“Lions for Lambs” tracking poorly, may jeopardize MGM’s financing? Update: Film’s website touts rave review from … Daily Kos
posted at 11:35 am on November 2, 2007 by Allahpundit
The Post spots another anti-war bomb falling from the sky. Seems awfully premature considering that the film hasn’t opened domestically yet but the early reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are not promising, with even the raves tossing around words like “talky” and “stilted.” Leave it to Redford to turn a war movie into My Dinner With Andre II. First they came for Rendition…
The initial negative reception to “Lions for Lambs” – the first movie to come out under Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner’s resurrected United Artists label – could harm parent studio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer’s own attempts to raise money for film productions.
MGM had enlisted Goldman Sachs to raise between $500 million and $1 billion before the credit markets crashed this summer, and several sources confirmed that while the credit markets are still tight, the investment bank is again making the rounds for MGM.
But with “Lions for Lambs” – which also stars Robert Redford and Meryl Streep – so far tracking the worst among audiences for any Cruise movie to date, the Nov. 9 release of the film is bound to dampen enthusiasm for MGM’s fund.
A spokesman for United Artists said “Lions for Lambs” was tracking where it should be given the amount of money the studio spent on marketing, with one-third of its core audience of males aged 25 and over claiming to be interested in seeing the film.
I’m trying to think of an anti-war flick that did well at the box office that was both depressing and boring. Platoon did well but wasn’t boring; Born on the Fourth of July did well but wasn’t (ultimately) depressing. The Deer Hunter was boring and depressing, but it also had those dynamite Russian roulette scenes with Christopher Walken to look forward to. How about Coming Home?
Update: All credit to Brain Droppings for catching this. A good marketer knows who his audience is.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Well this is possibly anti-war but it is neither boring nor depressing.
Link
Benaiah on November 2, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Well, timing could not be worse for these flicks. The situation in Iraq has turned around to the point where the MSM is not spewing bad news 24/7. So, if there isn’t a constant stream of casualty reports and negative news from Iraq then it will recede from the forefront of the movie-going public.
Throw into the mix that we might actually be winning, well then what else would an anti-war movie do but bomb at the box office?
Leonidas Hoplite on November 2, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Full Metal Jacket wasn’t depressing or boring as long as R. Lee Ermey was on screen. Once he got plugged though, it all went downhill.
MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 11:45 AM
One of THE best productions of the BBC ever. Anti-war, but it is pretty easy for the British to be anti-WW1, all things considered.
MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Besides all the usual liberal antiwar anti-America crap, I suspect that moviegoers have a hard time accepting Tom Cruise as a Senator–unless he’s playing one with a “wide stance”, that is. And all of his bad press for being a creepy Scientologist won’t help either.
ReubenJCogburn on November 2, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Haha! You said “come out” and Tom Cruise in the same sentence! Bwahahaha!
Again, free advice to Hollywood: Make “Lone Survivor” into a movie and you’ll rake in the cash.
Tony737 on November 2, 2007 at 11:52 AM
I can’t take Tom Cruise seriously anymore.
CP on November 2, 2007 at 11:57 AM
The modern business model for most films now is that you use the money of investor groups to finance the film. This means that the propagandizing Leftists are not spending their own money and hence are not suffering the financial consequences of their continuing folly.
pat on November 2, 2007 at 11:57 AM
i like this positive review from the top of rotten tomatoes
at least he can admit that the only reason he’s giving it a good review is b/c it’s anti-war.
its vintage duh on November 2, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Apocalypse Now
JiangxiDad on November 2, 2007 at 12:05 PM
sorry- wasn’t boring
JiangxiDad on November 2, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Anti-war + not boring????
Only one I can think of….Gallipoli with Mel Gibson
Limerick on November 2, 2007 at 12:10 PM
I have to admit only having seen Platoon and The Deer Hunter… but does anyone know the commonality (other than the obvious) that links all of these films?
If no one gets it, I’ll give the answer in a bit.
RightWinged on November 2, 2007 at 12:12 PM
I can almost hear the ad now:
– TimeOut magazine
– Harvey S. Karten, Compuserve
– Variety
Karl on November 2, 2007 at 12:13 PM
People are sick to death of being lectured by Hollywood on how to feel – about everything – but especially the war on terror. I don’t think the average person cares what happens to terrorists as long as it happens somewhere other than on our own soil. I know I don’t. This is just another movie that tries to make Americans feel bad for someone’s dislike of us.
woodman on November 2, 2007 at 12:13 PM
I don’t believe that any Vince Flynn’s books have been made into film yet. Which is unfortunate. They read like box office blockbusters, a la Tom Clancy in the 80′s and 90′s.
carlitos on November 2, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Really, AP, you ought to get Bryan cracking on the video version of that ad.
Karl on November 2, 2007 at 12:14 PM
I didn’t think Platoon was depressing. Didn’t the good guys end up winning?
