Life Is Hard

email this story
read comments (40)
post a comment

Eight days of play and Tony Gilroy's Duplicity, by any measure an above-average, extremely satisfying film on the terms that it lays out and works with, did $2.3 million yesterday, and will probably end up with $6 million and change by Sunday night. That's a greater-than-50% drop from its opening weekend tally of $13,965,110, which wasn't that great to begin with. Which basically means over and out.

Gilroy's Michael Clayton cost about $26 million to make, and took in $92,991,835 worldwide not counting DVD and whatnot. Duplicity was much pricier -- a guy in a position to know told me $80 million, give or take -- and will probably finish with less than half of Clayton's take, ancillaries aside.

I'm sorry. Life is unfair. Gilroy did as good a job as anyone could have with a sophisticated corporate-suspense brain teaser such as this. And it certainly got the reviews. But Julia Roberts is over and that's the bottom line. Both my kids, 19 and 20, have told me they don't like her at all. Even my ex-wife says she doesn't harbor any affinity. J.R. still has plenty of juice as a feisty lead or character actress as long as she drops her price sufficiently. She had her run. She's worth $400 million or thereabouts. She'll obviously be fine.

Worldwide Aliens<< previous | next >>Odd Men Out

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on March 28, 2009 at 10:08 AM

comment #1

Josh Massey says ...

Somebody invested $80 million in a 2009 Julia Roberts/Clive Owen film? Comparatively, the guys at AIG look like geniuses.

Posted by Josh Massey at March 28, 2009 1:09 PM

comment #2

Cadavra says ...

And once again, a comedy for grown-ups dies like a dog. The Apatowization of America is complete.

Posted by Cadavra at March 28, 2009 1:09 PM

comment #3

Scott Mendelson says ...

Actually, if this film had maintained the budget of a Judd Apatow film, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I never have issues with big action spectacles, especially sure fire franchise sequels, costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Come what may, we usually see where the money went and, statistically speaking, they'll probably recoup it. What drives me nuts is when character-driven comedies and dramas somehow end up costing just as much, and then we wonder why the studios don't make more of them. Duplicity (spoilers here I suppose...) contains no action, no violence, no special effects, and no stunt work that I can recall (spoilers end).

I don't know what Roberts got (I'm guessing not $20 million) and I can't imagine that Owen got more than $5 million. I don't know how much of the shoot was on actual locations. So, barring something I didn't think of, what on earth made this solid, completely entertaining little caper cost $80 million?

When movies like Wonder Boys and Almost Famous (two of my favorite movies of the decade) cost upwards of $60 million, is it any wonder why studios would rather just spend another $100 million on an action extravaganza that has a much better chance at scoring big worldwide? Movies like this should cost $40 million at the most. They'd make their money back and thus we'd see more of them.

Scott

Posted by Scott Mendelson at March 28, 2009 1:28 PM

comment #4

great scott says ...

Clive Owen is simply not a star. Clive Owen is box office poison. Nobody gives a damn about Clive Owen.

Did I mention it's Clive Owen's fault?

Posted by great scott at March 28, 2009 1:36 PM

comment #5

hunterd says ...

How the hell did this cost 80 million?! I will be sorely disappointed if this film ruins Gilroy's directorial career. This and Clayton display him to be one of the most promising new talents of the last 10 years.

Posted by hunterd at March 28, 2009 2:16 PM

comment #6

The InSneider says ...

C'mon Jeff, Julia Roberts is NOT the reason this movie failed. You can put it on her slender shoulders if you want to, but the blame lies with Gilroy, whose script was WAY too clever for its own good, and the AWFUL marketing. But I thought it was a 'meh' movie so as far as I'm concerned, it's getting exactly the type of box office it deserved. It's embarrassing to read you and T-Mac rave about this silly, stupid movie. When your major action set piece is Julia Roberts looking for a fucking special copy machine while some other dude (not even Clive Owen) scrounges around for blueprints, you're in fucking trouble. Julia and Clive have good chemistry and they're dialogue is strong, and Wilkinson and Giamatti provide welcome comic relief but the ending simply isn't satisfying. It's a movie where Gilroy pulls the rug out from beneath the audience. It's nearly contemptible. Fuck Duplicity. And Michael Clayton was fucking overrated too. There. I said it.

