comment #1

Rob says ...

I have a feeling that the fall bloodbath is going to bring very bad tidings for some of my favorite actors and directors for years to come.

Bring on The Game Plan 2.

comment #2

MoroccoMole says ...

It's depressing enough when you can't talk your intelligent, film-literate friends into seeing the new Hou Hsiao-hsien movie or whatever, but when you can't even compel them to check out THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES, you just want to pack it in.

comment #3

Craig Kennedy says ...

It seems like there are just a ton of movies that I'm interested in, but not over the moon about. I'm catching the big ones that I've been waiting months for, but there's this whole huge crop of decent looking movies and few of them really stand out from the crowd.

Except for Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, I'm more inclined to rewatch The Assassination of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford or The Darjeeling Limited than see something new.

comment #4

Mark says ...

No reason to argue this or that reason beyond "too much product" re why a movie didn't get more traction? It's all subjective and mostly irrelevant. The reasons for the bad fall are very simple; A) Too much product; and maybe more importantly and depressing to the industry B) The new affordableness of HD-DVR.

With HD-DVR, it's very hard to justify trekking out and spending $30 for a non-event movie. Especially on a weekday and when theaters only offer 7 and 10pm showtimes. Why stay up late to check out Things We Lost in the Fire when i have The War saved in my DVR can start watching at 8:30 and stop at my convienance?

comment #5

OddDuck says ...

I was shocked at how much I enjoyed A Mighty Heart when I netflixed it this week. All the Michael Mann comments are DEAD ON. Did feel strange watching a real life tragedy turned into a top-notch international crime-procedural, but that's exactly what it is, and a very satisfying one at that. Also, I presume they shot a lot in Pakistan, because the movie does a pretty convincing job of making you feel like you've visited the place.

I know this movie made like two dollars in the U.S., but I hope more people give it a chance on DVD. Well worth watching.

comment #6

Noah says ...

You're still beating that In the Valley of Elah drum, but is it possible that your opinion of the film isn't the same as most? I saw it, hated it and it wasn't because of Haggis. If the movie was really that good and people really loved it, then it would have had better word of mouth (witness Michael Clayton's 30 percent drop) and picked up some steam.

And you lambast people for not being smart enough or aware enough to see Elah, then in the next paragraph chide them for not wanting to see a movie about simpleton either. Maybe it's just this: these films had poor marketing campaigns or were just not good enough to generate real heat.

comment #7

Gordie Lachance says ...

"You could cut it with a knife. They'd just seen one of the year's absolute best and most of them were thinking "hmmm, downer....not very uplifting!""

This is my single biggest annoyance with people who go to films. Americans fetishize violence, they love it, and yet they insist on happy endings. Even the 5 O’Clock news broadcasts are 28 minutes of murder and mayhem, wrapped up by a 2 minute piece about some retarded kid getting a new wheelchair, because even our reality needs a happy ending.

comment #8

christian says ...

I think most of these movies just have bad, uninspiring titles.

comment #9

George Prager says ...

"Why stay up late to check out Things We Lost in the Fire when i have The War saved in my DVR can start watching at 8:30 and stop at my convienance?"

Becuase sometimes it's nice to get out once in a while. I guess you like to sit home and smell your own (or your mother's) farts.

comment #10

swordandpen says ...

It may also help if they spread these movies out from one another. The same thing is happening every year where I practically stay away from the movies for the first 8 months and then go to the movies every week starting around mid-September on.

Also, the ability to see some of these movies on DVD with quality picture and sound in a few months doesn't help either. I won't pay $11 to see Wes Anderson make the same movie he made before, but a Netflix rental would be perfect for it.

comment #11

Mike Schaefer says ...

I saw Lars last night and strongly disliked it for all the reasons Jeff mentioned. To which I'd add that Gosling was one of the problems for me: if Lars had been played as a Forrest Gump type then MAYBE I'd've gone along with the conceit. But Gosling gives such a tortured, detailed performance that you can't help but see Lars as seriously disturbed. The blond girl who has a crush on him -- I wanted to yell to her, "Run! Run for your life!" Having said that, the audience (at SF's upscale Embarcadero) seemed to enjoy it.

And I saw Elizabeth last Wed nite in a very crowded theater -- the audience was easily 75% gay men. Queens love queens!

comment #12

Rob says ...

I've really tried to keep up this month. I really have. During most of the year, I usually see one or two movies a week, and skip some weeks if I'm traveling or busy with work.

As of today, October 25, I've seen 12 movies during the month of October. 12! I'm exhausted. I'm trying to psych myself up to see Control and Lake of Fire this weekend, but I miss my friends and family, and the outdoors.

They couldn't have released any of these movies in April or August or February?

comment #13

dcc77 says ...

"I think most of these movies just have bad, uninspiring titles." -- Christian

A marketing issue, perhaps? OK, moving on from yesterday...

I think it's a matter of an uninspiring first wave of independent releases. Hopefully, "No Country for Old Men", "There Will Be Blood" and "Atonement" will help erase the memory of these early, sub-par films. I also think that an abnormally warm kick-off to fall has kept audiences away from the cinemas.

comment #14

JD says ...

A Mighty Heart was a well-made film with many great scenes, but whenever Angelina Jolie showed up onscreen it turned into a self-righteous mess. Her character was the least interesting part of the movie... and the marketing (particularly the poster) was awful. Plus, you can't blame people for not wanting to see a suspense movie when they already know exactly how it's going to end. People like to cite Titanic in this regard, but you really don't know which characters are gonna bite the dust in that movie.

comment #15

Mark says ...

"Becuase sometimes it's nice to get out once in a while. I guess you like to sit home and smell your own (or your mother's) farts."

Burn on me. By a 10 year old, no less. I'm appalled. BTW - sitting in a theater and watching a movie is a unique experience, but in no way should it be considered "getting out in the world."

comment #16

christian says ...

dcc77, I expected you to jump in. I'm a title whoe and fixate on them for my own work. But a title is not a marketing problem, it's an esthetic one. Melville calling his book,"The Hunting of the Great White Whale by a Madman" isn't the same thing as "Moby Dick."

THE ADVENTURES OF LUKE STARKILLER is not as concise and evocative as STAR WARS.

IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH is a bad title.

As I said, I'm all about a good movie campaign, like GRINDHOUSE which I thought was sold as well as it could have been.

comment #17

Mr. Muckle says ...

Far from being the fault of "leave-me-aloners" and "too-sooners," what kind of existential/political crisis is it going to take in this country for movie-biz fanboys (young and old) to realize that there are goddam more important things to attend to? Not to criticize the Jeffster, for example, because this is entertainment but, aside from the money involved in the industry, what sensible person cares if Hollywood takes a flying leap altogether?

So-called "serious" film is just as escapist as any other fantasy compared to the realities in your face. Fanboys ought to realize that, and if they don't, they're just as much a part of the unexamined life as any hillbilly peckerwood out there. The whining about "they won't buy our product" is excruciatingly tiresome.

For one thing, it's simple supply and demand. For another, the rage index is pretty close to the limit already and it doesn't take another Smell-o-Vision about the Iraqi sands to boil it over. Five minutes of CNN or 20 seconds of Fox News does it just fine, thank you.

comment #18

T. Holly says ...

Rob, you're so funny, I like my sleep too. And now the pool opened at my gym, mmm, I like to float. If they could dim the lights and project onto the ceiling while I submerge in a chaise lounge, I'd be there tonight.

comment #19

sardine says ...

LARS has only been out two weeks. The word of mouth on this movie will let it break-out. Gosling is sensational. Too bad he was fired on the lovely bones.....because he's the best actor in America.

comment #20

dcc77 says ...

"But a title is not a marketing problem, it's an esthetic one."

Christian, aren't you assuming here that the filmmaker's/writer's title was retained by the producers/distributors? What if the marketing department created a new title based upon their research? If they did and the film tanked, then a film's failure can partially be attributed to a lousy title. In the case of "Elah", I think the overwrought ending was ill-conceived.

That said, I think the inferior films were released earlier. Those distributors who know they have winning films have yet to enter the race. I remain optimistic.

comment #21

Arizona Joe says ...

