SUNDAY AM: I heard Tom Cruise did Lions For Lambs for "virtually nothing" to help kick-start his revival of United Artists. Without that, the R-rated movie starring Cruise, Meryl Streep and Robert Redford, who also directed, never would have gotten off the ground. Maybe that would have been kinder. Because even with a very moderate budget of $35 million, the political polemic was killed by moviegoers and reviewers alike this weekend, opening to a paltry $6.5 million from 2,215 theaters with an anemic per screen average as well. Even with only a 92-minute running time, the pic even fell far short of the studio's rock-bottom expectations of $8 million.
Jerry Seinfeld's Bee Movie was the weekend's big winner since the PG toon continues to attract both young and old alike. Saturday kiddie matinees made the big difference, and the DreamWorks Animation holdover distributed wide by Paramount raked in $26 million from 3,944 venues ($6.2 mil Friday and $11.3 mil on Saturday) for a fat new cume of $72.2 mil. 
Note that it is very rare for a film to jump to the No. 1 spot after opening at No. 2 its first week in release. (2005's The Wedding Crashers and 2003's Elf both did it.)
In second place, R-rated American Gangster continues to heavily draw adult and urban audiences its 2nd weekend out, making $24.2 million (down 44%) from 3,059 dates for a hefty new cume of $80.6 mil. The Imagine/Universal biopic starring Oscar-nodded Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe and directed by Ridley Scott, looks to have the same legs as Academy Award winner The Departed. Could Best Picture also be in American Gangster's future?
Taking the 3rd spot, Warner's Vince Vaughn laugher Fred Claus tried to market itself as Elf 2. But it wasn't as funny nor as sweet, and potential audiences sensed that. I'm told tracking showed that even though kids wanted to see the PG pic, their parents weren't sure it was suitable for children. And it does seem kinda early for a Christmas-themed release. Studios varied wildly on the Fred Claus wide debut, with Warner's claiming it made $20 mil from 3,603 plays, others saying $19.2M, still more estimating $18.2M, and a few maintaining only $17.7M. We'll know for sure on Monday.
UA/MGM's Lions For Lambs placed 4th. But the question Hollywood is asking today is what sank the movie: its star Tom Cruise or its controversial Iraq War subject matter? Judging from the exit polling, I'd have to say the latter, 
because the attendance for this film split straight down political lines already sharply drawn in this country. It was stronger on both coasts than in the middle of the country, and it played better in Blue states than Red states, and it appealed to older, more upscale, and educated audiences. United Artists noted that Lions For Lambs "performed much better" than other anti-war themed movies In The Valley Of Elah and Rendition but that's not saying much -- all focused on the war and flopped at the box office. The film got some of the worst reviews ever for a prestige project like this -- only 27% positive according to Rotten Tomatoes, and Redford's direction was roundly criticized as was the talky script that played like a stage production. If it weren't for the marketing campaign claiming it was presenting both sides, the pic might have tanked even worse. 
As for Cruise's career as a movie star, I believe the real test of his appeal will come the next time he stars in an action thriller, his speciality. If that pic tanks, then even Tom will know he's toast.
The only other newcomer to the Top 10 was P2 which is the first release by the recently created production and distribution entity Summit Entertainment. It gave this Christmas Eve-themed thriller a soft launch because the R-rated pic was made and financed before Summit's cash infusion via Merrill Lynch and its transition from a leading foreign sales company that took equity in select films. Placing only 9th, Summit said P2 debuted with $2.2 mil from 2,131 runs (that number of theaters showed exhibition's willingness to embrace a new distributor). The small take was expected, but Summit's only exposure is a limited P&A spend because international sales more than covered the film's budget.
The rest of the Top 10 were familiar titles: 1. Bee Movie [wkd $26M], (cume $72.1M); 2. American Gangster [wkd $24.2M], (cume $80.6M); 3. Fred Claus [wkd [$19.2M], (cume $19.2M); 4. Lions For Lambs [wkd $6.5M], (cume $6.5M); 5. Dan In Real Life [wkd $5.8M], (cume $30.6M); 6. Saw IV [wkd $5M], (cume $58M); 7. The Game Plan [wkd $2.4M], (cume $85.4M); 8. P2 [wkd $2.2M], (cume $2.2M); 9. 30 Days Of Night [wkd $2.1M], (cume $37.3M); 10. Martian Child [wkd $1.7M], (cume $6M).
As for this weekend's other debuts, Miramax's R-rated No Country For Old Men from the Coen Brothers starring Tommy Lee Jones and Javier Bardem had the best per screen average -- $17,219 on Saturday -- of all the films in release. It opened with $1.2 mil from just 28 theaters -- an incredible feat. And Sony's PG newcomer Saawariya debuted in 85 venues and took in $600K.
This was the first "down" weekend after 1 "up" weekend following 6 "down" weekends compared to last year.
NOTE: For the first time, I have opened my weekly box office reports to comments. Monitored comments. Please confine your remarks to the movies at hand, especially when it involves your general political comments. This is a film, not a political, forum.
Couldn’t happen to a better group! As far as Tom being toast, don’t you mean he’s shortbread?
Comment by Jim — November 11, 2007 @ 9:17 am
you all still don’t get it. I am a 55 year old executive with a theatre room in my basement I don’t use unless I want to watch an old Gene Hackman movie. I don’t want to go to a movie that is anti anything. I want to be entertained. Today’s movie stars have killed the goose that laid the golden egg because now their names are associated with politics or fringe religion instead of “star appeal”. When I watched, and loved, The Sting or The Firm, I never once considered the personal views of the actors, which is no doubt why I enjoyed them. Unfortunately, those days are over. And so are the good old days for Hollywood. You have Bill and Hillary to thank for that too.
Comment by steve — November 11, 2007 @ 9:27 am
Moviegoers are getting tired of seeing these Hate and Blame America polemics — as well as seeing these perpetrators of Anti-America propoganda.
Hopefully, this shows that the pendulem is, indeed, swinging back.
We need Hollywood to defend our western civilization, rather than tear it down.
Comment by ted — November 11, 2007 @ 9:28 am
Why are you singling Cruise out? This sounds like it was Redford’s project all the way.
There are two reasons all these films are tanking. 1- the subject matter (hey, honey, let’s go see that new movie about the Iraq war!) and 2- they’re all negative and written from a liberal perspective. Moviegoers know this instinctively, even if they don’t read the reviews; hence, they’re staying away in droves.
Comment by gb — November 11, 2007 @ 9:40 am
I work at a high-profile prodco, and the consensus around here has been that Tom Cruise lucked out with Lions for Lambs. Meaning that UA and Tom’s people can claim that audiences rejected the movie for its anti-war content and not specifically because of Tom. That gives him more time to hide the fact that his star has fallen so much. Almost everyone here thinks he’s a nutjob with a Napoleon complex. Interestingly enough, lots of people here have voiced respect for Pat Kingsley for keeping the nutjob contained for so long.
Comment by Alex - the assistant/wannabe — November 11, 2007 @ 9:40 am
I think it was the marketing itself that hurt the movie. Even in the commercials, Tom Cruise AND Meryl Streep performances were so flat they seemed to be doing a table read.
Comment by Enrique — November 11, 2007 @ 9:42 am
Why not do a movie on Fallujah where the Marines kicked butt ??, no, we have to be sensitive to the rage and frustation of the World against the USA.
I am glad this movie and another anti-Iraq movie (ie: Redacted) is bombing.
Gosh, how about one movie at least thanking the troops for their service.
Comment by louis romero — November 11, 2007 @ 9:45 am
If Redford hadn’t come out beforehand with all of his usual snobbish, I’m-smarter-than-everyone-else trash-talk, I might have gone to see it. Now I wouldn’t even rent it if it comes out on DVD because I see that there’s an agenda behind it. I’m more than willing to see movies about Iraq. That’s not the issue. It’s the actors like Redford who should try being actors first instead of big-mouthed political activists with axes to grind.
Comment by Liz — November 11, 2007 @ 9:47 am
Hollywood simply refuses to get it. No matter what your political persuasion, on balance you simply can’t make a movie that alienates at least 1/2 of the potential audience and expect it to do gangbusters business.
There are exceptions, of course. Michael Moore’s F/11 was the most successful documentary ever made, earning over $100 million. But at least that was snarky and fun, and played to a nation heading into a national election. Emotions were high on both sides. In the right dynamic, it could work.
But the dynamics are different in 2007. Seeing this self important crew $hill for Lions for Lambs just turned people off. Would you trust foreign policy ‘insights’ from a bunch of folks who dominated your high school’s theater troupe? Of course not. Nobody in their right mind would.
