As I recounted prior to the start of the long Christmas holiday frame last Tuesday, the oracles of the box office were predicting a reaction to “Little Fockers” somewhat in line with the 2004 performance of “Meet the Fockers.” Specifically, the numbers being bandied about were in the $60 or $70 million range for the entire five day period. The total gross instead appears to be roughly $48.3 million for Universal. That is only a couple of million higher than what “Meet the Fockers” earned over a three day period on its Christmas opening in 2004. Remember, movie ticket prices have gone up a few bucks since ’04.

Nikki Finke recounts how the megastar-laden film’s difficult and expensive $100 million production, helmed by the currently luck-challenged Chris Weitz, provided a windfall for Dustin Hoffman and, I understand, allowed him to almost literally phone-in large portions of his performance. Finke estimates that the lastest “Fockers” movie is earning only about 75% of what the prior comedy made. As for the critics, while “Meet the Fockers” left critics unhappy — as opposed to the very well reviewed original smash-hit, “Meet the Parents” — it was a regular success d’estime compared to the woeful reviews of the third film in what critics are praying will remain a trilogy. Strangely enough, this seems to correlate with diminishing returns for the series.

Overall, things weren’t any better, with Sony’s two expensive, poorly reviewed, star-laden turkeys  — “How Do You Know” and “The Tourist — being slaughtered in their second and third weeks, respectively. (To be fair, since it stars literally the two most famous people in the world right now not named “Obama” or “Oprah” or “Palin” or “Assange,” “The Tourist” is doing significantly better than the latest from James Brooks, but both films are money losers right now.) The extremely un-promising and critically derided “Gulliver’s Travels” was all but thrown to the wolves by Fox and its release was delayed until Friday. It opened in 7th place for the weekend with a Lilliputian estimate of $7.2 million.

Anne Thompson notes that this three-day weekend at the movies was 44% lower than last year, and had some choice words on the drop:

Little Fockers repped the widest-appeal offering among the weakest bunch of holiday releases in recent memory. At a time when studios usually try to maximize returns on their strongest pictures, they instead offered audiences a menu of costly, tame, MOR fare—and moviegoers stayed away in droves.

On the other hand, there was good news this Xmas weekend for movies deemed nice by critics. The critically beloved western from the critically beloved Coen Brothers, “True Grit,” was the weekend’s #2 film. An opening weekend personal best for the distinctive Joel and Ethan C., it earned roughly $38.8 million for Paramount over the five day period (it’s weekend estimate is healthy $25.6 million) while costing $62 million less that “Fockers.” Moreover the money is said to be “up on the screen” as the film is wowing viewers with Director of Photography Roger Deakins’ visuals. It also provides audiences with two high grade superstars (Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon) and even creates a potential new one in young Hailee Steinfeld. If you’re over 40, you might remember a time when film producers often saved money by creating new stars instead of trying to hide their mistakes behind established ones.

Also, contrary to the questionable conventional wisdom that young people have an inborn dislike of westerns (how can they dislike something they’ve never seen?), “True Grit” actually scored slightly better among younger viewers on Cinemascore. Especially considering inevitable Oscar nominations and the way all Coen films have of lingering in the public consciousness, the long-term prospects for big-time legs and Blu-Ray/DVD sales seems extremely bright here. Can’t wait to see this one.

There was also good news this week overall for limited release films like Sylvain Chomet’s animated “The Illusionist” and more so for Sofia Coppola’s “Somewhere” — getting decent reviews but also suffering some very pronounced critical backlash for the Michelangelo Antonioni-influenced younger Coppola.

Breaking out of the limited release ghetto to some degree, the critical darling and Oscar favorite from director Tom Hooper, “The King’s Speech,” did just fine, earning  an estimate of over $4.5 million in only 700 theaters. It came in at 11th place nationwide, just ahead of — wait for it, “How Do You Know” — which managed to eek out about $3.5 million in 2,483 theaters. Behold the power of Rotten Tomatoes.

* It’s not quite on the level of finding a mysterious monolith on the moon but it comes close. AICN has it that EFX pioneer genius Douglas Trumbull has said that 17 minutes of lost outtakes from Stanley Kubrick‘s “2001: A Space Odyssey” have been found in a salt mine in Kansas. It’s important to remember this story, such as it is, originates from a message board and perhaps isn’t the best sourced item to ever hit the ‘nets. But what better place to store outtakes than a salt mine in Kansas? A pepper mill in Encino?