Posted by The InSneider at March 28, 2009 2:26 PM

comment #7

Sabina E says ...

welcome to the lives of older actresses who are considered worthless once they hit their 40s.

Posted by Sabina E at March 28, 2009 2:27 PM

comment #8

LeroyBrown says ...

To tell you the truth, I wasn't even that crazy about Julia Roberts when she was 25.

Too bad about the movie, though. It deserves better.

Posted by LeroyBrown at March 28, 2009 2:50 PM

comment #9

mtnz says ...

Its all about the budget. Scott M above is correct. You make a talky film with decent stars for $30-40M and you've got a solid performer. At $80M this had NO shot. Its almost a category killer. Losing a few $M on a prestige product @theatrical with maybe upside on the ancillaries almost any studio can live with. A $40-50M hole out of the gate? NFW.
Stars/agents/studios need to get realistic here. Cut the upfront costs, and put all that cleverness into how to make fun, intelligent(ish) films at a much lower cost. Woody managed it in his golden period. None of those films (Annie Hall excepted) made any money, but they also didn't LOSE much money.
$26M sounds in 2009 about perfect by the way.......
Finally, re JR, she is no longer relevant as a pop icon, but she's still beautiful and can act. Clive Owen is a rich man's Colin Firth.

Posted by mtnz at March 28, 2009 3:12 PM

comment #10

MickTravisMcGee says ...

Here's why it failed: 80% of the people who saw it came out and said, "It gave me a headache."

"Clayton" was just as complicated and dark to boot, but -- unlike Duplicity -- it ended with a noble triumph. So even idiots felt good. In fact, I was surprised how many people stayed in their seats and watched Clooney ride in the cab, even though the movie was clearly over.

I hate to pile on Julia Roberts but whether she's over or not or killed the movie or not, she did not accomplish what her character was supposed to accomplish and that is: seduce us.

She can be hot. But in "Duplicity" she displayed all the sex appeal of a sulky big sister and the character called for a smoldering, so-hot-it-makes-you-angry femme fatale.

Anyway, I like Gilroy but I think his ego could probably use this brief setback.

Posted by MickTravisMcGee at March 28, 2009 3:12 PM

comment #11

erniesouchak says ...

I never understood what anyone saw in "Michael Clayton" and have therefore stayed far away from "Duplicity," even though I've liked Clive Owen in plenty of things. Roberts looks so smug in the trailer I know I couldn't bear watching her for 2 hours.

Posted by erniesouchak at March 28, 2009 3:19 PM

comment #12

/3rtfu11 says ...

It would've made more money coming out in the Fall instead of Spring. Clayton came out in October -- had it come out in Spring it would've done about the same as this Julia Roberts movie.

Posted by /3rtfu11 at March 28, 2009 3:30 PM

comment #13

JT says ...

Good thing he did CLAYTON first! Bet that 4th BOURNE flick is looking pretty sweet now, eh, Tone?

Posted by JT at March 28, 2009 4:10 PM

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

Duplicity's actually cheap enough to make decent international and DVD sales. Universal's really gonna go broke on Inglorious Basterds and possibly Funny People and Public Enemies. Bruno might not flop, but will probably disappoint.

Cadavra: It's a comedy for adults in the top 1%, so it's not unexpected.

great scott: I personally think Owen's got more presence than Jude Law. But he needs less passive roles.

Insneider: Roberts didn't kill the flick, but she didn't sell it, either.

Deaf: It's not her age that's the problem. It's her taking a break for long which is the problem.

Mick: "But in "Duplicity" she displayed all the sex appeal of a sulky big sister and the character called for a smoldering, so-hot-it-makes-you-angry femme fatale."