Films like this wallow in the kind of self loathing that just turns too many people off - even some people basically sympathetic to the message.
Comment by Vinnie Vegas — November 11, 2007 @ 9:54 am
It’s George Bush that is anti-America. But movies are escapist fare, and most of America have enough of that in real life.
Comment by KNSato — November 11, 2007 @ 9:56 am
To call Lions For Lambs a prestige project is a polite misnomer for the ultimate in vanity films – a project that apparently had absolutely no sense or feeling of the marketplace, even for a “prestige” film, perhaps due to the to the top-heavy superstructure of this project, there was no one making sure the project fit a good business model for making a successful film, even on a smaller scale. Who is going to have the brass to say no to the players behind the scenes on this concept from the get-go? It has the feeling of an old 40s film “hey, let’s open a nightclub and everyone will come because they like us” but on a political level, albeit a smug one at that.
For the “new” UA to enter the marketplace with this as their keystone project establishing their name wasn’t the best of moves. Apparently the test screenings feedback didn’t register on the powers that be at “new” UA and they were unable to step back from the edge. “Not release a film with pedigree? You have to be kidding. We can’t shelf this… what would people think…”
Maybe the project should have been moved to HBO or even PBS as a tax-write off, not foisted on a marketplace that does read reviews and online pre-release sites. Perhaps via those types of entertainment vehicles they could have started more of a dialogue with the public instead of with the bean counters who in the end, judge today’s film value in the marketplace.
pb
Comment by pb — November 11, 2007 @ 10:01 am
Steve for our sake’s …
Stay in your basement…never ever come out.
It’s the only thing that will save US from you.
Comment by EXDGA — November 11, 2007 @ 10:05 am
If Hollywood would please stop trying to influence Iraq and get back to making movies which entertain or hold you spell bound due to good acting or a great script then movies like this will continue to fail. Oh to have another Goodfellas movie come along.
Comment by Craig — November 11, 2007 @ 10:08 am
I saw a pre-review on this film the other day and the writer attempted to blame a potential small box office on the subject matter. He said that people are fed up with the War, so they will most likely stay away from the film. More Hollywood hogwash. The reason there is so little interest in this and other films of it’s ilk is that these people are so far removed from the rest of the country, they cannot conceive of anyone thinking other than what they think.
They are dead wrong and this film makes my point, AGAIN!
Comment by Don Rose — November 11, 2007 @ 10:16 am
While promoting this film, Robert Redford has been going around various talk shows and specifically making the point that this film is not propaganda.
What a hypocrite he is! Either that or delusional.
If you’re going to spout it, Mr. Redford, at least be upfront and own it.
Comment by alicia — November 11, 2007 @ 10:23 am
I am so pleased that the anti-war movies are losing money. Maybe Hollywood will realize that their days are numbered if they continue to preach to us instead of entertaining us from the movie screen. At least the arrogant Redford can comfort himself in that his meager audience is composed of “the Elites” as stated in this article. Maybe I wouldn’t mind these kinds of movies if only the OTHER VIEW was given some play. By the way, it’s not Cruise that sunk this film, it was the sanctimonious view that America is to blame for all the world’s ills.
Comment by Fay — November 11, 2007 @ 10:24 am
I agree with some of what Steve says. I did like movies a lot better when lots of details about their personal lives were not widely available. I have no idea how many children Gene Hackman has. I know Angelina Jolie has five, and I can see photos of all of them while waiting to pay for my beer on different covers.
What if Clint Eastwood is scared of horses? I wouldn’t want to know, but if he really was, I would have been told several times by now.
As far as movies about current events, I don’t go to the movies to catch a fictional portrayal about current wars or other current events. I go to the movies to forget about those things, if only for two hours.
The key is foresight vs. hindsight. The real events of Three Mile Island (TMI) added box office gross to “The China Syndrome” (TCS) when the TMI accident happened two weeks after TCS was released, but the real events of 9/11 made “The West Wing” a lot less interesting.
Comment by Kind of Agree with Steve — November 11, 2007 @ 10:28 am
There’s a difference between hating America, and hating what the current administration is doing
Comment by n"danDD"aabn — November 11, 2007 @ 10:28 am
Movies such as Lamb do better in book form. I’m sure Redford read the script and thought he was reading pure gold. However, people go to movies to see acting. You know, the expression of emotion on people’s faces… a sense of humanity… and to see things they wouldn’t see in their normal lives. To see to US Soldiers (former students of the Redford Professor) to be under equiped, under intel’ed, and put in harms way isn’t the kind of thing I’d see every day… and not something I’d like to see even if I could. You don’t have to be Anti-American to disagree about the war. You don’t have to be brain dead (or corrupt) to support the war. But as Americans, we need to get the job done, whatever that job may be. The Politicians will decide what the job is going to be, so to that end, riling up the public with phony images and speaches is neither entertaining or informative.
Comment by Wally — November 11, 2007 @ 11:03 am
Steve’s right people don’t want to be depressed or have politics thrown in their face. People want to be entertained, hence the term “Entertainment”
If I wanted to see politics of which ever side I would turn on CNN or Fox News, depending on which bend I wanted to see.
Hopefully with all these political dramas about the war bombing, hollywood will wake up and make entertainment once again, just as soon as they can write something that is.
GO WGA!!!
Comment by The CineManiac — November 11, 2007 @ 11:05 am
Tom Cruise is the most public example of what’s going on in the movie business. The audience has more choices. And in business, when your customer has more choices you’re supposed to either market your product better or make it better. Hollywood has done neither. The suits allow bad coverage of their stars from magazines which THEY OWN. They kill their own brand. You can only have a good movie with a good script. Hollywood had gotten away with treating their writers like Sh_t because they could rely on star power to sell the film. Well, after 911 we’re in a postmodern age and the old ways aren’t going to work. Embrace the writers, get better stories and you might have a chance. I’m a rabid liberal and even I’m upset with the tone of the “anti war” movies. We need more pro-USA (but not pro Bush) movies.
Comment by Mla28 — November 11, 2007 @ 11:10 am
Also, “Fred Claus” is a christmas themed movie that usually opens small, but has good legs that keep it strong through the holiday season. Sure Warners has to be disappointed by Fred’s performance, but it’s not over yet.
Comment by Ian — November 11, 2007 @ 11:12 am
Tom Cruise is the most visible ex. of what’s happening. After 9-11 we’re in a Postmodern age. The old ways aren’t going to work anymore. Hollywood kills its brand by allowing TV mag shows to show the worst sides of its stars. Up till now, they relied on stars to sell the movies. The concept of “stars” has changed. Now a “star” is some kid in his underwear dancing around his bedroom on Youtube. The suits got away with treating the writers like sh_t since the beginning of film. To have a chance, they are going to have to value the writer because now, story is going to matter more than ever. I’m a rabid liberal and even I’m pissed off about the anti-soldier, anti-america tone of these Iraq movies.
Comment by mla28 — November 11, 2007 @ 11:20 am
When will Hollywood realize nobody wants to see or hear their anti-American rantings. You don’t mention it, but a movie that has been doing great is Bella. This is the antithesis of Hate America. It is a wonderful, feel-good movie that touches audiences. I hope Hollywood sees the difference, but I doubt it. They will continue to put out their trash and wonder why they are tanking at the box office. Good luck, fellas.
Comment by Mary — November 11, 2007 @ 11:22 am
i’d rather watch my dog take a shit, then sit in a movie with the cell phone stalkers and the popcorn crunchers.
Comment by thad — November 11, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Where is Warren Beatty? Where is Robert Redford? Where is Ben Affleck and Matt Damon? Where is Kevin Costner and Mel Gibson? Where is Sean Penn and Jodie Foster? We need them to get out and support the WGA and picket. Even if it’s for just 10 mins. That’s about how long Kevin Bacon and Tim Robbins walked with us in NYC on Friday. At least they were there. Come on George Clooney get your ass out here. Your all WGA members.
Comment by Ratty Rizzo — November 11, 2007 @ 11:28 am
So, Warner Bros. last 2 releases were male led films and both films floundered.
Guess they should ban male led films.
(Michael Clayton, Fred Claus)
Comment by c reative type — November 11, 2007 @ 11:33 am
Maybe the film tanked because the rest of America that isn’t Hollywood is sick of anti-America movies?