Harpoon on November 2, 2007 at 12:17 PM
It was an abject failure at being an anti-war movie though. It’s amazing just how much the American military love that movie even while totally dismissing the political ideology behind it. Kind of like Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA” which was an anti-war song. Strangely enough the public loved the song, but totally ignored the political message behind it.
doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 12:18 PM
er….Stone, DiPalma, Cimino, and Copala were all co-members of the Porn Club in college
mugged on November 2, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Good point. I think people are willing to look past the message of entertainment with which they might disagree, but only if it’s actually good. It sounds as though this one consists of people talking at each other.
And having Tom Cruise in it doesn’t help these days. The guy has severely damaged his image in the past couple of years.
Slublog on November 2, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Anything Tom Cruide does just ends up being bat shit crazy.
Alden Pyle on November 2, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Sorry, but I never saw any of those other anti-war flicks mentioned above.
I’m still watching John Wayne movies. GO DUKE!
Texas Nick 77 on November 2, 2007 at 12:25 PM
From what I understand Cruise and Streep are in the movie for a total of 10 minutes. But look at the trailers, they make you think they’re the stars of the piece. That alone tells you how much even the producers think of the product right now.
Number 2 on November 2, 2007 at 12:25 PM
I said it back in a previous post last week or so, but I saw the trailer for Lions for Lambs in a fairly crowded theater in a very, very blue city. And there were sizable amounts of people openly laughing at the stilted dialog/acting.
Wineaholic on November 2, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Dorian (how’s that picture?), when I first heard “Born in the USA”, I really liked it (I was also in high school) but then about the fifth time I heard it I started to actually thing about the words and it hit me that this wasn’t such a great song even if it had a good beat and you could dance to it.
As for Mr. Cruise, he’s a long way from his Maverick days. When “Born of the 4th of July” came out, he lost a bit of his luster and it’s been downhill for me since then. I dated a Navy Jag once that couldn’t figure out why so many military people liked “A Few Good Men”. The speech Nicholas gives as the Col who does the work so they can sleep is great but in the end he goes down and they really make fun of him like he’s the evil in the world and the military has to be saved from itself by the JAG corps. I remember when that first came out, I was in the process of getting out of the Army myself and I saw it with my folks. They loved it but I saw something else there that didn’t sit well with me.
I hope this flops as have all the others. The thing of it is though is when “Redacted” comes out we seriously need to mobilize and picket that film. I’ve written and called the VFW and Legion (life member in each group) to try to get something going. Seems they’ve gotten a number of calls but don’t seem anxious to do something. As bad as this Lambs movie is “Redacted” will be worse!
Catie96706 on November 2, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Give movies the death penalty every day!
mymanpotsandpans on November 2, 2007 at 12:30 PM
And Springsteen too!
mymanpotsandpans on November 2, 2007 at 12:31 PM
The Deer Hunter was boring and depressing
aengus on November 2, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Really? No one even gonna take a stab?
Those films were ALL made AFTER the war. Right now we’re being bombarded with anti-war films while the troops are in harms way. I’m not even going to rant on how this stands to get them killed, because then I’ll wind up feeding trolls like crr6 here all day. It’s getting a little tired.
RightWinged on November 2, 2007 at 12:35 PM
So is anyone making any pro-mission movies that might make it big?
bnelson44 on November 2, 2007 at 12:35 PM
(cont…)
So anyway, regardless of anti-war messages, etc. the point is, the anti-American Hollywood far left (as with elected Democrats) get worse and worse by the year. There’s no excuse for these movies during a time of war. The only “funny” part, is that they’re trying to capitalize on the “anti-war” sentiment they see in the polls… I think they’re reading the polls incorrectly though. People are tired of a dragging on war, but largely the country doesn’t blame America for everything. A HUGE miscalculation that Hollywood keeps missing.
So they’ll continue this crap, and the Dems will continue their borderline treason (saying the war is lost while troops are on the ground, tipping off Assad and friends that we’ll be going to war in Iraq, visiting enemy countries over President’s objects, calling troops terrorists, Nazis, cold blooded killers, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.), and nothing will ever change.
BTW, what ever came of the rumors that Democrats had a secret meeting with Hamas? Maybe it was some other Palestinian terror group, I can’t remember exactly… Anyone else remember what I’m talking about, and know if there are any updates?
RightWinged on November 2, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Check out “The Light Horsemen” its just like Gallipoli, but the Assies finally get to grips wih the Turks, much more uplifting.
tommylotto on November 2, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Sounds like Magnolia and Vanilla Sky (with Penelope Cruz). Horribly stilted with casts that should have made a decent pic. Then there’s Eyes Wide Shut, on paper a guaranteed winner, lots of attraction for hedonistic young men like myself (Nicole + others nude and exerting themselves) but made Showgirls look good.
Last movie he was in that I liked was Collateral, Minority Report was meh, MI3 kinda lame. Outside of action flicks, he had two decent movies in 11 years, Collateral and Jerry Maguire. Not a great run.
