There is no single big factor for this lack of love. The series is good, yes. It’s just not great.

The show does have some fixable flaws:

  • The subplots: Most likely inspired by Lost, the producer/writers of Surface are keeping audiences befuddled and teasing them with possibilities. That is good. But, the filler subplots are meandering and downright boring.
  • The casting: First, I want to applaud the producers for picking a cast who looks like normal folk in any (predominately white) neighborhood. The lead female character, “Laura,” is played by Lake Bell (Boston Legal, The Practice) [makes one wonder if she has siblings named Dinner and Cow].

    Bell is attractive enough and believable as a hands-on academic. But, the way she portrays Laura left this viewer detached. A lead actress needs to be able to make an audience feel her pains and actually care about her as a person. Sadly, Bell fails at this.

    I haven’t been this turned off by a lead character of a new sci fi show like this since the first Season of Babylon 5, where the bland Michael O’Hare played “Commander Jeffrey Sinclair.” His ho-hum acting made me tune out of that show after just three airings. (Like many others, I later came back to the series once he was replaced.)

    Then there is 14-year-old Carter Jenkins (Bad News Bears) as “Miles.” His interactions with the beasties are played as comic relief. I found myself more than once wishing the hungry critters would turn and devour him, his friend and his entire boring family.

    Speaking of the family, there is one continuity error with Surface that I cannot forgive. In the pilot episode, Miles mother is played by the very recognizable Jessica Tuck (the neurotic “Gillian” on Judging Amy), then in a soap opera-type switcheroo, by the second episode the talented Tuck was chucked for a new, and probably cheaper to pay, actress.

    Now Tuck’s part was very small in the first episode, I can’t figure out for the life of me why the producers didn’t just re-shoot those scenes in the pilot with the new actress. This kind of wife-swap just looks unprofessional, especially to fans of Tuck. Hrmph.

    One bright spot in the cast is the character “Rich Connelly,” as played by Jay R. Ferguson (Dr. Todd Hooper on Judging Amy). Ferguson hits all the right notes, is empathetic to the audience and is eclipsing Bell as the heart of this show.

    My one reservation about Ferguson is that he doesn’t look like a leading man. His face is nice to look at, but he is rather on the pudgy side as far as TV folk’s bodies go. Maybe that was a conscious decision of the producers, being that his character is from the rural Louisiana bayous.

    I guess we’re supposed to assume that all the physically fit people in the U.S. live in the big city.

  • Plot holes: Aside from some seriously questionable science, the show has quite a few gaping plot holes which I will not go into now to keep from spoiling the series for folks who have yet to see it for themselves.

    Let’s just say that Surface has its fair share of “skiffy,” an old term among science fiction fans to point out very weak science and inplausable physics, or just bad writing.

Some adult themes and violence.

Overall: 5 out of 10
V-Chip Rating: TV-PG
Genre: Science Fiction.
Sex: None.
Violence: Some bloody hospital-type wounds, off screen deaths.
Special Effects: Heavy use of CGI with mixed results.
Eye Candy: With a bland outdoorsy woman prone to plaid, a pudgy guy and a 14-year-old boy as the leads, the eye candy factor is low.

IMDB listing

Lake Bell … Laura Daugherty
Jay R. Ferguson … Rich Connelly
Carter Jenkins … Miles


8 out of 10
(The WB, Tuesdays 9/8c p.m.)

Premise: Two brothers reluctantly inherit the family business of tracking down and dispatching evil supernatural beings.

The glut of reality programming that network executives made television audiences suffer through over the past few years appears to be over. The successful rise of the once-moribund ABC network during the 2004-2005 season on the fanciful and speculative fictional heels of Lost and Desperate Housewives, has other networks seeing a potential goldmine in scripted, fictional TV shows.

Imagine, viewers actually like a good story, fully fleshed characters, witty dialogue and grand story arcs. Baffled execs once again see a future in hour-long fiction. (And there was much rejoicing around the world.)

Fast-forward to fall of 2005 where NBC, CBS and The WB each have debuted a TV show based on premises that only a few months earlier would never have found a home outside of the Sci Fi Channel.

Not to sit on its laurels and gloat, ABC brought forth two new speculative fiction offerings of its own. So fans of science fiction, horror and fantasy have the rare opportunity this year of having a choice of new offerings on broadcast television with a handful of new shows.

