The receipts are still being counted for Christmas Day box office. But it does look like a lot of people made it from their dinner tables to the movie theaters. “Les Miserables” came in at a boffo number 1 with somewhere between $16-$18 million. (UPDATE $18.2 Million– very nice!) Quentin Tarantino’s wild ride, “Django Unchained,” finished a close second. All of this means that Tom Cruise in “Jack Reacher” was knocked to number 5. The final numbers will be available later Wednesday. A couple of things are as I predicted: “Les Miz” has a pent up demand, and once it hit theaters, it took off. Internationally, the numbers will go even crazier. “Django” is a word of mouth hit. Forget the so called “controversies” about racism and the N word. (They– the controversies– are manufactured.) Every single person I know who’s seen “Django” loves it. Black, white, purple, doesn’t matter. It’s a great entertainment. So hold on for updates and keep refreshing…

UPDATE: With the exception of the oddity called “Lions for Lambs,”  Tom Cruise has never had a lower opening weekend box office than with “Jack Reacher.” I’m counting here his movies that opened in more than 2,000 theatres. “Reacher”  took in just $15.6 million. That’s actually less than each of Cruise’s last two films, “Knight and Day” and “Valkyrie,” which were in similar size releases and– in the case of the lamentable “Valkyrie”– at Christmas as well. Those two releases opened in the $20 mil range.

You have to go back 20 years to “Far and Away” to find a Cruise opening weekend that made less money–$10 mil, only 1800 theaters. Is this a referendum for Cruise in non Mission Impossible vehicles? It’s definitely a wake up call. As I’ve said for years, his best shot at regaining a larger audience is to find a new “Jerry Maguire” role where he can woo the female audience with his infectious grin. He’s also going to have to get real with promotion– actual interviews, with real answers to questions. And maybe he’ll get the message that Scientology has helped destroy three marriages, and now, possibly, it imperils his career.

Earlier: The confluence of many things, starting with the Newtown, Connecticut killings and ending with Tom Cruise’s aversion to doing much personal publicity, has ended with a disappointing opening night for “Jack Reacher.” Playing in over 3,300 theaters, “Reacher” made only $5.1 million on Friday night.

That’s considerably less–a million dollars or so — than “Knight and Day” made in 2010 on its first Friday night. That movie went on to make just around $78 million.

Of course, the producers of “Jack Reacher” say it only cost $60 million. That’s ridiculous since Cruise gets $20 million off the top. And they spent a lot on international premieres, and canceled junkets. No matter– “Jack Reacher” didn’t cost just $40 million other than Cruise’s salary.

“Reacher” is a key referendum on Tom Cruise outside of “Mission Impossible” franchise. If it makes $15 million or less this weekend, that’s not a good sign. “Reacher” has been clobbered by the main critics. It’s also up against “The Hobbit”–which made twice as much money last night– as well as lingering and popular films like “Skyfall” and “Lincoln.” If a new Tom Cruise isn’t making much of a dent in the box office, that’s not good news.

Tomorrow we’ll see how the whole thing played out.

PS Good news: what no one’s talking about is that Ang Lee’s “Life of Pi” has quietly cruised to $73 million very quickly. How nice! I thought this Pi might have been undercooked, but it’s not so. Could very well be a Best Picture nominee, along with Lincoln, Argo, Silver Linings, Django, Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Les Miz, The Master, Beasts of the Southern Wild, and –hmmm– Amour?

thanks to Boxofficemojo.com:

The Central Intelligence Agency has issued a statement about Kathryn Bigelow’s film “Zero Dark Thirty.” This must be a first. I can’t remember a time the austere CIA said anything about a Hollywood film. But they are not happy. Of course this will probably create more interest in Bigelow’s film about the hunt for and killing of Osama Bin Laden.

Acting Director Michael Morell’s statement follows. He also calls the deceased crazed killer “Usama.” We like “Osama.” (Tomato, Tomatto, let’s call the whole thing off!)

Statement:

:I would not normally comment on a Hollywood film, but I think it important to put Zero Dark Thirty, which deals with one of the most significant achievements in our history, into some context.  The film, which premiered this week, addresses the successful hunt for Usama Bin Ladin that was the focus of incredibly dedicated men and women across our Agency, Intelligence Community, and military partners for many years.  But in doing so, the film takes significant artistic license, while portraying itself as being historically accurate.

What I want you to know is that Zero Dark Thirty is a dramatization, not a realistic portrayal of the facts.  CIA interacted with the filmmakers through our Office of Public Affairs but, as is true with any entertainment project with which we interact, we do not control the final product.

It would not be practical for me to walk through all the fiction in the film, but let me highlight a few aspects that particularly underscore the extent to which the film departs from reality.

• First, the hunt for Usama Bin Ladin was a decade-long effort that depended on the selfless commitment of hundreds of officers.  The filmmakers attributed the actions of our entire Agency—and the broader Intelligence Community—to just a few individuals.  This may make for more compelling entertainment, but it does not reflect the facts.  The success of the May 1st 2011 operation was a team effort—and a very large team at that.

• Second, the film creates the strong impression that the enhanced interrogation techniques that were part of our former detention and interrogation program were the key to finding Bin Ladin.  That impression is false.  As we have said before, the truth is that multiple streams of intelligence led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was hiding in Abbottabad.  Some came from detainees subjected to enhanced techniques, but there were many other sources as well.  And, importantly, whether enhanced interrogation techniques were the only timely and effective way to obtain information from those detainees, as the film suggests, is a matter of debate that cannot and never will be definitively resolved.

• Third, the film takes considerable liberties in its depiction of CIA personnel and their actions, including some who died while serving our country.  We cannot allow a Hollywood film to cloud our memory of them.

Commentators will have much to say about this film in the weeks ahead.  Through it all, I want you to remember that Zero Dark Thirty is not a documentary.  What you should also remember is that the Bin Ladin operation was a landmark achievement by our country, by our military, by our Intelligence Community, and by our Agency.

Michael Morell