38 thoughts on “1961 Top Box Office Movies”

1. are you sure you want to leave out The Mark directed by Guy Green, Starring best actor Oscar nominated Stuart Whitman in 1961?

   Reply

   1. Hey Sidney…I would love to include The Mark…I just do not have any box office information on that one.

      Reply

2. The Mysterious Island (1961)
   should be “Mysterious Island” (1961)

   Reply

   1. Thanks and fixed.

      Reply

3. Hello, i just have a question about some movies with multiple releases :
   Correct me if i’m wrong but i have understand that you list all the Disney movies and Gone with the Wind among others with the total box office domestic gross adjusted for inflation and the actual domestic gross adjusted on the basis of the initial year release ; am i right ? For example : about the 101 dalmatians , i assume that you put all the multiple releases together and you adjust them with the average ticket price of 1961 which give you your lifetime adjusted gross of 76 millions $.

   So why didn’t you do the same with “The Red Shoes” in your 1948 yearly reviews ? I have read your response when you mention that : “Variety reports that The Red Shoes had a rental number of 2.2 million in 1948…..and a 5.0 million total. So my calculation shows a $125.00 million adjusted gross for 1948….and an adjusted gross of $124.00 for the second release….for a grand total of $249.00 million.
   5. If I would have used it’s career total in 1948….the gross would have been about $290 million….or over inflated by about $40 million. One of the rules I had to go with when doing these yearly pages…is to put all the movies with the same production year together…..that of course creates a false impression. This page is the perfect example….in 1948 The Red Shoes was not even in the Top 50…but because of a re-release it sits on top of the list.”

   I understand your point of view but i think that The Red Shoes should be at the top of the 1948 yearly reviews anyway ; if you don’t want to change the actual domestic gross because it will blurs the data ; maybe you can put the grand total of 249 millions in the column “adjusted box office domestic” so everybody will have an information about the real success of the movie and no gross figures will be lost !
   Thanks ! And congratulations for your wonderful website !! I check it everyday !

   Reply

   1. Hey Karen
      1. Thanks for a great comment and great question….as for 101 Dalmations….that is exactly how we got the number….and the same is the guess for all the Disney classic movies.
      2. One of the drawbacks to our database…..is it is one movie per slot…..in other words or database really struggles with movies with multi-releases……so yes…..we have to manipulate the numbers to get the current adjusted totals to match.
      3. We just had this problem with South Pacific too….as it was reported as a 6.5 million rentals in 1958,1959 and 1960. Then it jumps to 17 million rentals in 1965. If we put all the rental numbers into 1958…then the gross would be almost at 3/4 of a billion…….so we had to use paper and pencil to figure out how to get the 1958 number to work.
      4. With our website being “dynamic”….we can not….”maybe you can put the grand total of 249 millions in the column “adjusted box office domestic” so everybody will have an information about the real success of the movie and no gross figures will be lost !”. In the pre-dynamic days…I could manually edit the table…..but now that has been taken away….but it is a good suggestion.
      5. Luckily movies like The Red Shoes rarely happen that way.
      6. I appreciate the kind words about our website…..happy to hear you visit our website daily…..and even happier to see you providing some feedback.

      Reply

      1. Thank you for these explanations ; I understand better why it’s so complicated … On the other hand, for films that have had re-releases, if you can not include the cumulative gross of all their releases manually in the table, you can always write a note in comment above or under the table ; for example by specifying that these films were released several times and indicating their domestic total box office adjusted… It would be good to be exhaustive…. especially since there are only a few exceptions…Just another suggestion….Hope it helps…
         Thanks a lot !

         Reply

         1. Hey Karen. I think the best route would be to do a page just on the movie in question. Gone With The Wind is a good example of that. https://www.ultimatemovierankings.com/gone-with-the-wind-1939/ On that page it has a trailer….all the UMR rankings and the release numbers for each GWTW release. It would essential be doing the same thing you are suggesting. I will see if I can get a The Red Shoes page down in the next day or two. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on fixing this issue….it is greatly appreciated.