Of the five new science fiction and/or fantasy-themed dramas debuting on network TV this season, two stand out: ABC’s Invasion, because it is lucky enough to get the ratings bonanza timeslot after Lost, and The WB’s Supernatural, the subject of this review.

Family hunting trips

The premise of Supernatural is focused on two young 20-something men who inherit their father’s avocation of hunting down and saving innocent bystanders from the wrath of supernatural evil. The two main characters are played by actors who are familiar faces on The WB. Younger brother “Sam Winchester” is played by Jared Padalecki, a standout from previous seasons of Gilmore Girls (The hit WB show which directly precedes Supernatural, and probably why Padalecki gets top billing). The older brother, “Dean Winchester,” is played by Jensen Ackles who is better known as “Jason Teague” on last year’s run of Smallville.

(Side Comment: Where is the pod The WB keeps to grow such astonishingly attractive people? Like most WB hour-long programs, the yummy factor of this cast alone is enough to attract many women [and quite a few men] to the show.)

Supernatural is executive produced by a man who calls himself, “McG,” a three letter name in desperate need of a vowel. McG is a former music video director (they still make those? I haven’t seen one on MTV for years.) turned 35-year-old producer/director and Hollywood flavor of the month. He successfully translated the 1970s TV show Charlie’s Angels to the big screen – twice – and developed the Fox network teen soap opera, The O.C.

But in a weird combination of style becoming substance, somehow the mixture of two pretty-boy B-list actors and the vowelless-named producer have teamed up to create a very entertaining series. The show successfully combines the buddy-road-picture formula with the monster-of-the-week formula that was last successfully used by Joss Whedon’s Angel and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (as well as other series such as X-Files, Star Trek, etc.).

Longterm sucess?

The WB is no stranger to the concept that is Supernatural; it already has a successful-but-aging show about gorgeous siblings vanquishing evil to save innocent lives; a show created by a man whose previous success was a teen soap opera on Fox. Does this pattern remind anyone else of Aaron Spelling’s Charmed besides me?

The two shows have other similarities with the writers’ infusion of witty banter and not-so-special special effects. Methinks The WB has finally found the show to succeed Charmed on Sunday nights next year. And that would not be a bad thing.

That is due to the glaring major difference between Supernatural and Charmed; Supernatural is fresh, interesting and not reliant upon scripted gimmicks to keep its audience entertained. We haven’t explored Supernatural‘s Winchester family quite as deeply (or repeatedly) as the family of the elder program. Supernatural also has a darker tone, a product of its post 9-11 heritage. Its evil McG brings us is scary and deadly in an ugly way, not the tired wink-nudge campiness of Charmed.

At its best, Supernatural provides genuine thrills and spooky chills; at its worst it is still better than 70 percent of the rest of what is on TV right now.

Some adult themes and violence.

Overall: 8 out of 10
V-Chip Rating: TV-14 LV
Genre: Fantasy.
Sex: Minor references .
Violence: Martial arts violence, firearms and edged weapons used, deaths.
Special Effects: So-so use of CGI.
Music: Eclectic and well-chosen pop/rock tunes of the 80s with a few modern songs (read: product placements) thrown in.
Eye Candy: Hunk-a-rama will have appreciative women (and gay men) swooning; Babe factor is average to low.

Other: Follows in The WB’s tradition of pretty people doing extraordinary things … all to an excellent soundtrack.
IMDB listing

Jensen Ackles … Dean Winchester
Jared Padalecki … Sam Winchester
Jeffrey Dean Morgan … John Winchester

For this week of 2005 film making, Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper review the following films new to U.S. and Canadian theatres:

  • In Her Shoes, directed by Curtis Hansen and starring Cameron Diaz, Shirley MacLaine and Toni Collete
  • Waiting …, written and directed by Rob McKittrick and starring Ryan Reynolds and Justin Long
  • Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, claymation animated
  • Good Night, and Good Luck, written and directed by George Clooney and starring David Strathairn and Robert Downey Jr.
  • Two for the Money, directed by D.J. Caruso and starring Al Pacino and Matthew McConaughey.
  • The Gospel, written and directed by Rob Hardy and starring Clifton Powell.