The autumnal dearth of box office has a multiple etiology

I think the surplus of product has something to do with it, and it would take a marketing professor and a psychologist to explain it. No individual film has a significant share of the mind, and there is not a critical mass of a group experience for a film to gain traction, word of mouth, etc.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Haggis effect. Common folk associate his name with Crash and the non-linear and over-hyped.

And it is premature for these Iraq films. As Wells and others have pointed out, there was a time lag between the heavy Vietnam films and the end of that war.

We are conducting a bleak, never ending war. Real estate prices are falling. A credit crunch threatens the stock market. Glaciers are melting. Most people don't want to see a love story in which a wonderful man gets his throat slashed by animals in Pakistan.

I think Netflix is a much bigger effect than even some higher up suits realize. Why there are business reports about the fragility of Netflix marketshare I don't understand. It's had real impact.

On one of the cable outlets last week, there was a fascinating documentary on midnight movies. It talked about a shared group experience, and a societal behavior where movie going was seen as making a personal statement.

For various reasons in this Third Wave world, there is next to none of that for adults. It's the "bowling alone" phenomenon, it's Netflix, it's a whole bunch of crappy movies.

In my generation and younger, there seems to be less sound judgment as well as less craftsmanship.

comment #22

christian says ...

"What if the marketing department created a new title based upon their research?"

Please give examples. The sequel to SPIDER MAN should have been called THE AMAZING SPIDER MAN in keeping with its comic origns. SPIDER MAN 2 is positively lame. Again, I'm talking titles from an esthetic pov and not just a marketing one.

Like when I.A.L. Diamond said that any movie called WHO IS HARRY KELLERMAN AND WHY IS HE SAYING THOSE TERRIBLE THINGS ABOUT ME is doomed from the start.

comment #23

Dirty Harry says ...

Elah, Heart, and Clayton failed because they're dull, preachy, intelligence-insulting downers.

Elah -- What? No line to watch every trooper, including Tommy Lee, depicted as everything from a psychopath to a racist? Where is everyone? I'm flabbergasted? Good people can disagree on the war, but don't go after the men and women who fight it.

Mighty Heart -- Oh, we get to watch American allies torture a prisoner but turn on our backs on what the terrorists did. And I'm afraid Jolie's YOWLS straight out of the Actors Studio were laughable.

Michael Clayton? -- That movie should've been called Michael Clayton Deals With His Dull Personal Problems But Saves The Day Because Tilda Swinton Plays The Dumbest Attorney Ever.

Gawd, that movie was boring.

And you just gotta love Hollywood trying to market a "Guy Loves Blow-Job Doll" to Christians.

Fee free to blame the Red-Staters, but the fact is, if all the "enlightened" types in only Manhattan and LA went -- these would all be smash hits.

comment #24

dcc77 says ...

Well, said Arizona Joe. I love a dose of sociology on a film blog. However, the data on 2007 is interesting. According to Box Office Mojo:

-- Through October 21, the 2007 box office year-to-date is UP 6%, pacing a total of $7.76 billion versus the same time exactly a year ago, in which the 2006 to-date box office was at $7.31 billion

-- This also indicates a 4% GAIN in admissions, with 2007 currently pacing 1.14 billion admissions compared to 1.11 billion at the same time a year ago

Undoubtedly, there's a Netflix effect, but the receipts are still there for the exhibitors. Clearly, quality cinema doesn't drive the grosses.

comment #25

insidah says ...

The problem is that Hollywood fails to realize Americans are NOT that dumb. We're all online, watching TV - we know what's going on in IRAQ and it's upsetting. Movies are supposed to provide an escape from all this. My friend and I walked into the GRove last week, scanned the movie marquee and laughed at what was offered: MISERY CINEMA. We already FUCKING know the war sucks. Thanks Hollywood for assuming we need to be taught - or that you're the right teacher.

comment #26

George Prager says ...

"On one of the cable outlets last week, there was a fascinating documentary on midnight movies. It talked about a shared group experience, and a societal behavior where movie going was seen as making a personal statement."

I agree. Some movies are a lot more fun to watch in a theater.

"BTW - sitting in a theater and watching a movie is a unique experience, but in no way should it be considered "getting out in the world."

But infinitely better than wallowing in your own filth, waiting for your intestines to pass that toxic mixture of Cheet-os and Mountain Dew.

comment #27

Dirty Harry says ...

Hollywood also doesn't understand -- because too many of them make up the 20% of Democrats polled who admit they want us to lose in Iraq -- that good people are frustrated because we're not winning in Iraq, not because we're not losing.

These anti-war polemics designed to dishearten the public into electing liberal Democrats who will hand Iraq over to the terrorists" also don't help themselves by being stand-alone lousy films.

comment #28

George Prager says ...

Basically, there should be a moratorium on certain subject matters and even certain actors in indie films. It's the same old shit over and over again. Instead of making another shy/withdrawn/depressed/'tard/autistic/psuedo-perv meets shy/withdrawn/depressed/'tard/autistic/psuedo-perv film, why doesn't someone make a film where some actual life-living goes on?

comment #29

MiraJeffAICN says ...

James Schamus has every reason to be pissed off. Assembling this week's Variety Crix Picks, I am SHOCKED at the poor critical reception of Reservation Road. I think me and Schwarzbaum were the only two critics who genuinely liked it. Such a shame. Ruffalo is as good as he's ever been. The release date certainly didn't help...

comment #30

PatrickC88 says ...

Personally, I don't care who watches these films as long as I get to watch them. There have been some really great movies this Fall including Elah, Clayton, Jesse James, and Into the Wild.

And it doesn't matter where you live. I'm from South Carolina, and I do NOT see movies starring The Rock, Vin Diesel, or Jackie Chan as entertainment. There is just as much ignorant white trash in New York as there is down here so I don't agree that only people on the coasts will watch intelligent films.

There are intelligent people in all 50 states. The problem is we are severely outnumbered in all 50 states!

comment #31

Jesse Perry says ...

"But infinitely better than wallowing in your own filth, waiting for your intestines to pass that toxic mixture of Cheet-os and Mountain Dew."

As opposed to sitting in a theater, burdened with a trough of buttered popcorn and a bucket of Pepsi.

comment #32

actionman says ...

Yeah...fine....sure...war is hell...it sucks. I don't care about any of that. I care if the movies are entertaining and well done. And all to varying degrees, I enjoyed ELAH, THE KINGDOM, and RENDITION and look forward to LIONS FOR LAMBS, and CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR. I have MIGHTY HEART at home in the netflix envelope, looking forward to watching that. Why do I get the feeling I will be pissed with myself for not seeing it in the theater. I feel like Hollywood has made all of the politcal thrillers/dramas just for me.

comment #33

actionman says ...

I'll also mention: loved MICHAEL CLAYTON and EASTERN PROMISES, two movies that should be doing double the business. No interest in LARS, I thought the script sucked. And THINGS WE LOST IN THE FIRE is easily one of the best movies of 2007, people should be beaten for not supporting it. RESERVATION ROAD was extememly well acted but was a mishmash overall. DARJEELING LIMITED was fun but too slight and more of the same from Anderson, which while not a terrible thing, just left me feeling like I'm ready for something new from Anderson.

comment #34

George Prager says ...

To each his own I guess...and I thought we won in Iraq? You'd think someone from the Liberty Film Festival would agree. But guys like Dirty Harry are never happy.

comment #35

mrmystery says ...

Here's a Iraq war sotry idea that odddly enough will never get made. Group of american soldiers at checkpoint atre attack by terrorists. Some americans are killed, three are kidnapped. Two die of their wounds. The other is alive. American intelligence intercept internet transmission of the kidnappers discussing what to do with the soldier, kill him now or later, film it, torture etc. The intelligence officers want to use the transmission to locate the kidnappers and save the american soldier's life. The problem is that the internet hub is in the USA and the spooks need clearane so the ACLU and the surrender monkeys on capital hill don't bring them up on charges for eavesdropping. Takes ten hours to get clearance. Long enough for the info to be useless. The american soldier is found dead, sexually mutilated, but we can all sleep better knowing our phone calls aren't being monitored. Now tell me again why I should give a shit about Rendition or Lambs for Lions?

comment #36

Jack Price says ...