            Reply

            1. All right, it will be great to do this for all the movies that had multiple releases!

               I still have 3 questions to ask:

               1) The adjusted box office for inflation on your website is it automatic as on box office mojo; that is to say that the site is updated each year with the evolution of the price of the ticket or have you used the ticket prices of the years when you filled your columns? That would be a problem to compare all the movies year after year if they are not adjusted at the same price …

               2) I would also like to know a little bit about how you convert your rentals into gross because some movies (not to mention re-released) that have higher rentals than other movies can be in your rankings with gross higher … How to explain it? …
               I give you an example: for the year 1937 I found these figures according to variety:
               – Maytime: 2,183,000 rentals
               – In old Chicago: 1,964,000 rentals

               Yet in your gross ranking:
               -In old Chicago: 10,000,000
               -Maytime: 8,700,000
               How a movie of the same year has more rentals than another gets behind in gross?….And there’s a lot of similar cases on your charts

               Is it because, as you explained, some films released a year continue to be exploited the following year and others do not?

               In the same way, The adventures of Robin Hood (1938) is at 1,928,000 rentals and 10 milions in gross on the site … How did you get a figure as high compared to the variety rental?
               I absolutely do not question your work that fascinates me, I’m just trying to understand a little better ….

               3) Do you also include Canadian rentals figures?
               Example: David and Bathsheba is at US $ 7,100,000 / rentals according to Variety in 1952 and only 4,720,000 in US rentals ….
               Variety has often published US + Canada …
               What numbers do you use? Only US or both? …

               Thanks !!

            2. Hey Karen.
               1. Great questions…..so let me see if I can answer all of them.
               2. Yes….once NATO (National Association of Theater Owners) release their averages for a year….we adjust all the movies in our database….I think they have finally released that number….so in the next few days you should see all the numbers change again.
               3. Often we have different sources with different numbers….in the case of Maytime….the 2,183,000 in rentals is from the MGM ledgers versus from Variety. Not sure where the In Old Chicago number comes from….but our number comes from the 20th century financial book…..and they list it higher than 1,964,000 million…more like 2.4 million.
               4. Generally we pick the ledgers numbers as the first choice to use…..Varitey is our 2nd most favorable number to use……the rest of the sources are not as reliable…places like books…..Harrison Reports.
               5. Robin Hood is like the Disney movies….many re-releases over the years.
               6. As far as I know….Canada box office has always been included in North America box office.
               7. As for Variety….I used to look at their numbers as the bible of box office….but the more I researched the numbers the more I started to doubt their accuracy. There are a few reasons for that…..(1) The yearly numbers came from the studios……and they had a tendency to make their movies look better. (2) Many years….like in the 1960s…..they only guess on the final grosses. (3) Sometimes the executives reported total grosses versus domestic grosses. Best example of that would be Pride and the Passion.
               Hope that answers your questions….one of the things we freely admit….our numbers are a “estimated gross”….sadly the poor record keeping will never allow us to state the true numbers. 🙂

4. 1 BRUCE By 1961 I was becoming more interested in the A list pictures at the top of your chart such as The Duke’s The Alamo and my Greg’s Guns of Navarone rather than the B actioners that had hitherto been my main preoccupation. My Doris’ Lover Come Back naturally interested me very much as well as her movies had always appealed to me but my fave movie of that year was undoubtedly the lovely Breakfast at Tiffany’s though One Eyed Jacks was also well up on my list.

   2 However there were still some low budget/low grossing pictures that I enjoyed immensely and probably the best of those was The Innocents starring Deborah Kerr [budget just 450,000 English pounds at that time] way down your 1961 chart in terms of earnings. It was one of the scariest ghost stories that I have ever seen on screen.

   3 One of the ghosts in The Innocents was the evil Peter Quint played by Peter Wyngarde. ENTER DAN! Quint was subsequently played in life, before he became a ghost, by Brando in 1971’s The Nightcomers, a “prequel” to The Innocents. Your own charts faithfully reflect the contrast in quality between the two movies as you have given the Kerr flick a high 83% review rating and the Brando movie a mere 50%. Even Joel could not have drawn a more accurate distinction!

   4 Anyway with two 1960s reviews within a week you are fairly powering your way into that decade and indeed film historians seem to regard 1962 as the end of Hollywood’s classic era/beginning of the modern era so if they are correct and when you have reviewed 1962 you will have covered the classic era from the early talkies in 1935 [so far] right thru until the onset of the modern era. A considerable achievement and a very useful one from my viewpoint.