I guess she didn't learn anything from her mistake on Full Frontal.

Posted by D.Z. at March 28, 2009 5:20 PM

comment #15

T. S. Idiot says ...

How many potential viewers know what the title means?

Posted by T. S. Idiot at March 28, 2009 7:17 PM

comment #16

JVD says ...

Shut the fuck up, D.Z.

Posted by JVD at March 28, 2009 7:53 PM

comment #17

rr3333 says ...

Julia needs to a nude scene. Seriously.

If Kate Winslet can, so can Julia.

Posted by rr3333 at March 28, 2009 8:01 PM

comment #18

Yuval says ...

D.Z. seriously, why are still making so many glib predicitions? Do you enjoy the abuse of your mistakes rubbing you in the face?

BTW - Watchmen has made over a 100 million domestic. Your safe bet was 60 and your absolute limit was 70.

Posted by Yuval at March 28, 2009 8:16 PM

comment #19

SergioM says ...

I with LeroyBrown, I NEVER understood Roberts appeal in the first place. She was never to me that talented or sexy or just plain attractive and now she look even weirder. (Though not as freakingly weird as Nicole Kidman)

Amd GreatScott is right too. Owen is NOT a star. Has he been in ANYTHING that's made money? Why do they keep giving him leads in films?

Posted by SergioM at March 28, 2009 8:17 PM

comment #20

actionman says ...

seeing this tomorrow, really excited for it.

laughed my butt off with I Love You Man

Posted by actionman at March 28, 2009 8:18 PM

comment #21

bfm says ...

Haven't seen it - I still intend to, but I'm equally happy to wait for the DVD release (as incidentally I did for Michael Clayton). It doesn't scream "must see on the big screen" to me. As for my ambivalence: I tend to blame the marketing. I'm more interested in this film because of what Wells is saying about it rather than because of the trailer or advertising.

Posted by bfm at March 28, 2009 9:41 PM

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

Yuval: I'm over that already. Just let me know when it makes a profit.

Posted by D.Z. at March 28, 2009 10:28 PM

comment #23

TVMCCA says ...

Did the Philip Marlowe movie Owen's attached to ever begin filming?

Posted by TVMCCA at March 29, 2009 12:04 AM

comment #24

TVMCCA says ...

The InSneider wrote:
....but the ending simply isn't satisfying. It's a movie where Gilroy pulls the rug out from beneath the audience. It's nearly contemptible.

I asked Mike D'Angelo about the ending on Twitter; at the time, i thought perhaps Universal may have been uncomfortable with (SPOILER AHEAD) Julia and Clive actually getting their $40 million at the end. D'Angelo believed that there was no studio pressure--this was Gilroy's intention (D'Angelo wasn't crazy about the ending either).

Posted by TVMCCA at March 29, 2009 12:08 AM

comment #25

actionman says ...

JT -- Gilroy has no involvement with Bourne 4 -- Nolfi is doing the script.

And TVMCCA -- that Marlowe movie is still in devo, and will likely never happen considering that nobody wants to watch Clive on the big screen. Which is a shame because a Marlowe-Owen movie would've been the tits.

Posted by actionman at March 29, 2009 6:34 AM

comment #26

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

A lot of these international stars burn out quite quickly. Look at Ewan McGregor now - some barely mentioned supporting player in the new Da Vinci Code sequel thing. A few years back he was toplining a Star Wars.

Posted by BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey at March 29, 2009 7:14 AM

comment #27

byanyother says ...

"I'm sorry. Life is unfair. Gilroy did as good a job as anyone could have with a sophisticated corporate-suspense brain teaser such as this. "

The. Movie. Sucked. Head to toe. It offered nothing beyond an opportunity for Tony Gilroy to make people think he was clever. But it did the audience no favors. It sucked. Not Julia's fault. The writer/director's fault.