Note to the WGA: you would be doing yourselves a HUGE service, if you started actively promoting the fact that the studios are trying to rollback your health care and pension benefits…I mean, if you want any widespread public support, that is. Because the backlash from anti-America films is sucking your strike in with it, which is unfortunate because you aren’t wrong.
Your PR machine isn’t doing you any favors.
Comment by Sydney — November 11, 2007 @ 11:38 am
Nikki, thanks for your reporting on the writers strike, and other columns I have enjoyed over the years. I am frustrated, though by the lack of hard information about the writers strike. What do the writers currently earn and producers pay for writers? What if anything prevents a highly regarded writer from writing his/her own ticket, pay wise? Thanks
Comment by dave — November 11, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Why do they cherrypick the bad for movie subjects when there are acres of positive stories?
Comment by Todd — November 11, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Putting Fred Claus out in early November was one of the worst studio decisions of the year. If that isn’t a December release, I don’t know what is. Idiotic move.
Comment by Frank Costello — November 11, 2007 @ 11:48 am
I can not remember when my wife and I saw a movie lately. They all seem to contain mouse driven digital effects and blow up sounding audio that must appeal to 30 somethings and younger. I subscribe to a on line movie rental company. Quite frankly, most of what we view is from the Turner library and 30’s European fare. We are very tired of these new age actors and their immature political realities. Most of them are not intellectual giants, far from it, in my opinion.
Comment by John Watkins — November 11, 2007 @ 11:53 am
UA made a big mistake by opening it on over 2,000 screens. A movie like LIONS FOR LAMBS isn’t a blockbuster, it needs to grow. I’m very curious to see how it plays overseas.
Comment by Elliott — November 11, 2007 @ 11:55 am
The same people who made these bombs were astonished at the success of Forrest Gump. They no longer understand their audience. People like me watch classics on home theater screens and ignore the weepy “America is awful” tripe being put on the big screen. I’ll probably see American Gangster because I like Denzel so much but, even there, I may wait for the DVD.
Comment by Mike K — November 11, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
Hey, Wow…people I agree with. That’s a pretty strange
occurrence on this site.
Thanks Steve & Ted.
Comment by Whiskey Tango Foxtrot — November 11, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
I wouldn’t necessarily blame the Clintons for actors activism. Jane Fonda, Woody Harrelson, Sally Field, Jessica Lange - even John Wayne was politcal in his fashion. The problem is that the actors seem to have flooded the media and the widespread range of the new media seems to keep them in our faces 24/7. Frankly, I don’t care what an actor thinks about any subject anymore than I care what my plumber thinks. Shut up, do your job and if I’m interested in your opinion I’ll ask. Most actors are excellent parrots, but aren’t very original on their own…just watch any interview.
Comment by Terry — November 11, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
The topic isn’t why America isn’t going to see the movie - it’s the negative bias and subtle bashing. The movie was written by Hollywood for Hollywood - with the group involved, why bother seeing the movie? We assumed we knew the contents.
We’re tired of Tom Cruise’s opinions. We’re tired of Robert Redford’s opinions. And both are extremely talented individuals. Hollywood in general is way off track for those of us who love movies. Entertain us well. Uplift America. Keep your political opinions to yourself. Then collect a big fat check.
Bashing anybody has becoming very boring.
Comment by jennifer — November 11, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
I think you are being oblivious or revisionist. By the time the “Sting” was released it was obvious what Paul Newman’s politics were. He’d already marched with Martin Luther King Jr. and been given a place of honor on Nixon’s enemies list.
To this day, Hollywood has yet to produce any artist more political than Brando, Beatty or Fonda. At the peaks of their creative and earning power, they were all at there most politically active.
Taking his roles as an activist/citizen/artist seriously hasn’t seemed to hurt George Clooney’s career at all.
The last golden age of Hollywood ( roughly btwn. the release of Bonnie and Clyde to Star Wars) was heavily populated with vocal conservatives, liberals, radicals and moderates. They made some pretty cool flicks too.
Comment by insideplaya — November 11, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
I agree it seems crazy for big stars to embrace controversial causes. I like George Clooney as an actor, but I can’t look at him without thinking of all the times he’s publicly insulted my friends and family.
If he quietly lent support and money to his favored causes, I would never know … and he would still get my money.
Comment by jim — November 11, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
There are good movies and bad movies.
The public has showed that it doesn’t mind good films that dabble in politics and messages (e.g., Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, All The President’s Men, Wall Street, and lots of others,etc.)
This just isn’t a good film.
Holywood would do well to remember also this quote from Walt Disney:”I never called my work an ‘art.’ It’s part of show business, the business of building entertainment.” ENTERTAIN the audiences first…
And this gem from the legendary Samuel Goldwyn: “Pictures are for entertainment, messages should be delivered by Western Union.”
Comment by Steve Meyer — November 11, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
For some unfathomable reason, today’s movie stars consider themselves politicians first and entertainers second. They come off looking foolish. Perhaps they’ll eventually figure out that people don’t flock to the theaters to be lectured at.
But then, you have the reverse problem on the political side: politicians who fancy themselves to be movie stars - preening for the cameras and living in a perpetual fantasy world.
A pox on them all, I say.
Comment by John Breland — November 11, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Any word on the After Dark Horrorfest?
Comment by GC — November 11, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Nikki - is this an old post on the AMPTP website’s homepage or has it just been posted?:
“When the WGA went on strike, an offer to pay writers for Internet streaming was on the table.”
Meh?
Sorry if it’s old news and Internet Streaming is summat else. Either way, doesn’t look like they’re interested in negotiating to me. That website’s nasty stuff.
Comment by citizenk — November 11, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Movies that reek of castor oil nearly always flop; it’s not so much the antiwar material. Look at Oprah Winfrey’s “Beloved,” which was sold as canon so incessantly that people gave up on it. We’re adults, we don’t want to pay to sit through a high school class again, thanks.
More than half the country wants this war to end. Two-thirds of this country feel like George W. Bush is doing a piss-poor job. Half of this country voted against Bush twice…and still “Lions for Lambs” tanked? You have to lay the blame on how this film was marketed and promoted…first weekends are almost always about marketing.
How the hell can you release a film with a liberal viewpoint into this kind of environment and STILL blow it? Plus, look, I admire Redford and Streep. But they’re not box office draws. Cruise has severely damaged his reputation. That kind of thing HAS to be considered when you’re marketing this kind of film.
People want answers. We’re getting facile arguments and finger-pointing and swift-boating all over talk radio and cable “news” channels. It’s all white noise anymore. We don’t want preaching, we want someone to help us channel our frustration and helplessness and anxiety. The right film can help us do that. But Hollywood yet to figure that out.
Comment by Turtle — November 11, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Not all the reviews were bad. Scott Hollowhead of Daily Box Office gave LAMBS a great review, right along with his own Follywood liberal comments. At the same time, his review of Denzel’s film was awful. These folks are locked in their own world do not see the light, and never will!
Comment by Clay Brown — November 11, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Who needs to see Hollywood movies when television is producing such excellence? The writing, acting, and direction of the current crop of shows is amazing.
I grew up in the 70’s when everyone watched Love Boat and Charlie’s Angels, and we knew we were getting crap but that was all we had. I thought I was in heaven in the 90’s when X-Files and Buffy came out, but now I can’t DVR these great shows fast enough — Chuck, Reaper, the CSIs, Supernatural, My Name is Earl, Bones, House, and the ever-better NCIS. Then you’ve got Discovery with Mythbusters, Future Weapons, and Dirty Jobs. History Channel for amazing shows on historical events.
Who needs a two hour movie in a sticky theater when my HD gives me such dazzling fare?
Comment by Bonnie_ — November 11, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
It’s all too obvious that audiences don’t want to embrace a Middle-East themed film: The Kingdom, In the Valley of Elah (both pretty good films), and now this one. I saw Lions for Lambs on Friday, and it’s not bad, but yes, it’s almost like a play, intercut with a bit of “action”.
Before the film, they played a trailer for STOP-LOSS, Kimbeely Peirce’s anti-Iraq War diatribe. Another Paramount flop.
And who’s the audience for Brian DePalma’s upcoming REDACTED?
After LAMBS I walked into FRED CLAUS, and ten minutes was all I could take…Crap!
Comment by Dixon Steele — November 11, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
“If I want to send a message I’ll call Western Union.”