No Country for Old Men is an utter masterpiece, riveting and convention-shattering in the same way that Psycho was in its time.

If it makes money, chances are the intensity of the first 3/4 of the film will do it. I overhead quite a few exasperated "wha's?" as the credits rolled, but make no mistake, the film creeps up on you long after it's over. I'm hoping that even those who viewed the ending unfavorably will still recommend it wholeheartedly, because it's just that damn intense.

Regarding the oversaturated fall season, I really, really wish someone would take Roger Ebert's advice to heart and apply a biannual Academy Awards so this problem wouldn't be so prevalent. Even if the awards themselves are diluted in importance... wait, what's so bad about that? It's clearly NOT helping this year, nor has been since the onset of widespread screener-dependence.

comment #37

Kim Voynar says ...

Jeff, seriously ... if your job wasn't to write about films, and you weren't able to get into screenings for free, how many of the fall releases would you have shelled out your hard-earned cash to see? By far the majority of films that I see to review, I would likely not pay full price to see in a theater.

The last film Jay and I went to for a date night was the last BOURNE, and that was only because it needed to be seen on a big screen, and, well, it has Matt Damon, so that kind of justified the expense for me.

It's partly the war, I agree ... I don't want to see any more war movies, right now, honestly. A lot of us are just holding out for the elections next year and hoping someone finds a way to get us the hell out of that mess. And then, look at the economy. I don't know how things are out in LA, but the real-estate market is tanking, people are losing their homes because they got suckered into buying more home than they can afford.

People are getting laid off -- my husband was laid off 2 months after the company paid to relo him here; he has another job already, thankfully, but we're building up our savings right now, and shelling out $30-40 bucks on a movie date night isn't on our radar right now (especially not with all those "For Your Considerations" trickling in now!).

And don't even get me started on the family films. There's not a film coming down the pike that I would shell out to take our four kids to see. It costs a small fortune to take all the kids to a movie, and when they can wait a couple months and then see at home on pay-per-view for $3.99 plus a bowl of homeemade popcorn, I'm not going to shell out $80 to take them to the multiplex.

comment #38

Craig Kennedy says ...

Dirty Harry, your belief that Hollywood is some kind of monolithic entity with an agenda instead of just a group of large companies that want to make money is quaint.

comment #39

George Prager says ...

You shouldn't waste that post on HE, mrmystery. It would make a great Penthouse Forum letter.

comment #40

OddDuck says ...

Not that The Kingdom is an indie pic by any stretch, but somebody brought it up, so I just have to add how incredibly disappointed I was in that movie. I'm a huge Friday Night Lights (the movie) fan, and was so ready to enjoy The Kingdom, but was surprised at all of the schmaltzy sentimentality and easy character choices in it. Both Jennifer Garner's and Jason Bateman's characters were paper thin, and more generally there was very little in the movie that surprised or moved me in any way. CSI Ryadhi is right. It really felt like what I imagine the CBS primetime lineup is like. And WTF was with Jeremy Piven's work in this movie? Completely offnote for what his character should be like. Sure there were definitely some bright spots, but I expected way more! Even the action underwhlemed - just didn't snap crackle and pop like I expected with Michael Mann producing. I can totally understand how this movie underperformed. Peter Berg needs to try harder next time.

comment #41

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Mr. Mystery: This may not be worth much coming from a pinko, limp-wristed surrender monkey living in Los Angeles, but I find that story you've told to be absolutely infuriating. Is it based on anything you've read about or have personal direct knowledge of? Or is it just a figment from your liberal-despising imagination? If it's real, the military commander who said "hold off until we get clearance to act" should be hung from the ceiling by his thumbs and beaten with a stick. Even it's not real, it's mildly infuriating that a life-and-death situation could be handled in such a way, even as a theoretical possibility. But you made it up, didn't you?

comment #42

actionman says ...

try harder? are u serious? THE KINGDOM is easily the best R-rated action flick in a while. it was 100 minutes of action, adrenalin, and amazing camerawork. I knew enough about the characters to care about them. I loved the ending as well; cyncism in a bloody action movie like this is tough to find. And I didn't find anything sentimental about it, which is one of the reasons I loved the movie.

comment #43

AH says ...

Here's why I have not seen any of these movies: I work around 10 hrs. a day, and spend another two commuting, and three more studying. That means that, by the time the weekend rolls around, I am burned out, tired, have errands to run and work to do around the house. So, when it comes to watching movies, the last thing I am going to pay for is a depressing flick about how horrible everything is. There you go.

comment #44

Rob says ...

I for one think most of the movies have been great. In the last two months, the only prestige-level pics I've felt at all burned by were The Brave One, Reservation Road, Rendition and The Darjeeling Limited.

Otherwise, I've seen more fantastic movies in the past six weeks or so than I could usually ever hope for.

I just miss the daylight.

comment #45

actionman says ...

and I'm pissed I missed THE HUNTING PARTY, looked like this years LORD OF WAR (i.e. the underrated action satire that was mis-marketed).

comment #46

Jay T. says ...

It's like the studios forgot how to counter-program. All summer long I barely went to the movies because there was nothing playing but shit, and now it seems like every weekend 3 movies come out I actually want to see. I can't be the only one.

comment #47

ROTC says ...

It's not just the quantity or subject matter of these films. Rather, I believe that the increasingly disappointing returns of indie films are largely rooted in the complexities and nuances of mass marketing in the Internet age. Since fewer people now read actual newspapers/weeklies (where film advertisements had traditionally been extremely effective), it has become increasingly unrealistic to expect the public at large to be aware that most of these films even exist.

Relatively few people get their movie recommendations from a site like this, or for that matter from any other film site. Even when ordering tickets from a url like movietickets.com, smaller films are very often difficult to locate, let alone highlight. As a result, the only times most people I know so much as get a glimpse of the titles of indie fare are when they happen to be on line at a multiplex to see something else - which invariably had a much bigger TV/billboard ad campaign and budget.

comment #48

mrmystery says ...

Jeff and Georgie
this is probably wasted on you two brainiacs...
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/014846.php
from the NY Post, Oct 2007
A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.
Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first.

For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.

Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.

Ain't it cool...

comment #49

OddDuck says ...

Hey actionman, from your past posts, I can tell you we're more or less on the same page when it comes to action movies. What can I say? I just didn't think it was very good. It wasn't 100 minutes of action - up until the last thirty minutes it's a forensics procedural / Syriana-lite with like ten different shots of Jennifer Garner tearing up and Jason Bateman cracking jokes. And even the last thirty didn't do much for me. Maybe my expectations were too high. I thought with Michael Mann producing, that some of his DNA would show up in the action set pieces. Really, if you hadn't told me Mann was producing, I'd have never known, and maybe would have guessed Bruckheimer. And beyond the action, just about everything else just sorta sat there - nothing surprising, nothing that shocked or challenged or anything like that. The action doesn't pick up until the last half hour, so if you don't buy into the characters for the 80 minutes preceding, the movie fails.

comment #50

Dirty Harry says ...

Georgeprager: Things are better in Iraq -- much to the consternation of those 20% of Democrats hoping we lose and making films eager to capture that Roof-Of-The-Embassy zeitgeist.

"Dirty Harry, your belief that Hollywood is some kind of monolithic entity with an agenda instead of just a group of large companies that want to make money is quaint."

Oh, yeah...

--Elah: should've made a ton.

--Rendition: Huge blockbuster potential. Money, In. The. Bank.

--George Clooney overacting in front of Tilda Swanson playing a criminally stupid attorney screams buckets of cash.

--Dude in love with a Blow-Job Doll: That'll kill in the heartland.

--Robert Redford in flannel telling Americans we're the problem: Where do I sign up to invest my retirement in that sure-fire hit?

--We've only had nine Jane Austen movies fail. Anyone for a tenth?

--Wes Anderson always equals blockbuster. Always.

--Hey, let's spend $50 million to have anti-war hippies sing Beatles' tunes.

--Angelina Jolie YOWLing in a movie telling us we're as bad as them? Wish I'd thought of that concept.

Yes, all of these decisons can only add up to one thing: A greedy cash hungry industry. I'll take quaint over naive.

comment #51

Rob says ...