   Reply

   1. Hey Bob
      1. Thanks for checking out our 1961 movie page.
      2. The Alamo earned a lot of money….but cost a lot of money…..so it has gone down in the history books as a flop….but i remember watching it on primetime tv in the 1970s…and it seemed like a major movie.
      3. Glad your Brando had a highly ranked movie on this chart…..just recently re-watched One Eyed Jacks….I enjoyed it more on the second viewing.
      4. Breakfast at Tiffany’s is one of my mom’s favorite too….though I think she likes the music more than the movie.
      5. I liked The Innocents…..I knew about it’s connection to the Brando movie.
      6. Our yearly reviews are now from 1935 to 1961…..hopefully we will have both decades done in a few months.
      7. It is strange….I am now thinking the 1960s and 1970s are going to be the more difficult decades to research…..as we really only have Variety….and books (which are horrible sources for box office grosses).
      8. It was all downhill for Hitch after Psycho……but we still have The Birds and Marnie to go…let’s not mention Topaz (my least favorite Hitch movie)
      Good feedback as always.

      Reply

      1. HI BRUCE
         1 I enjoyed your interesting feedback here.

         2 Michael Winner directed The Nightcomers and I told you before that he claims that that was the only film in which he addressed his star as “Sir”. However Winner was considered such an eccentric by professional observers that some of them voiced surprise that a major Hollywood star of even Brando’s [pre Godpop] reduced status wanted to work with him. However maybe it was the “Sir” that did the trick!

         3 Your correction button is a godsend and I’ve manage to catch in good time quite a few minor irritating mistakes since it came on the scene. Just a pity as I’ve said that it doesn’t allow me to have a go at Joel’s stuff but congratulations and thanks to you and W o C for providing the facility

         Reply

         1. Hey Bob
            1. I like the story about Winner and Brando……I can easily see Winner doing that.
            2. Glad you like the correction button….we have been doing a ton of small website changes lately….good to know that was a favorable one.
            3. I keep forgetting to look up Dorothy Malone in Joel’s book….not sure she made the book….but if she did….I am sure you are more than anxious to read his thoughts on her….lol.
            4. WoC is the bomb. Despite her business schedule she did some work on the website….all were huge improvements.
            Good stuff.

            Reply

            1. HI BRUCE:

               1 As I’ve also told youDeborah Kerr claimed that Mr Mumbles was the only actor to whom she ever sent a fan letter [when he was on the set of Sayonara]. If she had been psychic and had known of the mess he and Winner were going to make of her wonderful The Innocents I wonder if she would have been so generous to the Great Mumbler!

               2 Is it truly your opinion that I need Joel to tell me what to think about Dorothy with whom I grew up when Hirsch was going unnoticed in nightclubs and croaking out his rock music?

               3 Be sure to pass on my congratulations and appreciation to a real winner W o C for all the hard work she has done for me and your other regulars and general viewers.

            2. Hey Bob Roy
               1. Funny about Kerr…..and the power of Brando.
               2. The Wizard of Joel speaks so truthful….he can help guide you….lol.
               3. I finally added in Joel’s thoughts on Dorothy Malone…..I know you are excited.
               4. I will do that….WoC has made this hobby of mine so much better.
               Good stuff.

5. In 1961, one can already notice the steep decline in box office attendance that we discussed on the 1960 page. For instance, only 25 movies on your list cracked the $100 million adjusted box office threshold, as compared to 35 movies in 1960. Still, some great movies were released that year. Judgment at Nuremberg and Breakfast at Tiffany’s are among my all time favorites and my top picks from 1961, followed by The Guns of Navarone, El Cid, A Raisin in the Sun, The Children’s Hour, and Kuroswa’s Yojimb. Also enjoyed The Innocents, The Hustler, the largely forgotten Hoodlum’s Priest (thanks for including it, though I notice it is still missing a critical rating), West Side Story and Splendor in the Grass. While these last two are not among my favorites, I loved Natalie Wood in them. She shot to top stardom with these films and I think 1961 was her year more than any-one other actor or actress.
   I won’t be able to comment over the next few days, but will be monitoring any new annual page from the 1960s closely 🙂

   Reply

   1. Hey PhilHOF17
      1. From 35 to 25 $100 million movies is a huge dip for sure.
      2. Judgement at Tiffany’s is a good one, two punch.
      3. I have seen all the movies you mentioned with the exception of The Children’s Hour (which I want to see) and Hoodlum’s Priest.
      4. I would say Guns of Navarone, El Cid, Splendor In The Grass and Yojimbo would make my Top 10 as well…..though Splendor In The Grass is not a movie I plan on seeing again…anytime soon.
      5. As for Hoodlum’s Priest……the critic rating is now there……as we work through our communications issues here at UMR.
      6. Not sure if I am going to keep moving towards the 1960s or the 1930s…..leaning towards 1935 to be the next yearly review.
      Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

      Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.