Samuel Goldwyn
Comment by D.R.L. — November 11, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Actors have every right to speak out on their beliefs, and to make projects they feel are worthy. However, they have to realize that there is a segment of the audience that they will be alienating when they do this. As a movie consumer, I find myself unable to suspend my disbelief for a story when the actors involved are very public and outspoken on current political topics (or are overexposed via tabloid press). Its just a reality, and the actors shouldn’t complain when these types of projects or even their whole careers are affected. The Dixie Chicks are a prime example. They had every right to say what they wanted, however their main audience was very turned off by the comments and they have felt the results. This wasn’t George Bush’s fault, its just the marketplace, plain and simple.
Comment by Dave — November 11, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
To all of you rabid commenters who rage against Hollywood, what are you doing reading a trade blog about the industry?
Shouldn’t you be out watching your dog “take a shit” or watching “Fox News” as you eloquently state you prefer over Hollywood?
Fact is, for all the cartoonish rantings about liberal Hollywood, Bush and Co. took a thriving superpower in surplus and singlehandedly drove us into staggering debt over a b.s. war, they dismantled the Constitution, they destroyed diplomatic relations globally, oil is skyrocketing, the housing and stock markets are crashing, they created such a dark dark period (look at all the misdirected rage on this site.)
People simply need an escape from the truth about our current reality, so it’s poor timing for this film release.
Why don’t those of you Hollywood haters write a letter to Rupert Murdoch and ask for a pro-Bush film, or pro-Iraq war film? You don’t see Murdoch making one because there’s no market for it!! It would be a joke. Don’t blame Hollywood for voicing truths about this admin’s historic disasters.
Comment by creativetype — November 11, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Hollywood needs to realize that if the public wants to read that the war is a waste, that the government is corrupt, etc; we only need to turn on the TV and hear it from half a dozen pundits at anyone time. So why would we pay to see actors doing the same?
If they want to put a message film out, make a good film first. Then fit the message in where you can, don’t make the message the centerpiece and then squeeze a movie around it.
Comment by LinOHIO — November 11, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
What about ‘300′? Simple story, lots of beautifully stylized action scenes (ie, WAR!), and $450 million worldwide boxoffice. THAT’S the kind of war movie that pumps me up, instead of a bunch of boring old actors yakking about Iraq.
Comment by QB — November 11, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
I guess I disagree with some of you guys. I would love to see a movie about Iraq if it showed some of the many good things that are happening. Or even a movie like “Black Hawk Down” that didn’t put down our brave soldiers. Our soldiers deserve to be honored, not slandered by being portrayed as the bad guys.
But I’m not giving any money to anti-American movies produced by people who hope the US loses this war. Hollywood needs to understand at an instinctive level that Americans love their soldiers and are disgusted by attempts to put them down.
Look at the end of Transformers: they promised to stay and protect us. That’s what the US Military does for us, for real.
Judging from the success of shows like “The Unit”, I know I’m not alone.
Comment by David Smith — November 11, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
This is quite simple — mainstream film audiences are numb to Hollywood lecture movies about global warming, military intervention abroad. The daily media has seen to that, with a willing Hollywood that fails to deliver beyond that everyday media drone.
I saw L4L in reduced-price matinee, because it was promoted to offer a balanced perspective; and it delivered to a point (in only 90+ minutes). Nevertheless, the prevailing aftertaste of teaching/preaching and flogging America keeps me from recommending this/these films. Their plots are subordinate to their messages, so the net result is they just don’t awaken — they beat down.
Comment by John — November 11, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
To Terry 12:04 pm who stated:
“Most actors are excellent parrots, but aren’t very original on their own…just watch any interview.”
Thanks for underscoring the importance of WRITERS.
Comment by writersstandstrong — November 11, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
The fact is, films like LIONS FOR LAMBS and REDACTED are box office poison. There are political thrillers, and there are political snoozers. It’s the difference between John Grisham’s THE FIRM and Hillary Clinton’s platform.
Political thrillers are action-packed as films should be, and insinuate key core issues of good and evil without shouting. You could put the BOURNE films or even MAN ON FIRE in this category as statements on political corruption and vigilantism. The snoozers are preachier than Pat Robertson, and nobody likes to be preached to, not even the choir. Hence the flop.
The other element is subtlety. The genius in many films is that their politics or morality are IMPLIED through the transpiring of events, not shoved in our faces with long stilted conversations. When it comes right down to it, even films like LORD OF THE RINGS, STAR WARS and SHREK have implied politics and morality, as does all of Aesop’s fables.
The difference is that many works of film art
are finely crafted and layered, while others like LAMBS have all the subtlety of tossing a bucket of paint on a canvas. Real genius is giving an audience the choice of making their own choice: in MAN ON FIRE we see Denzel Washington cutting off the fingers of the corrupt Mexican cop involved in Dakota Fanning’s kidnapping, and though repulsed by the pure violence of it, the great conflict is: what would WE do to save the life of someone who meant the world to us? How far would WE go?
Lastly, the fact is that REDACTED and LIONS’ politics are far closer to Jane Fonda than John Wayne, and that’s not where most Americans are. Example: Meryl Streep told the TODAY show that asking someone “do you want to win the War on Terror or not?” is like asking someone if they’ve stopped beating their wife, a question not even worthy of response.
Well, as long as they have the deep pockets and the cameras, and for as long as they feel they’re dealing with unsophisticated audiences who are horses that have to be pulled to the trough, they’ll continue to churn this crap out and lose money. Audiences don’t want to be dragged. They want to be enlightened, or inspired, or just get away from it for two hours out of a week. LAMBS isn’t much of a getaway.
BTW I heard LAMBS’ bombing may affect future financing for MGM. Maybe there’s hope after all, if they keep getting hit in the wallet. Conversely, I’d bet they’d make a fortune off of the bestselling LONE SURVIVOR, if any of them actually have the fortitude to make it. There are few surer things than making top bestsellers into films. Harry Potter, anyone?
’nuff said.
Comment by JohnnyT — November 11, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Hey creativetype - you need to lay off of the Kool-Aid. Everything you said cannot be backed up with facts.
I agree with Bonnie. The quality on TV is outstanding. I taped the 10 hour documentary on the American Revolution from last July 4th on the History channel. You have the Sopranos. Also, don’t forget Lost and the outstanding series starring Keifier Sutherland - 24.
Comment by rightwingmech — November 11, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
Hey “creativetype”
This site & this story was linked at the Drudge Report.
Comment by stuffhollywood — November 11, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
I think a lot of people didn’t go see Robert Redford’s movie just because of Tom Cruise. I know I don’t think I can take Tom Cruise seriously anymore after seeing just how unstable he appears. I am pretty sure if he wasn’t in it I would have gone to see it. I just can’t stand him anymore. Tom Cruise just doesn’t appeal to me anymore. I still like Robert Redford very much though.
Comment by Sandy — November 11, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Why no comment about Bella, a perfectly charming movie about family, commitment to life, and adoption? It could use the boost and was simply a meaningful movie which might make some social impact. Is it perhaps because it does not ring the clarion call of the liberal, abortion rights agenda which stems from Hollywood? Just wondering…
Comment by P.Wilson — November 11, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
I did not want a dime of my hard-earned money to go to a Tom Cruise, Robert Redford anti war flick so I purchased a ticket to a different move, but went into the Lions for Lambs theater so I could satisfy my curiosity about this controversial film. Bottom line, it would have been more entertaining watching grass grow. Do not waste your money or your time on this movie.
Comment by an american momerican mom — November 11, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
People crave escapism when reality sucks. Surprise!
Comment by Banana — November 11, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
creativetype
What color is the sky where you live? I would like to visit it when I need a break from reality.
Comment by scottked — November 11, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
Creative Type –
YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. I am a hollywood writer (film and televsion). I find the liberal left in this town so high on themselves and sanctimonious it’s mind boggling. You liberal elites are the ones who say you’re accepting and so open minded and you are the very first to hurl invectives and demean anybody who doesn’t see the world from your very very very leftist perch. In business, this translates into a ton of hollywood material that you like, but most others don’t.
We have a respect problem in the Hollywood community. We no longer respect the fact that a vast element across America might have a slightly different point of view. Instead of respecting that and making entertainment that might just appeal across a spectrum, Hollywood oftens wants to teach the little heathens how they should think about the world. That is so tedious and frankly laughable. Most Americans know where they’re at — they’re tolerant, educated, thoughtful and can see shades of gray and understand complex and difficult issues that you clearly, from your post, seem to have difficulty grasping.
Your narrowcast vision, indicative of many who have the power to greenlight a movie, is why so much dramatic material bombs (in my opinion).
Execs, creative types, wake up and do something different. People want to be entertained, not preached to. They want smart comedies, thoughtful dramas, good stories!
