De Palma's Iraq Flick Bombs... Ha! Another one bites the dust. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No one wants to see Hollyweird's anti-America, anti-war on terror pics. It's hard for Hollywood pacifists like Brian De Palma to capture the hearts and minds of America if Americans won't see their movies. The public is staying away in droves from “Rendition," “Lions for Lambs" and “In the Valley of Elah," audiences are really avoiding “Redacted," De Palma's picture about US soldiers who rape a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, then kill her and family. “Redacted" -which “could be the worst movie I've ever seen," said critic Michael Medved -took in just $25,628 in its opening weekend in 15 theaters, which means roughly 3,000 people saw it in the entire country. This, despite an A-list director, a huge wave of publicity, high praise in the liberal press. Ha! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.nypost.com/seven/11252007/gossip/pagesix/de_palma_iraq_flick_bombs_582058.htm
So, "Americans Reject Bad Films". No surprise there. The current crop just happen to include a bunch of anti-war ones.
The liberal press was chomping at the bit predicting the success of the anti-war on terror/anti-America movies. They gave as much free publicitiy as they could. They have an agenda. A dirty one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
War films were a fad a couple years ago, but not any more. Even war films that aren't anti-US aren't doing well because as usual, big business tried to milk it for all that it was worth. Right now though, they flooded the market a wee bit too much with those style films at once. Dead trend. Heck, I was tired of em after Babel, but they still decide to release psuedo-documentary movies. Besides, unlike the popular ones a few years ago, these new films aren't really telling us anything we don't already know now whereas before they were eye-openers for many. - N
That's not really true, Neildo. Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima have done quite well. It is only the current films that many view as not only anti-war but anti-American that are doing so poorly.
Why are you so sure it's the supposed anti-Americanism and not that the movies just might not be good that's keeping them from doing well?
I am su;re of it because of the big name stars who are in the films and the big name directors who are directing them. Such stars simply don't bomb so badly, especially in films that have been praised by the media.
I'd say that probably much of the problem is timing. Full Metal Jacket and Platoon were hardly pro American films (or Apocalypse Now). But they were very popular in their time, which was well after U.S. involvement in Vietnam had ended. Neither the Bush presidency or the wars he has begun are popular right now, and I think the last thing that most people want is to go and see films that make them think about it. And it could also be that some or most of these films aren't that good either. But even if it is well made, I just don't think most of the public wants anything to do with a film that makes them think about our present overseas military entanglements.
Yeah. I'd wager that most of the time, people go to movies to escape reality for a couple of hours. They don't want to spend $10 to be reminded that war sucks, especially when it is a current one. Classics like FMJ and Apocalypse Now are hugely popular within military circles because of the way they portray military culture as bitter and shitty, therefore anyone who voluntarily submits themselves to it is by extension a hardass.
Flags of our Fathers made $33.6 million in U.S. ticket sales...and had a budget of $53 million. If you look at U.S. ticket sales (and Sandy is), that too was a money loser. If you count in overseas ticket sales ($28.3 million) then it made a profit of about $9 million, which Hollywood considers a loss, since its production budget does not count allocable overhead. If you add DVD sales to that ($34.6 million), it probably just perhaps barely covered its all-in costs, as the rule of thumb is that you need to come reasonably close to doubling your production budget to make an accounting profit. Now, that said, the "accounting profit" is what they report on their tax returns, so they have an incentive to deflate it, and likely do. In any event, since Sandy is looking only to domestic grosses, it's not entirely fair to count Flags of our Father as a "success" given that on that same basis it would be considered a turd. Letters from Iwo Jima did a little better, it had a budget of $13 million, and made $13.7 million domestically. Still not enough to cover its overhead most likely, but at least it topped its budget. It was a complete success if you count the overseas ticket sales ($54.6 million), but those are the "non-Americans"). In Sandy's eyes, foreigners liking that film, may actually make it somewhat suspect. Lions for Lambs had a $35 million budget, only made $14 million domestically (and isn't likely to make more than a couple million more than that before it's pushed out of theaters), but it has made and estimated $25 million outside the U.S. (so far, I am not sure if it has been fully released internationally) and DVD sales are still ahead of it. All-in it returned $4 million over its production budget so far, which is again, still a loser. Rendition was a major loser, budget $27 million, total gross (U.S. and international) $16 million. The Kingdom, which wasn't anti-U.S. at all, suffered similarly. Budget $72.5 million, U.S. gross $47.5 million, international $33 million, eeking out a slim $8 million margin over its budget. With DVD sales, it may be a money maker, though. Team America: World Police was, I note because it amuses me, a wild success, profitability-wise, comfortably doubling its production budget in ticket sales alone. Probably because it showed puppets having sex. I drew the numbers from here: http://the-numbers.com/movies/2006/FLAGS.php http://the-numbers.com/movies/2006/LFIJM.php http://the-numbers.com/movies/2007/RNDTN.php http://the-numbers.com/movies/2007/KNGDM.php http://the-numbers.com/movies/2007/LNLMB.php http://the-numbers.com/movies/2004/TEAMA.php
Team America was pretty pro-US. Hilarious movie too. And I don't know if there's ever been a major release that comes as close to being enemy propaganda as Redacted. That movie will no doubt be a hit with al-qada recruiters. It's no surprise it bombed so spectacularly in the US.
Really? Because I thought it was like every other piece that Trey Parker and Matt Stone does; make fun and mock everybody and everything. They didn't just nail the U.S. I thought they poked quite a bit of fun at Kim Jong Il and Middle Eastern Terrorists as well.
Sure, it mocked us. I loved the begining when we stopped the terrorists but destroyed Paris in the process, probably doing more damage than the terrorists would have. The criticism was valid and funny. But, frankly, it mocked everyone else just as much, or more. And the ultimate message of the movie was that while Americans may be dicks, it's better than being pussies or assholes.
Lions for Lambs was a POS flop that may cost Hollyweird $25 million. Ha! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You would think this the perfect formula for a blockbuster movie: megastars Tom Cruise, Robert Redford, and Meryl Streep teaming up to flood theaters with an anti-war film just in time for the holidays. Well, think again, for it appears that this much-anticipated film, featuring the much-anticipated return of Tom Cruise to the big screen, is a bigger bomb than anything the enemy has been able to lob at us in Iraq since the surge began.... http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/01/antiwar-film-lions-lambs-could-lose-25-million Anti-war on terror, anti-America movies deserve to burn. Ha!