Posted by byanyother at March 29, 2009 8:08 AM

comment #28

Doug says ...

Aside from Russell Crowe and I suppose Hugh Jackman, it doesn't seem as if the studios are making a lot of money with British and Australian leading men - Clive, Colin, Ewan, Jude, and Eric Bana. Time to develope more American stars. I think I'd start with Taylor Kitsch and Scott Porter of "Friday Night Lights."

Posted by Doug at March 29, 2009 9:21 AM

comment #29

markj says ...

Clive Owen may be the most boring leading man in motion picture history. One line of dialogue in his flat, monotone voice and i'm ready for some shut-eye.

Posted by markj at March 29, 2009 10:39 AM

comment #30

erniesouchak says ...

Most boring leading man in mo-pic history: JOSH HARTNETT.

Posted by erniesouchak at March 29, 2009 11:18 AM

comment #31

hunterd says ...

For what it's worth, I have never liked Julia Roberts except in this film and in Closer. I also go see almost every Clive Owen movie.

Posted by hunterd at March 29, 2009 11:28 AM

comment #32

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

If Jackman didn't have Wolverine he'd be in the same boat as Owen. None of his other projects have done anything much. Australia was a disaster. Colin Farrell sort-of fits into this category too. He's not really A-list anymore.

It does seem like the American ones have more longevity. DiCaprio and Damon are still doing pretty well.

Posted by BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey at March 29, 2009 2:11 PM

comment #33

D.Z. says ...

Bosh: McGregor was never an international star. People just took that Boyle junkie movie way too seriously, and George just cast him to hide his hideous script.

Posted by D.Z. at March 29, 2009 3:43 PM

comment #34

fattyhadaparty says ...

Just saw DUPLICITY this morning. Well made, well cast, intelligently written. I was bored after the first five minutes.

Julia Roberts and Clive Owen play good-looking, spolied, cyphers who coast on their charm and think that it's okay to lie, cheat and steal because they look and sound so good while doing it. Unfortunately, their characters and the film have nothing to say.

MAJOR SPOILER ALERT. About the only part of the film that ends up being remotely satisfying is the ending. The two scheming fashion plates get outsmarted by Tom Wilkinson (the only character in the film with any integrity) and are left only with each other as a consolation prize. Both they and the audience realize that without a huge payday, all that plotting and bad, meet-cute dialogue is a hollow substitute for an actual relationship. Unfortunately, this doesn't make up for the 100 minutes of tedium we've been subjected to. END SPOILERS.

D.Z. Don't you ever get tired of confirming your continued irrelevance?

Posted by fattyhadaparty at March 29, 2009 6:02 PM

comment #35

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

D.Z.: for a while McGregor was at least being marketed as a star. He had The Island and Down With Love which both underperformed. But he seems to have been undone by his own shitty script selection. He's made a lot of appalling choices. Like that shit sex club thriller with Jackman. Did either of them expect it to do well?

Trainspotting is brilliant, by the way. Boyle deserved an Oscar for that more than Slumdog.

Posted by BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey at March 29, 2009 6:49 PM

comment #36

Momus says ...

The title of this thread is laughable. A mediocre actress who got an undeserved Oscar and undeserved 20 mln bucks for each and every stupid romcom she appeared in has a hard life? Puhlease.

Posted by Momus at March 30, 2009 6:48 AM

comment #37

actionman says ...

Roberts looked extremely sexy in Duplicity.

Posted by actionman at March 30, 2009 10:30 AM

comment #38

Sean says ...

Doug, Taylor Kitsch is Canadian. Which I don't think is what you meant when you said "American."

Posted by Sean at March 30, 2009 12:05 PM

comment #39

Yuval says ...

"I'm over that already. Just let me know when it makes a profit."

I really don't care if it makes a profit, that's not my point. I'm just amazed by your predictions and the way you dish them out so generously despite your track record. I’m sorry, but you’re not over that.

Posted by Yuval at March 30, 2009 1:47 PM