Anything short of that will bomb and the “creative types” have no one to blame than themselves for that.
I applaud Americans when they reject crappy entertainment.
Comment by metinker — November 11, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
To Creativetype,
Did you actually read any of the emails posted here?
The emails are not hollywood haters, they’re Hollywood MOVIE haters. We want to be ENTERTAINED!!!!
As has already been stated repeatedly, I don’t care what an actor’s political opinion is, only if he or she can act well enough to entertain me.
As for being on this blog,I am a voracious reader and am interested in many subjects. Being narrow minded is not one of them.
Comment by sheri — November 11, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
Saw two films this weekend and one was packed all the time. Had to come back to see a later showing since it was sold out - and the later showing was sold out, too.
That sold out film was Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead… (only one theatre in the Detroit area showing it) gotta be some Oscar noms in that one. Also saw Across The Universe… a very well made musical taking you back to the late 60s. I didn’t bother with Lions For Lambs because I thought I had seen the whole film in the preview. Some stories just don’t grab you.
Comment by Kevin — November 11, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
I too have a home theatre. I can eat what I want and pause when I want…and watch when I want. That is why I didn’t see the Cruise opener. I’ll wait for the dvd with all the extras. I do admit that sometimes the theatre experience is fun- like with Star War movies. But mostly it is an expensive endeavor shared with abrasive idiots, crying children, and cell phone ring tones….
Comment by DK — November 11, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Hey stuffhollywood I was hoping that was the case… reading the first 5-10 comments here made me feel like I had stumbled into another dimension (the Drudge dimension, apparently). I asked myself “why would a trade blog have so many loony right-leaning readers?”
“Hate and Blame America” movies? Wow, you folks are delusional. Keep up the good work, fellating our wonderful, blameless soldiers.
Comment by jlj — November 11, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
Hey Creativetype!
***To all of you rabid commenters who rage against Hollywood, what are you doing reading a trade blog about the industry?***
Awww, all us great unwashed aren’t ALLOWED to comment on a trade blog website?
***Shouldn’t you be out watching ….as you eloquently state you prefer over Hollywood?***
If we don’t comment, how will you ever figure out you’re living in an echo chamber?
***Fact is, for all the cartoonish rantings about liberal Hollywood,***
Hollywood ISN’T liberal? Who would have guessed? (/sarc off)
***Bush and Co. took a thriving superpower in surplus and singlehandedly drove us into staggering debt over a b.s. war,***
It’s much better to let dictators feed people to shredding machines while still alive, and run rape rooms, than take a hand to remove them. All the other reasons were just icing on the cake, including the sixteen words vouched for by intelligence agencies of six other countries.
***they dismantled the Constitution,***
Seems like I remember the SCOTUS telling George&Co. they had to give real trials and habeas corpus to all those captured terrorists down in Gitmo; did George&Co. forget to dismantle something?
*** they destroyed diplomatic relations globally,***
Gee, who was that French fellow visiting last week? Why did he say nice things about us, when his predecessor was all bile?
***oil is skyrocketing, the housing and stock markets are crashing,***
Markets go up, markets go down; so what?
***they created such a dark dark period (look at all the misdirected rage on this site.)***
“Misdirected”? Now we’re not smart enough to know who we’re mad at?
***Why don’t those of you Hollywood haters write a letter to Rupert Murdoch and ask for a pro-Bush film, or pro-Iraq war film? You don’t see Murdoch making one because there’s no market for it!! It would be a joke.***
Haven’t seen anyone here yet ask for a pro-Bush film; we’re asking for pro-military, patriotic or inspiring films. Do you identify George&Co. so closely with America that you cannot tell the difference between an administration and a country?
***Don’t blame Hollywood for voicing truths about this admin’s historic disasters.***
See above; George&Co. are not America, and our military are doing the job they are oath-bound to do: defend the country (all of us, including misdirected Hollywood) from those who would cheerfully cut your head off because you don’t worship the way they do.
Try reading Michael Yon and George Totten for some really great stories from Iraq. It’s not all darkness, but you’ll have to pull your head out to see the sunlight.
Comment by Wanderer — November 11, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
The Iraq war didn’t create staggering debt?
America isn’t maligned globally?
Bush hasn’t decimated the Constitution and disregarded the law with illegal wiretapping?
If these aren’t FACTS, we’d like to come live on your planet.
If you hate evil Hollywood so much, nobody is stopping you from taking advantage of this new digital age. Entertain each other and create your own content online.
Good luck with that.
Comment by creativetype — November 11, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Coen brothers rule!
Comment by Eddie coen — November 11, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
P2 was a very good exercise in suspense that could go on to show surprising resiliency generated by word of mouth in the face of the holiday onslaught. Nikki please don’t write it off prematurely as another nasty torture porn monstrosity!
Comment by Gerald — November 11, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
looks like “creative type” struck a sore nerve — the truth hurts
yikes, can’t you drudge people express a point of view without ad hominem attacks
nikki, please don’t let your site become another feeding ground for raving “right wingers”
would be a shame to lose its value as an industry resource and a place for respectful rational dialogue grounded in fact
Comment by producers with conscience — November 11, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
The new UA should have started with a Mission Impossible version 34 than a high profile maybe film. Now they are following up on a plot to kill Hitler. They would have done better making a follow up movie to Risky Business with Tom as the father this time. I would hope that investors of this movie will plot a better strategy for the future.
Comment by Jeff In Miami Beach — November 11, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Sheri:
Did YOU actually read the e-mails posted here? Saying Hollywood hopes the U.S. loses the war? Saying Hollywood hates America?
Is it perhaps because it does not ring the clarion call of the liberal, abortion rights agenda which stems from Hollywood?
P.Wilson — November 11, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
…people who hope the US loses this war. Hollywood needs to understand at an instinctive level that Americans love their soldiers and are disgusted by attempts to put them down.
David Smith — November 11, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
According to you people, anyone who disagrees with you hates their country, hates soldiers. The reason people flock to this country is we have freedom to speak out against our government. That’s the basis of the 1st amendment.
Exercising your right to free speech is the most American thing one can do.
Comment by creative type — November 11, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
The producers and directors of these “war” films are shooting themselves in the foot prior to the release. Because they “express” their opinions (which they have every right to do) they are basically conveying to potential viewers what to expect from the direction of the film. Who is going to pay money to spend 2 hours in a theater to get what they expect after a 5 minutes interview on TV for free.
In the end, a huge percentage of films these days are remakes and offer no surprises and very little entertainment. I have a feeling that Sylvester Stallone never would have believed that 10 years ago that a studio would allow him to do yet another Rocky or Rambo. But after some of the messes from the last several years, even he’s baaaaaaaaaack. Unbelievable.
Comment by Jeff — November 11, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
I have to pity Redford, et al, as well as many posters here. The combination of triviality and arrogance is astounding and childish.
190,000 brave men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting and winning wars for the defense of our way of life. The turn around in Iraq since June is stunning, one of the more significant military advances in modern history. That could be the stuff of great movies. But, no, Hollywood would rather find a nit and pick it to death. Even if the nit exists only in its fevered imagination.
Every American platoon each week accumulates more honor than Mr. Redford will in his lifetime. Those soldiers exhibit real courage and are doing something important in the world. All Mr. Redford does is preen and bask in the glow of a narrow-minded and pathologically self-centered elite. What a shallow, vapid human being.
You want heroes and interesting stories? Then let a filmmaker just tell the truth about what the US Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force are doing. No embellishment, no agenda, no preaching. Just tell the truth.
What Mr. Redford has to say next to what they do, is too small a topic for sane and sensible people. As the box office reciepts for all these anti-American diatribes clearly show, the curtain has dropped on Hollywood’s anti-American orgy.
Comment by SARileyMan — November 11, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Matt Drudge is the gatekeeper to Hell.
Comment by AnotherMatt — November 11, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
it’s worth seeing the movie just to see these wonderful actors doing their thing.
Comment by sarasarass — November 11, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Well, as a girl who grew up and still choses to live in the ghetto, maybe I can give you guys an idea of what the urban/liberal/poor community thinks of Tom Cruise (I will save my WGA and politic thoughts for another day).
Tome Cruise used to be hot. No doubt about it. We can all agree with that. But when he started flipping out, when he divorced Nicole Kidman one month short of 10years into their marriage, when he began his scientology/anti-physch crusade on the airwaves, when he searched and searched for a girl who would let him mold her and turn her into a perfect scientology wife, that is when he lost most of us. I cannot even begin to explain Cruise’s relationship with the black community - most (if not all) women would have agreed that he was a very hot guy. But the things I mentioned (and more) turned the black community off. The times I have stood in the line at the grocery store and had conversations with people about Tom Cruise (who was on the cover of magazines at the check-out), we think he is crazy. Seriously.