Who's Tilda Swanson?

comment #52

actionman says ...

OddDuck, we will have to agree to disagree on THE KINGDOM. I shouln't have said that it was 100 minutes of pure action; rather, for 100 minutes, I was completely engrossed in the world of the film, and when there was action (the opening 20 minutes and the last 30 minutes), I thought the film delivered more than most. The car flips and the RPG fire-fight were intense. And they looked honest-to-goodness real; if any CGI was used, it was seamlessly blended in. I love the moving camera/rapid editing style that Berg used in both FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS and THE KINGDOM. For me, that style ups the tension in even the most routine dialogue-driven sequences. I loved the relationship that Foxx had with the Saudi cop, and loved that guy's performance in general. And the coda of the movie, that these things will keep happening, was true and honest. I happened to think that Mann's fingerprints were all over this baby. It wasn't narratively challenging like SYRIANA or RENDITION. It was a straight-ahead action flick with a topical setting. I'd like to see more of these.

comment #53

George Prager says ...

And this part: (?)

"Long enough for the info to be useless. The american soldier is found dead, sexually mutilated, but we can all sleep better knowing our phone calls aren't being monitored."

Not from the New York Post, or the wingnut Captain's Quarter's blog. That's just mrmystery's masturbation material.

I still endorse our "strict laws about surveillance." That's what makes our country still great. But mrmystery would rather live in a police state along with all the other chickenhawks.

comment #54

T. Holly says ...

it's tilda swansong.

jeff mira, i don't believe you, where's the crix pix link?

comment #55

George Prager says ...

Do the math, Dirty Harry. All of those films together cost about as much as one SPIDERMAN sequel.
And things are better in Iraq? And why should we care? Is Iraq the 51st state?

comment #56

OddDuck says ...

Dirty Harry, how does A Mighty Heart "tell us we're as bad as them"? Please be specific.

comment #57

mrmystery says ...

Georgie
ooo "wingnut"
how harsh
so... it didn't happen?
"that's what makes our country great."
tell that to the parents and loved ones of Spc. Alex Jimenez, the soldier in question.

comment #58

OddDuck says ...

mrmystery, the link you posted is not necessarily the gospel on the matter at hand.

http://themoderatevoice.com/media/blogging/15634/alex-jimenez-as-fisa-poster-boy/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/15/reyes-gop-cynically-usin_n_68563.html

Plenty are saying that the right wing pretty much twisted the truth on this debacle for political purposes. But I'm sure your mind is already made up so no need to take in any more information.

comment #59

George Prager says ...

Spc. Alex Jimenez, the object of your fantasy, hasn't been found, but I'm sure you support the deportation of his wife. God Bless America.

comment #60

Dirty Harry says ...

GeorgePrager: Why should we care if things are better in Iraq? Wow. I'll let you work that one out.

Oh, and I did the math: Spidey 3 made money. Those other films are bleeding red ink.

OddDuck: Our state department official coldly watches our allies torture a Muslim but we don't even hear HEAR what the terrorists do to Pearl. And there's zero context outside of this incident anywhere in the film -- except, of course, selective pictures from Gitmo that don't show the great treatment those prisoners receive.

And if you don't believe the prisoners at Gitmo receive splendid treatment watch Michael Moore's "Sicko."

"Heart," is the worst kind of moral relativism. And again, if you don't believe me, Daniel Pearl's father said pretty much the same thing. And I hope you liberals offer Pearl's father the same moral authority you do Mother Sheehan. Here's the link (to The Guardian, no less!)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2172049,00.html

comment #61

PerfectTommy says ...

DZ - About those failing Jane Austen films.
I made a quick check and found that Keira Knightly's "Pride and Prejudice" took in $38 million in the US and $121 world wide. And back in '95 "Sense and Sensibility" took in $43 mil in the US with a $16 budget for the film, "Emma" in '96 took in $22 mil in the US on a $6 mil budget. My wife and daughters will see anything based on an Austen work that has a chance of being decent ('The Jane Austen Book Club' is doesn't count being a mere name dropper, but "Clueless sure did.)

comment #62

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"Plenty are saying that the right wing pretty much twisted the truth on this debacle for political purposes. But I'm sure your mind is already made up so no need to take in any more information."

A pretty perfect description of Nick Broomfield's fictitious Haditha smear job, I'd say. Coming soon to an empty theater near you!

"Spc. Alex Jimenez, the object of your fantasy, hasn't been found, but I'm sure you support the deportation of his wife. God Bless America."

That's the best D.Z. imitation yet, even if it didn't mention Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand.

You know, if I want to be lied to by kneejerk liberals smearing our soldiers, I don't go to the movies. That's what I subscribe to The New Republic for!

comment #63

Craig Kennedy says ...

Dirty Harry, even if you assume all those movies are going to lose money, and you're delusional if you think that, all it proves is that the studios made bad decisions.

It does not prove that Hollywood is a liberal cabal out to brainswash you for any other reason than to seperate you from your cash.

If you actually saw all of those movies, then obviously they're doing that job quite nicely. If you haven't, then you don't know what the fuck you're even talking about.

Seriously, where does Jane Austen fit into your commie conspiracy theory?

"Ice cream, Mandrake. Children's ice cream..."

comment #64

Craig Kennedy says ...

and no, I have no idea what 'brainswash' means, though I am aware of how to spell 'separate'.

comment #65

George Prager says ...

Why is Dirty Harry continuing to tell me things that I don't care about?

comment #66

OddDuck says ...

Dirty Harry, I'm not a liberal. I'm barely a democrat on most issues.

Interesting link to Daniel Pearl's father. I respectfully disagree with him and you about it. I don't see moral relativism going on in this movie. They don't directly depict Pearl's beheading because that would be repulsive and beyond the bounds of what any audience should expect - instead they show us the pained look of his friends and colleagues as they watch the horrifying video. So it's hardly fair to point to this as part of some liberal agenda. They oh-so-briefly show footage from Gitmo because the initial demand letter was for prisoners to be released from there.

And to simply say that prisoners received splendid treatment is a bit silly. My feelings on the "enhanced interrogation techniques" is decidedly mixed, but let's be honest and at least admit that "splendid" is not an appropriate word to describe them.

I thought A Mighty Heart did a very good job of remaining relatively NEUTRAL on the wider issues, and simply focus on the story of Daniel Pearl and his wife. Daniel Pearl's father is entitled to his opinion, and of course no one can imagine what it is like to lose a son that way, but it's not like he's the final judge on this matter.

comment #67

Alan Cerny says ...

If soldiers die so I don't have to get my phone tapped or my e-mails read, well, that's their job. The Constitution still fucking matters to me.

And before you get all pinko, I mean all the Constitution, including the right to own guns. When you psycho righties come banging down my door because I didn't file Form458H69 Permission to Doggiestyle My Wife In Sexual Congress, I want to make sure I go for the headshot.

comment #68

George Prager says ...

Why does chickenhawk Mgmax want our soldiers to die?

comment #69

Dirty Harry says ...

dj: "It does not prove that Hollywood is a liberal cabal out to brainswash you for any other reason than to seperate you from your cash."

Had I said anything of the sort that would've been an excellent response.However, what I said was in reference to this Fall's slate of A Mighty flops not The Industry:

"Hollywood also doesn't understand -- because too many of them make up the 20% of Democrats polled who admit they want us to lose in Iraq -- that good people are frustrated because we're not winning in Iraq, not because we're not losing.

These anti-war polemics designed to dishearten the public into electing liberal Democrats who will hand Iraq over to the terrorists" also don't help themselves by being stand-alone lousy films."

Of course, Hollywood wants to make money. But some of you naive souls think that's an absolute all-the-time motivator when we all know it's not.

To paint my POV as one that says Hollywood is only ever a liberal propaganda machine is nothing more than a weak way of discounting my point by pushing it to an extreme.

Now, please don't make me start believing that some of you think Hollywood never pumps out propaganda knowing it will lose money. That would make all of you sound as absurd in your absolute as you're trying to make me sound.

comment #70

PerfectTommy says ...

Sorry, the Jane Austen box office update should have gone to Dirty Harry, not DZ.

comment #71

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"Why does chickenhawk Mgmax want our soldiers to die?"