Synopsis of their thoughts:

In Her Shoes – Ebert: Thumbs up; Roeper: Thumbs up
Ebert: Says the film is “very, very well made.” The first actor he notes is Shirley MacLaine, who gives a “wonderful” performance as the grandmother to Diaz and Collette, who he said also turn in strong performances. Ebert also likes how the film didn’t sentimentalize old people, but treated them like fully fleshed out individuals.
Roeper: Great performance from Diaz who has developed a recent habit of overplaying her persona on screen. “It’s great film; it’s well done.” He said all of the subplots of the film are just as believable as the main thread of the story.

Waiting… – Ebert: Thumbs Down; Roeper: Thumbs down
Roeper: Said he was “waiting for this alleged comedy to end” so he could get on with his life. Says Reynolds was in his “Chevy Case-lite” mode (think Van Wilder). He says writer/director Rob McKittrick is obsessed with homophobic jokes. He said the really offensive part of that is that his jokes aren’t even funny.
Ebert: Says this film lends credence to his theory that any film with “three dots in the title usually aren’t very good.” He didn’t have much else to say about the film.

Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit – Ebert: Thumbs up; Roeper: Thumbs down
Ebert: He called it “gentle, whimsical, funny and endlessly inventive” and went on to say it was as much fun for gownups as for children.
Roeper: In the first tiff with Ebert of the show, Roeper says “right here baby” and gives the claymation tale bad rating. He basically said the premise is better as a short, but as a feature lenghth product it bored him, calling it “slightly amusing.” But says to catch it on video on on pay TV, but don’t waste $10 to see it in a theatre.

Good Night, and Good Luck – Ebert: Thumbs up, Roeper: Thumbs up
Roeper: Called it one of the most insightful and intelligent movies made about the television news business. Says Straithern gave the performance of his career, portaying Edward R. Murrow. He called Clooney’s direction and set choices perfect for portraying the time in which the film is set.
Ebert: Agreed with a big thumbs up. Said the film did not get bogged down in side stories and rightfully focusing on Murrow verses McCarthyism.

Two for the Money – Ebert: Thumbs up, Roeper: Thumbs up
Ebert: “Al Pacino at the top of his form … he commands the screen with an intense and fascinating character.” He said the film works as a thriller and a portrait of three complicated and colorful people.
Roeper: Called the film note-perfect in getting the tone of hype-type cable TV shows.

The Gospel – Ebert: Thumbs up, Roeper: Thumbs down
Roeper: Said he really wished he could give the film a thumbs up for the music, but noted to many “sub-professional” touches to get a reccomendation.
Ebert: Although it is flawed, it deals with the role of the Church in African American families. “The movie as a movie shouldn’t get a thumbs up, but it gets a thumbs uo for what it represents.”

A report in Broadcasting and Cable magazine says the WB Network has picked up a full 22-episode season order of the new show Supernatural. The series, starring Jensen Ackles (Smallville, Dark Angel) and Jared Padalecki (Cry Wolf, Gilmore Girls) as brothers who inherit the family business of saving innocent folks from supernatural evil, is produced by Mc G (The O.C., Charles Angels theatricals).

The show airs Tuesdays at 9 p.m. (8 central) on The WB following Gilmore Girls. Achieving relatively high ratings for The WB, Supernatural is the first of the five new network TV science fiction or fantasy series of 2005-2006 to be picked up for a full season.

Below are the TV ratings from the week of August 24 – September 30.

[#1 = Most-watched show that night]

Saturday, 9-24-2005
– “Shrek (2001)” (households: 3.6/7, #7; adults 18-49: 2.1, #4)

Sunday, 9-25-2005
– “Charmed” (households: 2.6/4, #19; adults 18-49: 1.9, #18)

Monday, 9-26-2005
– “CSI: Miami” (households: 11.2/18, #1; adults 18-49: 5.5, #1)
– “Medium” (households: 8.9/14, #3; adults 18-49: 5.0, #3)
– “Surface” (households: 6.1/9, #10; adults 18-49: 2.9, #11)

Tuesday, 9-27-2005
– “Supernatural” (households: 3.1/4, #15; adults 18-49: 2.1, #15)

Wednesday, 9-28-2005
– “Lost” (households: 13.4/20, #1; adults 18-49: 9.4, #1)
– “Invasion” (households: 8.0/13, #4; adults 18-49: 5.4, #2)
– “CSI: NY” (households: 8.6/14, #3; adults 18-49: 4.3, #4)
– “Lost” repeat (households: 7.3/12, #5; adults 18-49: 4.1, #5)