And the young, urban community is one of the biggest box-office goers (where I live, at least). Yes he was a big draw a few years ago in the MI series, espcially with blacks. But now, the black men and women no longer want to see movies with him in them. There are other options for us, and given th choice of going to see a torture/horror/Tyler Perry film or seeing a Tom Cuise film, we are gonna choose the former over the latter everytime. Not because we prefer torture/horror to thought-provoking movies, but because Tome Cruise has lost all the magic he once had with us.
He will not ever get it back. We have more options now, and he is no longer the hottest guy on the screen - he is a crazy, narcissistic, middle-aged man with values we dont share. Nothing he can do would change the image that is now imprinted on him with the urban community.
Note the big differences here: We have Denzel, who has goitten better with age and will continue to be the biggest, hottest box-office draw among the urban audience no matter whta his age. And then compare him to Tom Cruise. There isnt a category Cruise would win over Denzel.
And not to make this an all urban/poor post, but honestly, are there any upper-class, white high school girls fawning over Tom Cruise anymore? Nope.
Comment by Piper — November 11, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
producers with conscience says “nikki, please don’t let your site become another feeding ground for raving “right wingers”.
What’s the matter, PWC? Don’t like it when you don’t have a monopoly on the conversation? Don’t like having your views challenged? Sorry, this an open blog, not a closed libtard production meeting where only one view prevails.
BTW if you are a group of producers and not merely one with Sybil-like split personalities, I can imaginge what your films are about. The only thing that’s easier to imagine is how much box office they DIDN’T pull in.
Why don’t you try writing and producing an epic about greedy corporate types like the AMPTP trying to break the WGA? Now THERE’S a real David-and-Goliath good-and-evil knockdown drag-out even your liberal friends would pay to see, producers not included. Ha!
Comment by JohnnyT — November 11, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
To the 90% that responded with the need for a positive outlook and escapism, you have restored my faith in mankind (especially steve, JohnnyT and metinker who sound like normal people to me). For the 10% that like to scream at others such as “creativetype, producers with conscience, n”danDD”aabn and EXDGA, I will look forward to you serving me at the next established restaurant and your pithy comments.
At least your writing will come in handy then.
Comment by WallStreeter — November 11, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Dear CreativeType, I am sure that anyone who disagrees with you on ANY issue is (pick one):
1. Islamophobe.
2. Racist.
3. Xenophobe.
4. Sexist.
5. Misogynist.
6. Fascist.
7. Baby Killer.
See, normal people can’t have a rational discussion with you and your ilk because your leftist ideology deals only in absolutes, and those who don’t march in lockstep or who oppose you are the enemy.
And when morons like jlj say “fellate our wonderful blameless soldiers” then yes, I question their patriotism. Words speak for themseleves, and you will be called on it as you are here.
Q: what is the majority opinion on this site so far? HINT: it’s not yours, but I’ll bet it’s a good representation of movie-going America.
I now understand why most actors and actresses are liberals like yourself. You’re all drama queens. My solution? You should all be tied to movie seats, have your eyes wired open like Malcolm McDowell in Clockwork Orange and be forced to watch PATTON 100 times straight, ha ha ha!
Comment by JohnnyT — November 11, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Mark my words..
All of these Iraq/politcal movie are bombing..Hollywood knows this but to just shove it down America’s throats they will nominate as many of these as possible for Oscars and Golden Globes…same crap every year just like they did for Brokeback Mountain
Comment by brant hodge — November 11, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
With a few exceptions, this site has some smart readers. Either that, or the Comments are well-regulated.
The Sam Goldwyn references really resonated with me. I’m reading A. Scott Berg’s book, “Goldwyn,” and it’s amazing how LITTLE the business has changed at it’s core.
In ‘42, Goldwyn made “PRIDE OF THE YANKEES,” and made more money than he’d ever seen. In ‘43, he made “THE NORTH STAR” and lost his ass. In ‘46 he produced a beautiful film called “THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES” and the rest is history.
Goldwyn was born in Eastern Europe and if he stayed there, he would likely have been dead before 1942. Many of his films are infused with a fondness for the United States. As he himself said, “Who knows better than I the opportunities in America?”
Comment by Jenn M. — November 11, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Dear WallStreeter, I guess I fit into both of your categories now; sensible and loony. So it goes.
I came out here to make reasoned statements as to why political movies with slanted viewpoints mostly bomb.
That’s not what people go to the movies for. But like most blog sides, it usually doesn’t take long to get pulled into the Dark Side.
I am only human, and I find some of the left-wing idiocy here repugnant and offensive, and necessary to challenge in the only terms they understand.
BTW I am both a successful telecom engineer and screenwriter, so don’t expect to see filling out a menu slip for you anytime soon, ha ha ha!
Comment by JohnnyT — November 11, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
I beg to differ with methinker on one issue in regards to this thought: “I applaud Americans when they reject crappy entertainment.”
Then we won’t have had the pleasure of “Mystery Science Theater 3000″ and the robots!
pb, a fan of Plan 9.
Comment by pb — November 11, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
LIONS FOR LAMBS is most disappointing, boring film
for season. Very few patrons in Pasadena at matinee
Nov.9. Doubt this film will ever recoup negative cost.
Stay home and do not get ripped off like I did.
Comment by Rick Perry/Los Angeles — November 11, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
This is a “breaking” story on Drudge. Not a comment about his site one way or another. It’s just another source for information. But this single line could be extremely germane to everyone involved in the current WGA strike.
The writers, the producers, showrunners, the prodcos, and all the hundreds upon thousands of people involved in creating and crafting TV, films and any viable media for entertainment, especially , the networks, the studios and the new 800 pound Gorillas in this expanding media.
“INTEL chip to speed high-definition video via Internet… Developing…”
And the WGA should remove that issue from the table? I don’t think so.
It might have just jumped to the front of the line.
pb
Comment by pb — November 11, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
Who let all the right-wing nutjobs out tonight?
Anyway, go see “No country”, great movie.
Comment by Wow — November 11, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Comment by ETSJ — November 11, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
Typical adolescent BS from some….Name calling and drivel. These movies tank because Americans don’t need to be lectured from the fringe. I am surprised Cruise would tie his boat to the likes of Redford and Streep for any project much less a typical “we need to educate you” piece. As for you here pissing and moaning about those you disagree with…Grow up.
Comment by Dave — November 11, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
Drudge unleashed his brainless minions on lambs. Great.
Comment by Tony — November 11, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
What’s with all the Tom Cruise hate? He makes great movies. Probably one of my favorite actors. Who cares about his personal life? Of course, I’m surprised he was duped into making Lions for Lambs.
I saw LfL Friday night and I was very disappointed. It was much more of a lecture than a movie. My friend and I left the theatre laughing because it takes itself SOOOO seriously! “Rome is burning, son!” That line was supposed to be serious but it came across as forced and funny.
Comment by stapler — November 11, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
I saw “Lions”. I’m one of those upscale West Coast types who likes to examine both sides of an issue. Frankly, the issue of US involvement in Iraq is getting stale and boring. I’m not at all interested in debating if we should have invaded, since we are there regardless of who wins that debate. I’m increasingly less interested in debating whether we should go or stay, because Middle East realpolitik dictates that stay we will. So what’s left? Soul searching movies like “Lions” which make fashionable statements designed to tug at our consiences, heartstrings, etc.? Ho hum. I’d rather watch NFL football for free on my 50″ flatscreen TV and leave the angst to all those liberals who would enjoy it more than me.
Comment by Patrick C. — November 11, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
Why should the politics of the stars or the film matter? A normal adult can look past that and see the film for what it is, a good or bad movie. If the film is good, people will go see it, regardless of the political leanings. Unfortunately, this doesn’t sound like a good film, which is why I’ll be skipping it.
Comment by Kevin — November 11, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
On Veterans day it may be time to reflect a little and think about the sacrifices our troops have made over the years and are again making in Afghanistan and Iraq. In my long life I have learned that the left never is held accoutnable for their opinions which are always soooo popular at he time (Stalin, Hungary, Cruise missiles in Europe, Vietnam, Mao Tse Tung’s Cultural revolution, and his little Red Book,Pol Pot (oops 2 milion dead) Castro etc. To put things into perspective please look at Ken Burns’s latest effort about the second world war, a war that would have been lost by the USA if present-day political partisanship had ruled. Get with it y’all we are fighting for the survival of western civilization. The left and the media wanted Bush to loose this Iraq war from before the day it started and they have done everything to make it happen. And way? Only to tell the Americqan people ” we told you so”. It has nothing to do with the national interest and everything with the ego of the American “intelligentsia”. And by the way if you want to see a great US movie go see American Gangster, excellent script and outstanding acting especially by Denzel Washington.