Not as good as the first D.Z. imitation. It doesn't quite have the ring, though it's a mindless cliche, so it comes close.

comment #72

Bocephus says ...

"tell that to the parents and loved ones of Spc. Alex Jimenez, the soldier in question."

They should be proud of their son's sacrifice. He died, as many many others have died and will die in the past and future, so that we all can live in a free country. If we allow the US to become a police state, if we give up our liberty, we waste the sacrifice of millions of Americans throughout the centuries. What is it you people say? "Freedom isn't free."

Also, about the terrorists, the ones who hate our freedom. Don't they win if we trade our freedoms for secruity?

comment #73

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"I thought A Mighty Heart did a very good job of remaining relatively NEUTRAL on the wider issues,"

Exactly the problem, some of us would say.

I don't really need a balanced view of religious-fascist psychotic headchoppers.

comment #74

Dirty Harry says ...

OddDuck: I had to review "Sicko" and saw it with a very sympathetic audience (and I personally found Moore entertaining, as ususal) but when he was going on about how great the prisoners are treated at Gitmo I could hear the liberals cringe. They knew he'd gone way too far to make his point.

Have you ever heard a liberal cringe? Oh, but it's a beautiful sound: The first bird of Spring, a child's first words, the approaching helicopter from a mountain your stranded on... *chokes up* Memories.

comment #75

Craig Kennedy says ...

Dirty Harry, I'm not discounting your point that people don't want to go to the movies to watch us lose the war, others have said the same thing, I'm laughing at your world view irrespective of politics. It's from the same mold as people who don't believe we landed on the moon or that George Bush brought down the World Trade Center.

comment #76

George Prager says ...

MgMax is the right-wing D.Z. spouting cliches that were cliches 50 years ago. That's why he brings up D.Z. But basically, he's just a Babbit, content to let the poor fight what he thinks are his/our battles.

comment #77

OddDuck says ...

Dirty Harry, what does the level of medical expertise at Gitmo have to do with anything? No one's arguing that we don't have doctors there. And you basically had nothing to say in response to my refutations of your earlier critque of the movie. Instead you bring some stupid one liner about liberal strawmen.

It's pretty hard to discuss this with you, as it seems like you're more interested in meaningless one liners that don't do anything to further the conversation.

And Mgmax, I don't think A Mighty Heart tries to present a "balanced" view of anything. It simply tells the small story of the investigation into Daniel Pearl's kidnapping. Why does it have to present a big statement on one side or the other? Oh, I remember, it's because you're either with us or against us, right?

comment #78

George Prager says ...

I won't argue with Dirty Harry anymore, because he is Detective Harry Callahan, a.k.a. Dirty Harry. He could have nailed the Zodiac Killer early on, but that Berkeley professor argued for the guy's release because of lack of evidence. But he got him in the end after he hijacked that school bus full of kids. I have a lot of respectability for that. I think it is cool that he is posting on this board.

comment #79

Dirty Harry says ...

OddDuck: "I thought A Mighty Heart did a very good job of remaining relatively NEUTRAL on the wider issues."

Isn't NUETRAL another word for "equivalence?" I think it is.

CJKennedy: I had no idea I had told you my worldview. How nice of you laugh at it without making me go to all the trouble.

comment #80

Gaydos says ...

Best. String. Ever.

comment #81

Craig Kennedy says ...

Dirty Harry: I inferred it from comments you've made and you've said nothing to contradict me.

Ok then, I've spoken to DZ this month and had a pointless argument with a stranger. As a side bonus, I offended marketing professionals and even pissed off a few Oprah fans. I think my job here is done.

comment #82

Caustic712 says ...

I am truly sorry for what happened to Alex Jimenez, and to all his colleagues who've been killed and wounded. I am grateful for the service of those still fighting, and I wish them all a safe return. I thank them all for their sacrifices.

So remind me, Mr. Mystery... did we, the surrender monkeys, put these men and women in harm's way in the first place? Did the ACLU decide the strategy that all involved (except maybe the CEO) now acknowledge was a massive failure? And are those of us who oppose the Iraq war the ones keeping them in danger now?

I think we're all patriots here, even if we're arguing over the definition of freedom on a movie blog while our representatives fight on the other side of the world. And I don't know anyone who wants to "lose" in Iraq... but it's time we all heard some sensible definition of "win".

comment #83

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"But basically, he's just a Babbit, content to let the poor fight what he thinks are his/our battles."

Better D.Z. than the last one, but not as good as the first one. Not sure D.Z. would have heard of Sinclair Lewis, though, unless Tarantino ripped him off (try to work that into your next one).

I am pleased, though, that you recognize that my worldview is closer to that of liberalism 50 years ago than to the nihilistic, moral-equivalence, hate-America-first statist isolationism that somehow has stolen the name "liberal" despite being closer to, shall we say, other movements of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s in many ways.

comment #84

George Prager says ...

We already won. "Mission Accomplished" and all that. So let's bring the soldiers home and let the Iraqis hash it out.

comment #85

Dirty Harry says ...

cj: Infer away, my friend. But I'm gonna give you a little insight into my worldview.

This is a movie site, so let me put it this way: I didn't leave George Clooney, George Clooney left me.

I'm still with the morally outraged George Clooney in "Three Kings" who didn't think it was right for America to make a promise to 25 million innocent Iraqis and then abandon them to death squads and terrorists.

Why George and his ilk now want us to abandon 25 million innocent Iraqis to death squads and terrorosts... I don't know. Maybe America always has to be wrong? Why wrong then, but not now?

comment #86

George Prager says ...

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana (not Tarantino's first choice to play "Zed" in PULP FICTION).

comment #87

PastePotPete says ...

Just want to say I think Wells was dead on in blog post at the top. Content is everything.

Most of these films are sold through word of mouth more than anything else - I mean most people simply do not read any movie reviews beyond those in the local paper, which give prominence to the studio flicks more often than not.

If someone were to ask me what Michael Clayton was about, I couldn't do it in few enough words to prevent the listener's eyes from glazing over. And these are more or less educated individuals.

That said I have managed to convince a dozen or so people to see Jesse James when it opens here this weekend(finally!) based merely on the words "Jesse James" (for the guys) and "Brad Pitt" (for the women).

comment #88

T. Holly says ...

Best string ever until da swan sings again.

comment #89

OddDuck says ...

Dirty Harry wrote: "Isn't NUETRAL another word for "equivalence?" I think it is."

And I think you're a douchebag.

But more importantly, the answer to your question is NO. The movie has nothing to say about any similarities/differences between the two because that's NOT what the movie's about. There's a difference between claiming equivalence between the two and not saying anything about it at all. But you got that already and were just being a dick in your last post to me, right?

More than anything else, this movie is a crime procedural about the investigation into Daniel Pearl's kidnapping. I actually see some similarities between it and United 93. Both movies are incredibly specific and narrow in their subject matter, and with a great deal of versimilitude, address relatively small (but still hugely impactful) components of 9/11 and the "global war on terror."

comment #90

christian says ...

Anybody who has to use captain'squarterblog as a reference is already suspect. Hugh Hewitt is a big fan too.

But the fact is nobody is shacked by the ACLU. Under FISA you can wiretap who the fuck you want when you want. Just be prepared to show some proof 72 hours later. The President has been told by his lawschool advisors he can do what he wants regardless. It's good to be da king.

And as others have noted it wasn't the ACLU that sent people to be killed in a false war. I'm not sure what we're teaching the Iraqis.

comment #91

corey3rd says ...

Let's just blame Netflix and people who invest a nice chunk of change in their new 60 inch HDTVs. Why pay $20 to see a small indie film when if you wait a couple months you can see it at home? What's the point of creating a home theater if you keep going out for the movie going experience.

Here's another blame - people having kids. Amazingly enough the cultured arthouse crowd doesn't want to drag their 2 year old to see the latest indie feature. So they drop out of the loop. They aren't prone to take toddlers to the films like the folks who turn Saw 4 into a daycare center.

comment #92

Dirty Harry says ...

neutral; not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy.

equivalence: a state of being essentially equal or equivalent; equally balanced;

OddDuck, I think you meant to call the dictionary a douchebag, or were you just being a dick in your last post?

comment #93

jeffmcm says ...