* Since the story’s been out since the beginning of the week, by now you’ve no doubt heard the news that Jon Favreau has walked away from “Iron Man 3” in what we’re being assured was an entirely amicable split motivated primarily by his desire to make the Disneyland themed “Magic Kingdom.” As a lifelong Southern Californian and a current resident in good standing of the city of Anaheim, I love the Happiest Place on Earth as much as the next guy. However, as the premise for a movie, I’m hugely skeptical and wondering just what it is that is getting people of the caliber of Favreau and Guillermo del Toro on board with this these theme-parked based projects. (I’m much less skeptical of the Fincher “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” because, well, it’s based on a beloved book of my childhood as well as a pretty cool Disney flick, not a ride.)

* More old news too interesting to pass over, especially in light of what appears to be an impending box office success for “The Fighter.” Eminem/Marshall Mathers may be returning to films in the company of “Sons of Anarchy” creator Kurt Sutter with the boxing tale, “Southpaw.” I have to admit to having lost track of the rapper’s recordings along with most contemporary music, but I’ve always thought the guy was, if nothing else, an incredibly talented writer even if he occasionally let his creative id get the better of him. Should be interesting.

* Film Comment has made if official, Olivier Assayas’ massive “Carlos” is the cinephile flick of the year. #2 on the list was “The Social Network.”

* The Chicago Film Critics have issued their awards nominations. Not much we haven’t seen here before though a nice win for that singular twin, Arnie Hammer.

* David Schwimmer is the latest filmmaker to take on the MPAA’s rating system. Good lord, there needs to be some kind of reform of this thing. On that point the Ebert speaks and points out the absurdity of the current rules on language, in particular:

Mr. Valenti was correct that the MPAA should not evaluate a film as a critic might. In theory, the ratings board should have no opinion on whether “Blue Valentine” is good or not. It should stick to bean counting. But counting beans has led to another controversy that the Weinsteins are currently embroiled in. Their film “The King’s Speech,” the fascinating personal and historical story of George VI’s work with a therapist to overcome a stutter, was rated R because of one scene involving use of the f-word. To be sure, it was used a lot, but probably not more often than the average teenager hears it in a day. Once you’ve heard one f-word, you’ve heard them all.

* Speaking of Roger Ebert, I’m delighted to report that he’s returning the concept of intelligent movie reviews to a TV set near you starting this January.

* Another story I’m a bit late to, but still want to mention: I’ve been following the progress of the Joel & Ethan Coen screenplay for a remake of the fun sixties caper flick, “Gambit,” for some time. The latest is that the current movie king of England, Colin Firth, is in talks to star as the larcenous lead. Meanwhile, the Independent reminds me that Firth is more surely going to be featured in the new film verson of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy by my favorite spy author, John Le Carre. I think I need to re-read that one.

* As a native born Angeleno and a reader of crime fiction from time to time, I am ashamed to admit I’ve never read any of Michael Connelly’s books with or without his most famous gumshoe, Harry Bosch. Considering how long his character’s been around I have no excuse. And, if you’re wondering why he hasn’t shown up in the movies or the television box yet, Deadline — at the end of a busy week — has that covered as well.

And now, you’re moment of gumshoe.

7. Wes Anderson

Love him or hate him, Wes Anderson knows how to make great movies. Though he’s remembered more for his quirky screenplays than his ability behind the camera, Anderson seems to have a hand in every single detail of his movies, and that’s a telltale sign of someone in love with their craft. He also boasts one of the best stables of actors in town (Bill Murray, Angelica Huston, the Wilson brothers, etc.), and more recently, nabbed such in-demand actors as George Clooney and Meryl Streep to voice a couple of talking foxes in a stop-motion animated film that’s actually better than Pixar’s latest. Add to that one of the best comedies of the decade in “The Royal Tenenbaums,” the cult favorite “The Life Aquatic,” and the criminally underrated “The Darjeeling Limited,” and his place on this list suddenly doesn’t seem so unwarranted.