Comment by GWW — November 11, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
The movie’s obviously not very good - Hollywood’s always made political movie and if they’re good people come out for them - i.e.
1) All The Presidents Men
2) Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11
3) Norma Rae
4) Silkwood
5) Taxi Driver
6) The China Syndrome
7) Coming Home
8 ) Born On The Fourth Of July
9) Julia
10)Reds
11)Platoon
12)JFK
13)Salvador
14)Apocalypse Now
15)Patton
16)Gardens Of Stone
17)The Thin Red Line
18)Casualties Of War
19)Full Metal Jacket
20)All The Kings Men (1949)
21)Chinatown
22)Hoffa
23)The Candidate
24)The Manchurian Candidate
25)The Sand Pebbles (1966)
To name a few…
Comment by scott — November 11, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Phooey. IT’S A BAD MOVIE!
It’s tedious, tendentious, sanctimonious, and boring. It’s a tired rehash of stuff you can get (better!) from Katie Couric every night. Anybody in the US who follows “celebrity news” could have written a two-sentence precis of it from the names alone. The right is offended. The left is bored. Why should either pay to see it?
And don’t give me “people won’t go to antiwar movies”. Look at Full Metal Jacket, which is nearly iconic among the troops — all the “hoowah!” nowadays comes straight from there. Look at M*A*S*H (the original, not Alan Arkin masturbating on TV). “God damn Army” was practically an initiation phrase when I was in.
A thoughtful, engrossing flick made by people who clearly know their subject will attract an audience. An hour and a half of sententious lecture from people who obviously know nothing but movie history and bigoted stereotypes will not — and in neither case does it matter one whit what the political attitude (if any) of it is.
It doesn’t matter that L4L is antiwar. What matters is that it’s a bad movie. So it tanks. That’s what bad movies are supposed to do.
Regards,
Ric
Comment by Ric Locke — November 11, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
Where is this war’s Casablanca?
Comment by M. Simon — November 11, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
I’m glad to see such a great per screen average for “No Country For Old Men”, a fabulous return to form for the Coens. Ironically, I think No Country has a lot to say about our current political situation, but it does through art rather than polemic.
Comment by timscott — November 11, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
Not surprising that anything with potential content that promises to force the “unwashed masses” to think is not doing well. The American people largely fall into 2 categories. Either they would prefer to be endlessly tittalated by Springer style dreck or they want a mindless extravaganza slathered with special effects. The American people have bought into their own lies so long that anything that threatens or challenges them is bound to be ignored.
Comment by Eric Hulqquist - AZ — November 11, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
Maybe the movie just isn’t good? Maybe it’s too fresh in the minds of people? Maybe it is not such a good idea to make a movie dealing with a world wide situation that is still in flux? Maybe everyone is sick of preaching one way or the other? Maybe?
Comment by John — November 11, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
I was at a WGA screening of Lions for Lambs this past week. My politics are blue, unreconstructed 60s liberal and I can honestly say this (non) movie was one of the worst (non) cinematic experiences I have ever had. The script was laughably bad; Jackie Chiles speechifying masquerading as meaningful dialogue. The actors had nothing to do - Meryl Streep is an honored veteran journalist and yet we first see her and she’s unable to walk into a room as she’s burdened with 2 giant bags? Why? Was she at Whole Foods shopping for Thanksgiving? And she proceeds to extract one small note pad and one pen from inside them. It reminds me of a Mort Sahl quote about Jerry Lewis - “I don’t see the comedy in a 60 year old man unable to walk into a room unable to carry a dish without dropping it.” Robert Redford as a college professor who actually wears a corduroy sport jacket. Nice touch. Was Robert Donat’s Mr. Chips wardrobe unavailable? And the “hidden potential” of his young student, which remained hidden throughout the entire film. Oh wait, I’m leaving out the insanity of one of the sacrificial minority characters actually jumping from a helicopter into the void. I kept waiting, hoping, that a Warren Miller ski film would break out. I am amazed this movie made as much as it did. Maybe folks saw the title and thought it was animated.
Comment by whyphenate — November 11, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
There are enough choices for entertainment out there now that Hollywood needs to be worried. You might consider the example shown by newspapers: when newspapers were the only choice for news, they did well. When radio came out, their impact was reduced (along with their market share). When television came out, even more so. Nowadays, every quarter seems to produce a story about how newspaper circulation has dropped even more.
We also have choices for entertainment beyond movies, radio, television and even home theater/DVD; we can download. It’s available 24/7/365, we can choose what’s showing from among millions of titles, domestic, foreign, or homegrown.
How long are you going to continue making movies that a large part of the potential audience will not consider seeing? How long will it take you to return to original, quality programming that captivates and inspires rather than third-hand material that lectures and cajoles? When will you greenlight films that teach how to respect and how to admire, rather than how to denigrate and how to degrade?
You needn’t answer; just read your box-office returns. They’ll tell you when you have figured it out.
Comment by Wanderer — November 11, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
I think it is hard to tell whether political films could do well when so very few of them are well-written. I don’t think that anything released lately compares favorably to Stalag 17, Notorious, or even a fun spy caper like North by Nothwest, among other movies. Where is the engaging story supported by memorable characters? Where is the combination of grittiness, glamour, and above all, self-deprecating humor? I don’t need or want to go to the movies to see an editorial. Newspapers write better ones.
As for the actors, I don’t think that it is their individual politics that turn people off and cause people to boycott their movies as much as it is their hypocritical, sleazy, and arrogant behavior in public. Particularly in tough economic times, people don’t want to give their money to someone they think they wouldn’t like or respect. So, in effect, public bad behavior or behavior that completely contradicts what they profess to believe in is a form of reverse marketing that can undo millions of dollars of movie marketing. And don’t think that only hollywood insiders see through the political phonies in Hollywood. People outside hollywood see through them, too.
Comment by PoliticoGal — November 11, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
Some MGM exec was saying that the movie tanked because people thought it was a “war movie,” instead of the intense thought-provoking drama that it is.
Nonsense. People stayed way not because they thought it was a war movie, but because it is a BORE movie!
Comment by gussy — November 11, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
Well, good. For decades now, John Wayne’s “Green Berets” has given progressive tastemakers a good chuckle. Finally, the left has returned the favor by giving their antagonists a bumper crop of polemics that the conservatives will be able to ridicule for years to come.
Comment by ElRaisuli — November 11, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
Re Steve Meyer
Would someone please enlighten me as to the politics of Saving Private Ryan or say Band of Brothers?
Comment by mrMMRH — November 11, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
If this movie was a “Hate America” movie, why was its core preoccupied with persuading young Americans to not be passive, but to take a stand, whether as soldier or activist?
If this movie was aimed at those who hate America, why aren’t there any good reviews out there, or any voices in favor of it, here? If the left wing is so lockstep, why is there no parity in these comments? Or is it the right wing’s put the order out to stomp this movie dead — even if the script and acting already did that, on their own — because their news sources told them to? Because Redford and Streep are more dangerous as politically aware people, than as mere movie stars?
The most entertaining part of this thread have been the concern trolls — the ‘oh, I’m a 60s radical, but this movie’s too left for me….’ types. Man, with all the lefties who regurgitate right talking points, we could have a convention of the DLC, right here…. I guess I’m reiterating CreativeType’s question: If this movie sucks so hard, and the people behind it, not worth the mention, then why the heck do people who represent The Majority Of Americans have to bang shovels on it, to make sure it dies? You’d think sheer box office failure would do it, but this yowling’s unseemly, like pissing on its corpse. (But then, that’s neocon S.O.P. Just ask the Frost family.)
Comment by cgeye — November 11, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
I must agree with many here who have said they will not go see this movie or any movie because Robert Redford is the director and star. Tom Cruise did not help matters much. As a conservative there are certain people who I WILL NOT spend my money to support. Redford is one of them.
Leave the politics out of movie making and it may see a brighter future. If they continue to push the likes of Redford, Clooney, Penn, Robbins, Hanks, DiCaprio and others with their leftist political agendas, then Hollywood is doomed.