Just arriving at this thread: I see that with a few strokes of his keypad, Jeff Wells has successfully made a lot of people waste their time yelling at each other and paid his bills for today all at the same time.

And is anybody else any better off? I doubt it.

comment #94

George Prager says ...

Anyone else get the feeling that jeffmcm was picked last in gym class?

comment #95

jeffmcm says ...

No, I just woke up an hour ago.

comment #96

T. Holly says ...

No he hasn't, that swimsuit ad is gone. I was actually going to click and look around because my gym's pool opened and I need something to wear -- you know -- new housing for the growing puppies.

comment #97

OddDuck says ...

Dirty Harry, I didn't hear you condemn the act of horse fucking in your last post, although, to be fair, you didn't advocate it either. So I therefore assume you're neutral on the matter.

comment #98

jeffmcm says ...

Oh, and if DZ posted something on this thread, I don't see it anymore. But since I don't want to be accused of being neutral on him, I'll preemptively say, Shut Up DZ.

comment #99

jeffmcm says ...

Was Dirty Harry claiming that A Mighty Heart was equivocating on the subject of Daniel Pearl's murder? He must have missed that five-minute long scene where his wife is weeping and screaming when she finds out that he's dead.

comment #100

George Prager says ...

It looks like jeffmcm did a flip-flop on this thread

comment #101

Dirty Harry says ...

OddDuck: You know the filmmaker condemned the torture of that terrorist, the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo, and Pearl's death. You know that because you're a bright guy, just stubborn.

Two of these three events were explicit: Those committed by the West.

The act of terrorism on the other hand wasn't shown at all.

My calling the film neutral and/or equivalent is being generous.

As an American it's not a film I'd show to someone. As a terrorist I would, gladly.

comment #102

jeffmcm says ...

Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in.

comment #103

jeffmcm says ...

DirtyHarry, you're wrong in several ways:
The act of terrorism wasn't shown in the movie because we already knew what it consisted of. Why show it? You already know what it looks like. It sounds like you're demanding that films preach to your particular choir.
The only effect showing a film like A Mighty Heart to a terrorist would be to expose him/her to Mrs. Pearl's suffering - which is what the film was about.

comment #104

T. Holly says ...

No one else saw the swimsuit ad? It was here, and I thought Jeff had to because the "for your consideration" ad people don't think Academy voters troll here. I think they do.

comment #105

Lipstik Music says ...

Any blogger that doesn't have comments enabled is a fucking idiot. I could lose half my day reading these things on this site. I believe this is "Web 2.0". Fun.

Re: grosses

I tend to agree that it's surfeit of material. Also, I work at a research company. Hard to overstate the impact of the evolution of home cinema. Netflix + big wide screen flat panels + better TV (DVR/TIVO) + HD DVD. We did a survey of 600 consumers and 50% (!) said that if a movie came out on DVD/on-demand the same day as in theaters they would buy the DVD/on-demand. Ack. The death of the exhibitioners is imminent.

comment #106

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

I just bought a Sony SXRD set. Under 2 grand.

My wife and I go to a movie, get a babysitter and soft drinks at the movie, no popcorn even, it's close to a 100 dollar night. (Actually the money matters less than the fact that getting a babysitter is not easy.)

The TV will be paid off within the year. That's the new economics of the theatrical movie business.

comment #107

Dirty Harry says ...

Jeff: "Was Dirty Harry claiming that A Mighty Heart was equivocating on the subject of Daniel Pearl's murder?"

No. That's OddDuck's argument.

"The act of terrorism wasn't shown in the movie because we already knew what it consisted of."

And we haven't seen the Abu Ghraib photos ad nauseum? Don't you think we knew what that consisted of? Haven't we seen Gitmo photos ad nauseum? Don't you think we knew what that consisted of?

Funny what the filmmaker decided to show again and again of what already knew the consistence of.

And I'm not demanding films preach anything. Never have. Never will. I'm simply discussing what this one did preach. A Mighty Difference, no?

And did the Brother-Kisser's Yowls only last five minutes? I thought it was, oh, forever?

comment #108

OddDuck says ...

Dirty Harry is being a dick and is very much claiming that A Might Heart equivocates terrorism and Gitmo.

And Dirty Harry, this argument of yours that briefly showing Gitmo and the torture of a suspect in Pearl's kidnapping, and then not showing the actual beheading is evidence of liberal bias - this is the dumbest thing I've read in a long long time.

The movie shows like 2 seconds of footage from Gitmo in the context of the kidnapper's demands that Gitmo prisoners be released. The torture of the terrorist is also quite brief, and was a part of the investigation into Pearl's kidnapping. I'm sorry, but both of these acts are relevant to the story, so it's appropriate that they are in the movie. Now, you're arguing that because the movie contains like twenty seconds of footage that shows the U.S. and it's allies in something less than perfect idyllic light -- but is still hardly inflammatory, as there's nothing in this footage that we haven't seen before or don't know about -- you're saying that because we showed twenty seconds of this we now need to see Daniel Pearl's head being cut off? And to not show that barbaric act is to somehow draw equivolence between Gitmo and beheadings? The presence of the first two acts is justified by the story and is handled very quickly, matter of factly, and most important, unprovocatively. This movie is all about versimilitude and the feeling of "being there." Details matter, including the kidnapper's demands and the Pakistani police officers' methods of investigation.

As to the lack of explicit footage of the beheading, I think any sane civilized person can understand why we don't need to see that. And as someone else upthread mentioned, we are given ample display of the tragedy of that event, both through the eyes of his colleagues as they witness it, and even more so through his wife's reaction.

Frankly, your criticism makes no sense and kind of reeks of desparation. And you're an idiot.

comment #109

Dirty Harry says ...

OddDuck: Why are we arguing? We agree. You say nuetral.I say equivalence. It's the same thing: the not-taking of sides.

And now you say we needed to SEE the gitmo footage. Really? The terrorist demands based on Gitmo wasn't enough? We had to SEE it because it was "part of the investigation?" We had to SEE the mostly coddled Gitmo prisoners with their superior healthcare and religious-specific meals, all bound and gagged or the story wouldn't have worked? Really?

And we needed to SEE the torture? It couldn't have merely been a shot of our State Department guy turning away with a grimace? You know, like they did during the Pearl footage.

Wy the film would've sucked even harder without that footage!

You make that argument but call me the desperate idiot...

comment #110

christian says ...

The difference here is that Bush and his flock have never admitted any torture has occured -- outside of Limbaugh's assertion that it was nothing worse than a frat haze. I guess like Bush branding the flesh of Yale pledges. No wonder he equivocates.

comment #111

storymark says ...

Wow. Just read this whole thread.

Dirty Harry: Those definitions you posted for neutral and equivalence could only mean the same thing to a simpleton or someone with a very tenuous grasp on the English language.

Now stop being a dick.

comment #112

OddDuck says ...

I didn't say that we needed to see these scenes, just their inclusion makes sense, given their relevance to the story. You instead jump to the conclusion that they're there to make a political point, even though nothing in how these scenes are presented supports that argument.

And for the final time, we DON'T AGREE on equivalence, but I think nine out of ten HE poster do agree you're a moist, fishy smelling douchebag.

comment #113

D.Z. says ...

"Could it be because the leave-us-aloners and the too-sooners didn't want to see a brilliant Michael Winterbottom film -- so powerfully composed and finely edited it felt like something directed by Michael Mann -- about a good-guy journalist who gets his head cut off by Islamic bad guys?"

They didn't see it, because they couldn't relate to the guy playing the journalist, because it was really a Jolie Oscar-bait vehicle.

"Uhm...because there aren't enough people out there who want to hang with a blue-collar simpleton (jowly, moustache, work boots, flannel shirts) who falls in love with a life-size plastic love doll? Because, you know...the average person finds this idea ludicrous, particularly when the film shows dozens and dozens of people (including hospital administrators) pretending out of sympathy and compassion for this borderline retard that the doll is real also?"

I think the reason is more about the fact that there are plenty of people already like that on MySpace.