6. Clint Eastwood

Sometimes working too much can have a counteracting effect, because while Clint Eastwood was able to bang out nine films over the course of the last decade, it’s his hit-and-miss track record that ultimately prevents him from finishing higher on the list. For every “Letters from Iwo Jima,” there’s a “Flags of Our Fathers,” and while films like “Million Dollar Baby,” “Mystic River” and “Gran Torino” are easily some of the best movies of their respective years, “Space Cowboys” and “Changeling” are some of the worst. His latest film, “Invictus,” falls somewhere in between, and that’s only because he makes the subject material better than it is. Still, if there’s anything we can learn from a guy like Eastwood, it’s that sometimes less is more.

5. Peter Jackson

Apart from making three of the biggest movies of the decade, Peter Jackson also tackled a remake of one of the most iconic movie monsters of all time and a best-selling novel where the main character spends a majority of the story in heaven. If “The Fellowship of the Ring” hadn’t become a worldwide sensation, though, Jackson’s career could have gone down a very different path. After having been entrusted by New Line Cinema to shoot all three “Lord of the Rings” films back-to-back, Jackson returned the favor by delivering a worldwide sensation that kept the studio in business for a few more years (before merging with Warner Bros.), while making a name for himself as a visual maestro. That led to another pet project, “King Kong,” and eventually to a big screen adaptation of “The Lovely Bones.” Neither one is quite as good as the “LOTR” trilogy, but then again, neither are most movies.

4. Joel and Ethan Coen

The Brothers Coen got off to a great start in 2000 with the musical comedy “O Brother, Where Art Thou?,” only to follow it up with duds like “Intolerable Cruelty” and “The Ladykillers.” Of course, I’ve resisted from even mentioning “The Man Who Wasn’t There” because, although not exactly a failure, it had absolutely no impact on me. They eventually turned things around with the 2007 Oscar winner, “No Country for Old Man,” which was not only one of the best films of their career, but of the decade as well. “Burn After Reading” saw them revisit their quirkier side, while “A Serious Man,” although much different from their other films in that it doesn’t feature a single big-name actor, is the kind of movie that you need to watch more than once to fully appreciate. That could be considered a negative in this day and age, but it’s exactly that disregard for mainstream audiences that makes their work so memorable.

3. Jason Reitman

As the child of a big-time movie director, I’m not sure if it’s easier to succeed in Hollywood or fail, but Jason Reitman has quickly outshined his father’s legacy with three of the best films of the decade. Granted, it’s not a lot to judge by compared to some of the other directors on this list, but Reitman has proven himself more than adept at making movies – especially when he’s the one writing them. His 2005 debut, “Thank You for Smoking,” was a great adaptation of an already funny Christopher Buckley novel, while 2007’s “Juno” continued a trend of getting great performances from every one of his actors. Though he’s yet to be rewarded for his work behind the camera, “Up in the Air” shows an incredible maturity to his filmmaking that might finally net him a golden statue. Even if it doesn’t, though, that doesn’t change the fact that he makes the kind of movies that just about everyone can enjoy.

2. Quentin Tarantino

Quentin Tarantino is the kind of director that other filmmakers must secretly hate, because his movies are unlike anything you’ve ever seen before. What’s so great about a Tarantino flick is that he takes a genre that most people might not usually be interested in and revamps them for a mainstream crowd. He also writes some of the most quotable dialogue in the business and has a knack for using actors whose careers have long been dead. David Carradine delivered his greatest performance as the titular character in the two-part revenge film, “Kill Bill,” while Kurt Russell was all sorts of vintage cool in the “Death Proof” portion of “Grindhouse.” Of course, Tarantino’s greatest achievement of this year came with the release of his World War II epic “Inglourious Basterds,” a decidedly more mature feature from the director that proved even Tarantino could grow up when the time came.

1. Christopher Nolan

When your weakest film is the 2002 thriller “Insomnia,” you know you’ve had a great career, and Christopher Nolan’s only gets better with each passing year. Before directing big stars like Al Pacino and Robin Williams, however, Nolan made a name for himself with the mind-bending reverse narrative, “Memento.” Both movies were pretty big achievements for a young filmmaker, but they pale in comparison to what he accomplished with the Batman films. After successfully rebooting the franchise with 2005’s “Batman Begins,” Nolan struck gold again with the 2008 follow-up, “The Dark Knight,” when his highly-debated decision to cast Heath Ledger as the Joker paid off in spades. It’s actually quite surprising that Nolan has yet to receive an Oscar nomination for his work – especially with underrated gems like “The Prestige” to his name – because he’s easily one of the best directors working today.