Comment by JD — November 12, 2007 @ 2:59 am
Film has gone the way of theatre. It is now dying because of lack of material and competent artistry.
This movie will fail because it is simply crummy as most films are. There was a time when films were able to handle material that was controversial, and get a point across. But that involved things like a good script, actual actors, a solid director and a desire to produce art. Such projects are rare and dangering on extinction. Even the small independents are now failing to pick up the slack.
Comment by Mr. T — November 12, 2007 @ 5:08 am
It’s almost as if the political parties sent their hacks to post about movies in poorly disguised political rants.
TIP: Inserting your politics into a box office discussion results in the the same tedious and boring experience like having to watch a political film from the left or right.
Nikki, please close down comments for the box office reports. People that can’t find Politico have decided to post here.
It was nice of you to experiment, though. Thanks.
Comment by Close Comments Back Down for Box Office Reports — November 12, 2007 @ 5:21 am
The studios need to use more viral marketing, and less bacterial marketing. IOW, more stealth, less ‘morality’.
[Sorry ’bout that metaphor, but the writers are on strike. For god sake, somebody give them whatever they are demanding]
Comment by Tim — November 12, 2007 @ 6:06 am
What gave Hollywood producers the idea that Middle East-themed films would work in the marketplace? Jarhead, maybe? If so, they didn’t do their homework. Jarhead worked because it featured one of the best trailers in recent memory and dealt with events that took place 15 years ago. The only 9/11/Iraq War themed movie that has connected with audiences is World Trade Center. Why? Because it told an uplifting story that featured the heroic acts of selfless men. Hollywood, please take note!
Comment by Leo — November 12, 2007 @ 7:03 am
Denzel Washington is so good because his acting is so subtle. He becomes the character he portrays. He’s of it. I wish I could get him to read my first script. He’d be first choice for the co-starring role.
Comment by Nicholas Borelli — November 12, 2007 @ 7:15 am
Redford has been involved with hits and flops and should’ve known better than to try to push this on the American public. Like it or not, Americans are not French and we really are sick and tired of elitists telling us our values, our soldiers, and country is bad.
It seems that Hollywood is trying to tell us what to think and sometimes even distort things especially with historical movies. “The Kingdom of Heaven” was a perfect example of a director’s views screwing up what should’ve been a great flick. Anyone with sense would know that Orlando Bloom would been hacked to death by his own men with that “we’re sorry evil Catholics so let’s die for the Pope any way” speech.
“300″ could’ve been rife with political commentary but it stuck to the story and it was great. I can only hope that if George Clooney finally starts work on Pressfield’s “Gates of Fire” he just sticks to the story focusing on the heroism of the Spartans & Thespians. He’d do well to watch Stone’s “Alexander” which (with the except of the opening battle scene) is precisely how NOT to do a historical story.
People forget that in entertainment if it’s good, it sells. If it sucks… well you know.
Comment by Gil P — November 12, 2007 @ 7:18 am
Regarding the statement “It was stronger on both coasts than in the middle of the country, and it played better in Blue states than Red states, and it appealed to older, more upscale, and educated audiences.” I don’t understand how you determined the audience for “Lions for Lambs” is more upscale and educated? Is this because they are in Blue states? I didn’t know this type of demographic was monitored in the movie theater…
Comment by Dave Klaus — November 12, 2007 @ 7:28 am
The problem is not that the movies are political - it’s that they are poor movies. Much of this is due to the fact that the actors, directors, writers, & producers involved are so committed to a particular view that the entire effort is heavy-handed to the extreme. There is no nuance to their approach and the characters and plots are so predictable as to make viewing both redundant and a chore.
A hint for those wishing to approach hot political topics. Either make the heroes and villains a bit more complex in their motivations or treat the topic as a farce. In the latter case, view “Dr. Strangelove” and “Wag the Dog” as references.
Comment by amm — November 12, 2007 @ 8:36 am
Why no mention of Eros’ OM SHANTI OM? This Shahrukh Khan blockbuster opened with $17 mill+ internationally (mostly in India) and a $13K+ per screen average here in the US. It beat SAAWARIYA at the box office (even though the latter had a good opening too).
Comment by ajy1 — November 12, 2007 @ 9:03 am
Most movies I see are in the comfort of my own home and not at a sticky floored, noisy, germ infested theater. Most don’t warrant either the price tag or the need for either surround sound or a large screen.
The majority of movies have ceased to entertain while the way too many award shows have ballooned into nothing but self-congratulatory dog and pony shows.
The tabloid media have spewed forth more information than I’ve ever cared to know about anyone in entertainment and personally, I find Tom Cruise particularly vile.
Put the three of them together and you’ll no longer have to wonder why the box office is falling off, award show audiences are dwindling and “stars” are no longer viewed with admiration.
When you cease to entertain, you cease to bring in the money.
Comment by West Coastian — November 12, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
CLOSE COMMENTS BACK DOWN FOR BOX OFFICE REPORTS,
You don’t like what other people are saying, so your solution to that is to “shut ‘em down”? You know, you are free not to read politically-oriented comments if it bothers you so much. Why deny the freedom to others to enter into such discussion if they wish? Quite totalitarian of you, my lad.
Lions for Lambs is an openly political film, and one of among several openly leftist films trying to make a political point in the marketplace right now. So why on earth should it be out of bounds to discuss such a political movie in a political way?
The story here is that these leftist films are all tanking at the box-office. It’s worth discussing why, and it’s completely fair to talk about. It’s obviously not the subject matter…
The Kingdom was about terrorists in the middle east, but much less anti-American than these others. It was mostly neutral with the exception of a coda at the end trying to draw equivalence between the CIA and terrorists. A fairly neutral slam-bang “let’s kick the terrorists butt!” movie has made about $72 million worldwide - outgrossing all the other leftist War on Terror films COMBINED, and by a huge margin. What does that tell you? Hollywood better learn its lesson and quick if it wants to stay relevant.
This is my first post in this thread but your totalitarian call to shut off perfectly fair political comments about a political film was just too much to ignore.
Comment by BC — November 12, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
My wife and I went with friends to “Lions for Lambs” last night. We are varying political pursuasions, but we all agreed on one thing — it was boring.
Comment by yetanotherwriter — November 12, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Whoa! Where did all the right-wing nuts come from? Did I accidentally stumble onto Free Republic or Little Green Footballs? Is this the Sean Hannity blog?
Comment by Don't Believe the Hype — November 12, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
I don’t go to see movies that
have any political point to make.
I already have my belief set and
I’m open minded about listening to
those that might have something to
add to the debate. But Robert Redford
has nothing new to add.
Comment by tj — November 12, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
Aging screen actors with lots of money and time on their hands decided to make a leftist political tract and launch it in major theatrical release, then they expect to cover their $35-million? Who would throw away $9 and nearly two hours (counting anti-war movie trailers and the commercials we were never supposed to see at paid screenings) on a ranting, off-centered, banal, often inaccurate and always boring film such as “Lions for Lambs”? It’s not enough that Redford captivates circles of sycophants half-drunk, seated around some Sundance lodge fireplace during his film festival … no, he has to move his lecture on evil America to movie theaters across the country, where the seats are as empty as Redford’s head for business. No, we don’t give a damn what actors’ opinions are, whether we agree with them or not, but they want to shove them in your face anyway. I’m with the guy above my comment who reminded us of Samuel Goldwyn immortal words, as true today as in his time: “If I want to send a message, I’ll call Western Union.”
Comment by Jay — November 13, 2007 @ 4:48 am
This is soooo funny.
A million comments on the movie, by people who haven’t even seen the movie!!!
You allowed someone to TELL you what to think about a movie you never saw.
“Baa Baa Baa” said the sheep.
Comment by Lori — November 14, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
No one seems to notice that “the Kingdom” which was strongly pro-America and Anti-terrorist did even worse at the box office than Lions for Lambs. So you can’t read this as “Americans hate Leftist Politics”, or claim that no one is making a “rah rah America” film.
I actually saw “Lions for Lambs”, and liked it. It is preaching to the converted, because Redford knows full well that no one in favor of the Iraq war is going to see it. What he is trying to do is get the converted out on the streets and active again, not change the minds of those who are still pro-Iraq war. I think it will have that affect on the few people who do see it, and that is exactly what Redford expected. Hey, it got me to write a letter to the editor, and post on this blog. I know that isn’t going to have much affect, just as Redford knows that his movie isn’t going to have that much affect. But each of us has to do what we can do. Otherwise, People like Cruise’s character will continue to run things.
Comment by Teed — November 24, 2007 @ 9:45 am