"Abramowitz notes that "a crew of classy star vehicles from studios -- essentially art films with bigger budgets -- has [also] been flailing at the box office. Despite George Clooney's tub-thumping, Michael Clayton has earned only $21 million." And that's because people sensed corporate complexity and a lack of emotional undertow and figured, "Looks like a smart, well-made film but you know what? Netflix."

I attribute it more to bad marketing and a lack of a hook.

"Cate Blanchett's Elizabeth: The Golden Age has only earned $11 million because -- is everyone sitting down? -- it's an outrageously awful, self-mocking costume drama."

It did badly for the same reason Master and Commander did badly: No one cares about territorial wars involving rich, white people.

"Why has Andrew Dominik and Brad Pitt's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford earned only $2 million? Uhmm...because people don't want to know from exquisitely made western art films that feel like a Terrence Malick time-machine transportation? Because they're like, uhm...lazy and sometimes moronic in their judgments and determinations?"

Because it's a long title with bad marketing which emphasizes Affleck over Pitt?

DirtyHarry: "Hollywood also doesn't understand -- because too many of them make up the 20% of Democrats polled who admit they want us to lose in Iraq --"

So the 60-70% of Americans who want out and voted Democrat last year hate this country, too?

"Things are better in Iraq -- much to the consternation of those 20% of Democrats hoping we lose and making films eager to capture that Roof-Of-The-Embassy zeitgeist."

Yes, because now it's not just the Sunni vs the Shia over there, but the Kurds vs the Turks, too. How dare anyone think that this is a quagmire.

mrmystery: "American intelligence intercept internet transmission of the kidnappers discussing what to do with the soldier, kill him now or later, film it, torture etc. The intelligence officers want to use the transmission to locate the kidnappers and save the american soldier's life. The problem is that the internet hub is in the USA and the spooks need clearane so the ACLU and the surrender monkeys on capital hill don't bring them up on charges for eavesdropping. Takes ten hours to get clearance. Long enough for the info to be useless. The american soldier is found dead, sexually mutilated, but we can all sleep better knowing our phone calls aren't being monitored."

If one our soldiers gets caught like that in the first place, that just means our strategy isn't working, eavesdropping or no
eavesdropping...Anyway, even if wiretapping powers were expanded, I'd be surprised if the POW was still alive in ten minutes, let alone ten hours. You're ignoring the real issue, which is that we really don't know what the fuck we're doing over there, because our forces are being commanded by a guy who can't even tell the difference between a Sunni or a Shiite.

"Our state department official coldly watches our allies torture a Muslim but we don't even hear HEAR what the terrorists do to Pearl."

The difference is that Pearl chose to be in that situation, while the Muslim was likely abducted from his/her home.

'And if you don't believe the prisoners at Gitmo receive splendid treatment watch Michael Moore's "Sicko."'

Keeping prisoners alive isn't the same thing as respecting their rights.

comment #114

OddDuck says ...

Oh shit, D.Z.'s here. Dirty Harry, God be with you, I can't participate any further in this thread.

comment #115

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

The Hollywood Elsewhere version of Godwin's Law is that the argument is finished and lost the first time someone calls someone else a douchebag.

comment #116

Dirty Harry says ...

OddDuck: "You instead jump to the conclusion that they're there to make a political point, even though nothing in how these scenes are presented supports that argument."

"Political point" doesn't matter. I'm talking end result. Regardless of Winterbottom's motive the end result is moral equivalence. Was he trying to make a political point? Probably, but I don't know. Was he trying to make a lousy dull film? I don't know.

But I do know what the end result was: However you want to put it: equivalence/neutrality is up to you.

"And for the final time, we DON'T AGREE on equivalence,"

Yeah, we do. You just call it neutrality because your pride won't let you admit you're wrong.

"but I think nine out of ten HE poster do agree you're a moist, fishy smelling douchebag."

How will I go on?

Has everyone read this? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2172049,00.html

DZ: "So the 60-70% of Americans who want out and voted Democrat last year hate this country, too?"

I'm curious about the thought process that led from my recitation of the fact that 20% of Democrats want us to lose the war to that.

"The difference is that Pearl chose to be in that situation, while the Muslim was likely abducted from his/her home."

I didn't know Pearl chose to be kidnapped and tortured. Well, hell, then, fuck him. My bad. Nevermind. Wells, mind erasing this thread? I'm redfaced with embarrassment.

"Keeping prisoners alive isn't the same thing as respecting their rights."

Under the Geneva Convention they have no rights. The GC, btw, was agreed upon by most countries, not just we right wing neocons. If they wanted rights they should've worn a uniform.

And we don't just keep them alive. We keep them fat, healthy, and practicing their religion.

Ahh, if only liberals were as outraged by terrorist atrocities... Then we might find common ground.

Mgmax: Or brings up "horsefucking."

comment #117

BurmaShave says ...

Today was my day off (I work a strange week with a Saturday) so I took the oppurtunity to finally see THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD. What a damn fine movie. I don't think the Terrence Malick tag is quite accurate, it's more like something Ridley Scott might have directed between THE DUELLISTS and ALIEN.

Point is, my girlfriend and I were checking the paper (she wants to see DAN IN REAL LIFE tomorrow night. Yay?) for movie listings this weekend, and the damn thing is GONE from the DC area starting tomorrow. I'm so fucking glad I got to see it on the big screen (even if I had to walk out during the first 4 minutes and tell them it wasn't framed properly.) It's tragic how they're dumping it after 3 weeks. If only they'd handled the MICHAEL CLAYTON screens responsibly, it could still be plugging along and JESSE JAMES could be hanging on for dear life.

To put it in harsh perspective, SAW IV will probably make as much money this weekend as ZODIAC, ONCE and JESSE JAMES made all year combined. How long has it been in this country that the best films of the year are the ones that no one goes to see?

P.S. I checked out DARJEELING also. It's minor Anderson, but great. Why is everyone piling on so much?

comment #118

D.Z. says ...

Dirty: "I'm curious about the thought process that led from my recitation of the fact that 20% of Democrats want us to lose the war to that."

If 20% of Democrats want us to "lose", what does that say about the majority of Americans who agree with them about leaving?

"I didn't know Pearl chose to be kidnapped and tortured."

He chose to meet a shady guy with ties to a terrorist group. Do the math.

"Under the Geneva Convention they have no rights.The GC, btw, was agreed upon by most countries, not just we right wing neocons. If they wanted rights they should've worn a uniform."

Actually, they do have rights, but we're not calling them POWs, so that we can side-step upholding their rights.

"We keep them fat, healthy, and practicing their religion."

So what do you call beating, water-boarding, and flushing the Koran down the toilet?

comment #119

Dirty Harry says ...

DZ: "If 20% of Democrats want us to "lose", what does that say about the majority of Americans who agree with them about leaving?"

The 20% is a fact taken from a poll. The rest of America (and Democrats) don't want us in a war we're not winning. And the numbers for "them leaving" aren't for "them leaving immediately."

"He chose to meet a shady guy with ties to a terrorist group. Do the math."

If you think Pearl in some way had it coming, that's on you.

"Actually, they do have rights, but we're not calling them POWs, so that we can side-step upholding their rights"

Hate to break it you, but you saying they have rights, doesn't make it so. The only POW's with rights are those covered by the Geneva Convention and unless you're in uniform when fighting you're not covered by the GC.

"So what do you call beating, water-boarding, and flushing the Koran down the toilet?"

Flushing the Koran was discovered to be not true. Sorry. We don't beat prisoners. And those who do have and are being punished -- as they should be. I don't know if we waterboard, but I have no problem with it if we do. It causes no permanent damage.

comment #120

BurmaShave says ...

DirtyHarry and D.Z. have finally met their match. We can all step back and enjoy. I would recommend for our own mutual amusement that Wells post at least one politically related item a day.

comment #121

BurmaShave says ...

It's like watching someone play Chess with himself.

comment #122

Dirty Harry says ...

To you Koran-flushing believers: Try it.

May I suggest that even when you desperately want to believe something bad about our country that a little healthy skepticicsm mixed with common sense is still in order.

comment #123

malibugigolo says ...

I had no idea In the Valley of Elah was already out.

In any case, if you look at movies like Deer Hunter and Coming Home they were about people first, politics second.

comment #124

bmcintire says ...