Thursday, 9-29-2005
– “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation” (households: 17.1/26, #1; adults 18-49:
9.1, #1)
– “Night Stalker” (households: 4.8/7, #9; adults 18-49: 2.7, #9)
– “Smallville” (households: 3.5/6, #T12; adults 18-49: 2.6, #10)
– “Alias” (households: 5.4/9, #7; adults 18-49: 2.4, #11)

Friday, 9-30-2005
– “NUMB3RS” (households: 7.6/14, #1; adults 18-49: 3.2, #1)
– “Ghost Whisperer” (households: 7.4/14, #2; adults 18-49: 2.6, #2)
– “Threshold” (households: 5.7/10, #4; adults 18-49: 2.3, #5)

Although Sunday is not over, the major studios already have released box
office estimates to news organization for the full weekend based on Friday
and Saturday numbers. Final Numbers will be released Monday afternoon:

# / Title Weekend $ / #Theatres / Per Showing

1 / Flightplan / $15,038,000 / 3,424 / $4,391

2 / Serenity / $10,141,000 / 2,188 / $4,634

3 / Corpse Bride / $9,755,000 / 3,204 / $3,044

4 / History of Violence / $8,200,000 / 1,340 / $6,119

5 / Into the Blue / $7,000,000 / 2,509 / $2,509

6 / Just Like Heaven / $6,100,000 / 3,543 / $1,721

7 / Exorcism of Emily / $4,400,000 / 3,004 / $1,464

8 / Roll Bounce / $4,025,000 / 1,661 / $2,423

9 / Greatest Game Ever / $3,749,000 / 1,014 / $3,697

10 / 40-Year-Old Virgin / $3,110,000 / 2,152 / $1,445

Films usually make 3 to 5 times the opening weekend – which puts serenity in
the $30 million to $50 million range (worldwide grosses are usually double –
making the probable gross $60 million to $100 million worldwide.)

Day-by Day Estimates by Studios

# / Title / Friday / Saturday / Sunday
1 FLIGHTPLAN / $4,450,000 / $6,600,000 / $3,990,000
2 NEW SERENITY / $3,917,000 / $3,676,000 / $2,548,000
3 CORPSE BRIDE / $2,810,000 / $4,500,000 / $2,500,000
4 HISTORY OF VIOLENCE / $2,500,000 / $3,250,000 / $2,450,000
5 NEW INTO THE BLUE / $2,425,000 / $2,885,000 / $1,690,000
6 JUST LIKE HEAVEN / $1,870,000 / $2,745,000 / $1,485,000
7 EXORCISM OF EMILY / $1,340,000 / $2,000,000 / $1,060,000
8 ROLL BOUNCE / $1,000,000 / $2,000,000 / $1,025,000
9 NEW GREATEST GAME EVER / $1,050,000 / $1,600,000 / $1,100,000
10 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN / $926,000 / $1,442,000 / $742,000

2005 Opening Grosses for Sci-Fi/Fantasy Films, by overall rank of all films
released for the year (112 total so far)

# / Title / Opening Gross
1 Revenge of the Sith $108,435,841
2 War of the Worlds $64,878,725
3 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory $56,178,450
4 Fantastic Four $56,061,504
6 Batman Begins $48,745,440
10 Robots $36,045,301
11 The Ring Two $35,065,237
15 The Exorcism of Emily Rose $30,054,300
16 Constantine $29,769,098
17 Sin City $29,120,273
20 White Noise $24,113,565
21 The Amityville Horror (2005) $23,507,007
29 The Hitchhiker’s Guide $21,103,203
32 Bewitched $20,131,130
34 Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride $19,145,480
35 Boogeyman $19,020,655
40 Just Like Heaven $16,408,718
42 The Skeleton Key $16,057,945
43 The Brothers Grimm $15,092,079
48 Stealth $13,251,545
50 Elektra $12,804,793
54 Shark Boy and Lava Girl $12,582,088
55 The Island $12,409,070
58 House of Wax $12,077,236
62 Land of the Dead Uni. $10,221,705
65 Serenity $10,141,000
68 Cursed $9,633,085
78 Son of the Mask $7,511,675
84 The Cave $6,147,294
104 Mindhunters $1,911,358