"It did badly for the same reason Master and Commander did badly: No one cares about territorial wars involving rich, white people."

MASTER & COMMANDER did $93M, and opened to $25M. ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE will be very, very lucky to even make it to $20M.

comment #125

Gordie Lachance says ...

I was running around today, in a panic, because The Assasination Of Jesse James is being pulled from the Clearview near me after only 2 weeks and I hadn't seen it yet. I've never seen a film (except a revival) have such a shot stay there.

Luckily, I found a theater a bit of a ways away who have re-upped it for another week. God bless them.

comment #126

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

It's like watching Death play chess with himself.

comment #127

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"So what do you call beating, water-boarding, and flushing the Koran down the toilet?"

Abuse, torture and performance art.

comment #128

D.Z. says ...

Dirty Harry: "If you think Pearl in some way had it coming, that's on you."

I didn't say he had it coming. I said that he put himself in a dangerous situation without thinking it through.

"Hate to break it you, but you saying they have rights, doesn't make it so. The only POW's with rights are those covered by the Geneva Convention"

And those POWs are usually referred to as POWs. We think we can avoid that by not calling them that.

"and unless you're in uniform when fighting you're not covered by the GC."

You are, if you're a civilian, which is basically most of the population.

"Flushing the Koran was discovered to be not true. Sorry."

Sorry for you. http://www.crooksandliars.com/index.php?s=Koran+flushing

"We don't beat prisoners."

Sorry, again. http://zaphodsheads.blogspot.com/2005/06/us-soldier-beaten-at-guantanamo-bay_17.html

"I don't know if we waterboard, but I have no problem with it if we do.It causes no permanent damage."

If you don't include the brain, then sure.

comment #129

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, you do more harm than good with your argument style. Please stop hurting America.

comment #130

D.Z. says ...

jeff: I'm still waiting for America to stop hurting Iraq.

comment #131

AJW says ...

Why should they have shown the beheading in A Might Heart? Should Werner Herzog have shared the Tim Treadwell audio with us?

To me,
Neutral: Refusing to comment one way or the other. Presenting a situation and allowing your audience to decide completely for itself how to feel. Very few movies are neutral, and even fewer good ones. Neutrality works much better in novels, which can more easily take a detached, objective tone through narration.

Equivocating: Implying or explicitly stating that two actions bear the same (equivalent) moral weight. e.g. Traffic in some ways equivocates the drug czar and his drinking with those his war targets.

If Winterbottom cut between Pearl's torture/beheading and the torture of the suspect, then that would be equivocating. Showing ill treatment at Gitmo because the terrorists demanded the release of Gitmo prisoners and showing the torture of a terror suspect as part of the investigation need not be equivocating; it could just be, wait for it, part of the story and its setting.

comment #132

jeffmcm says ...

DZ, you are doing more harm than good.
AJW: You are exactly right.

comment #133

BurmaShave says ...

Someone tell Schamus we've got 134 people talking about the indie films this fall! (Neglect to mention it's been mostly a Moonbat and Wingnut sucking each other's dick)

comment #134

alynch says ...

This is a fun thread. We should try to have one of these once a week.

comment #135

jeffmcm says ...

I just read the Dirty Harry/DZ stuff.

Who thinks it's just one guy?

comment #136

BurmaShave says ...

You know jeff, I had that same frightening thought. That would mean we were dealing with a complete monster. I don't even want to really consider it.

comment #137

Dirty Harry says ...

DZ: Those are your sources? Oh, you win. I'm sold.

comment #138

romeoisbleeding says ...

I am not surprised so many of the so called Fall serious movies are failing. Bad titles... boring stories. too much sadness. I will say it again and again. The best movies this year are Zodiac and Once. I could see them again and again. They did not let me down. I am bored silly with the movies out now.

comment #139

Craig Kennedy says ...

The great thing is that I can now tell a DZ post within a line or two so I don't even have to scroll down to see the name to know to move on.

Burmashave: "P.S. I checked out DARJEELING also. It's minor Anderson, but great. Why is everyone piling on so much" People enjoy kicking the movie nerd right now. It's weird, I know, but there you go.

comment #140

jeffmcm says ...

Hey everyone, check out Dirty Harry's weblink for a laugh.

comment #141

christian says ...

Which one of youse guys is Michael Medved?

comment #142

Chicago48 says ...

As a consumer and some-time reviewer, I can only remember two movies that struck me as "worthy" of any awards or mentioning this year and that's Eastern Promises and (don't laugh) Waitress. I clearly remember those two movies and walked out of the theatre remembering the characters and their plight. The other movies I saw, just faded away in memory. I enjoyed 3:10, looking forward to American Gangster, There will be blood and Atonement. Other than those three, there's nothing driving me to the movies.

comment #143

Chicago48 says ...

Addendum -- there are few "bigger" than life actors and actresses. [I don't consider Julia and Tom bigger than life actors and actresses] I don't know, but I miss the glamor, and I miss the film noir and intriguing edge-of-your-seat storyline movies. I miss the Last Seductions, Bound, and Red River Rock type movies that showcased dangerous women. Even the violence is up-close and personal, and I think there's something to be left to the imagination instead of giving it to the audience.There is a reason why Hitchcok was revered and imitated.

comment #144

jeffmcm says ...

Man did I hate Waitress.

comment #145

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

To get back to reality, sanity and movies for a moment:

Yes, it's obvious that there's simply a glut out there-- for Christ's sake, we've got two Westerns in theaters, when did that last happen? (The Long Riders and Heaven's Gate?). One Iraq movie might reach an audience; one a week clearly will not.

And I think the "wait for Netflix" thing is a real issue. I'm as art-filmy as anybody but even I think, is this worth seeing on a big screen, $10 to get in and $10 to have water and popcorn for two hours, dorks talking and projection out of focus, or will ONCE actually look BETTER at home? It probably will, frankly. And I don't think that makes me a mouth-breathing red-state ape. When I go to theaters, it needs to justify the big screen experience, which doesn;t mean big and dumb pop hits necessarily (I go to lots of silent film screenings) but does need to mean noticeably better than seeing it at home. Somehow art films have to figure out how to seem like successes despite not clicking in the samne theaters as Spiderman and Transformers.

I'm not convinced, though, that we've missed anything stellar this season, however. If there was a 400 Blows-- or a Rushmore-- in this bunch, it would have been greeted with more rapture and caught on. Movies like Elah or Things We Lost in the Fire exist every year-- worthy, dutiful viewing-- and they fail to click every year (last year's was Little Children). Is there really a movie in this bunch you'll be treasuring and quoting in 30 years? Maybe No Country For Old Men or There Will Be Blood will fit that bill, ultimately, but I'm not convinced we've let one slip by yet this season.

comment #146

Lipstik Music says ...

Burmashave's "minor Anderson" comment reminds me of that great moment in 'The Squid and the Whale' when Jeff Daniels tells his son that 'A Tale of Two Cities' is "minor Dickens." What a great little phrase. And no I'm not comparing Wes Anderson to Charles Dickens.

comment #147

OddDuck says ...

Mgmax, your complaints about the theatrical experience today are nothing new, but yet the movie theaters seemingly could care less. The last two movies I saw in theaters were both on opening weekends and both times the theaters completely botched the presentation, with misaligned projection and screwed up sound. And it used to be that I could reliably point to some theaters as good and some as bad, but recently I've had terrible experiences at theaters that I once considered reliable. If I were a studio, I would start trying to find ways to improve the quality control at the theaters, because its obvious the theater operators are doing a shitty job at it. That is the number one reason my theater-going has decreased from approx 25/year to easily 10 or under in the past two years. That, and the fact that my HT setup is pretty good.

comment #148

Chicago48 says ...

"Man did I hate Waitress."
Well maybe so, but it made 5 times its production cost back. Last count: 18,699,775

And that's pretty damn good my friend.

comment #149

jeffmcm says ...

Yeah, but it was still badly made and unpleasant to sit through. What do I care how much money other people gave it?

comment #150

D.Z. says ...

Did it make money, because people were genuinely interested, or did it make money, because they missed Felicity?

comment #151

christian says ...

One word: AndyGriffith.