I do love seeing all of these anti-war movies bomb. Time to bring back the Duke!
libertarianuberalles on November 2, 2007 at 12:37 PM
An anti-war movie thread – this, right after I drove past the “Iraq Vets against the War” Bus in downtown Dallas (heading for the federal building). It seems they are seriously focusing on stopping us from invading Iran (at least that’s what their signs on the bus said) – oh, and the back of the bus had a big “Impeach Bush” sign.
As for the anti-war movies that weren’t boring and depressing…sorry, can’t think of any. They were successful then because Hollywood was taking it’s stand on a much higher level than had ever been the case, and the public was eating it up because it was something they weren’t used to – now, everybody sees Hollywood for what they are (leftists).
Rick on November 2, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Impossible. The big studios won’t back and pump a pro-mission movie the way they do this crap. By the way, I have seen no less than 20 or 30 commercials for Lions for Lambs in the past 2 days. The media isn’t going to pump a pro-mission/troop/American movie either.
I don’t even know if you’d call Pat Dollard’s movie “Young Americans” a “pro-misison” film, but it’s certainly not the usual Hollywood BS… but do you think he’s going to get any kind of Hollywood style distribution or press?
http://patdollard.com/young-americans
RightWinged on November 2, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Pathn of Glory + All Quiet On The Western Front
They were all made after the fall of Saigon and thus couldn’t be considered wartime anti-war propaganda?
aengus on November 2, 2007 at 12:41 PM
If Transformers taught us anything, it’s that the public wants loud explosions, epic battles and victory for the good guys. Rambo is going to make huge bank this Christmas.
There is a formula to these things, and the smaller independents get it. The 300 made half a billion dollars in theatres. I think it cost around 60 million to make. 60 million for this Tom Cruise thing is approximately the salaries for the main actors.
Krydor on November 2, 2007 at 12:42 PM
I’m not sure if it did well at the box office as Saving Private Ryan stole most of its thunder, but The Thin Red Line was depressing and boring.
World B. Free on November 2, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Caveat: Keep Redford, Cruise, Clooney, et al out of it.
Pablo on November 2, 2007 at 12:44 PM
There really aren’t any pro-war movies (outside of Leni Riefenstahl). It shouldn’t be a surprise to Hollywood that conservatives too will embrace a good antiwar movie that’s not an anti-America movie by default.
So many directors seem to think that “war sure does suck” is news to any of us. “Gee, I thought war was great until I saw that people get shot and died! I never knew!” Condescension’s not worth the ticket, especially when it’s Robert Redford doing the patronizing.
You know, I just rented Black Book, and it’s remarkably even-handed (not to mention it’s Verhoeven, so it’s got boobs and pubes and male full frontal and vomit and buckets of shit and plentiful squibs). Neither side is monolithic, and there are sympathetic Nazis and loathsome resistance fighters. But when Allied troops roll into liberated Holland, you know why the people are celebrating.
saint kansas on November 2, 2007 at 12:48 PM
How about 300? Is that considered a war flick and if so is anti-war? I haven’t seen it, just asking….
Leonidas Hoplite on November 2, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Redford is a self righteous overrated bore. He took one role – the Sundance Kid – and has milked it for almost 40 years.
Hilts on November 2, 2007 at 12:51 PM
I noticed that two of the three plugs for the movie in the commercial were coming from “Blogger David Atkins” of the Daily Kos.
Bill C on November 2, 2007 at 12:52 PM
He was pretty good as Ike the Horse in “Charlotte’s Web.”
Slublog on November 2, 2007 at 12:52 PM
The Great Escape, Bridge Over The River Kwai – although they were POW movies.
Hilts on November 2, 2007 at 12:52 PM
If Hollyweird would ever make the story of USS Houston’s and HMAS Perth’s final battle with the Japanese they would make enough money for their great-great grandkids to live on. But they won’t. The money only tastes sweet when you cheat people out of it.
Limerick on November 2, 2007 at 12:53 PM
He wsa good in The Natural (because he underacted), The Candidate (basically playing himself), and The Way We Were (playing Babs Streisand’s golden goy), and a few other movies but nobody ever claimed he was a great actor.
Hilts on November 2, 2007 at 12:54 PM
I suspect that the popularity of “A Few Good Men” is due largely to the fact that in spite of Jack’s character being such an obvious rouge officer, the movie did show the US military operating in a fairly honorable fashion. Tom Cruise, douche bag that he is, played the archetype for the pull yourself up by your bootstraps go against all odds to win underdog hero. That particular role is one of America’s favorite hero roles.
doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Consider how many millions of people listen to talk radio and then think of how many of those people will refuse to see the film and you have a recipe for a bomb.
GogglesPisano on November 2, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Have to agree. And what’s-his-name as House is my current favorite TV character. He always says exactly what I’m thinking and rarely get to say.
peski on November 2, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Ah I see I was right. The Year Of The Pig was made in ’68 by a Spanish Marxist. It was a documentary about the colonial hisatory of Vietnam which used a lot of fresh archival footage (some of it stolen from the French government). It was popular in Berkerly and thats it. Needless to say you should skip it as it would only upset you. I only watched it as I’m very interested in documentaries. I got a film camera the other day and hope to surpass the “Lions For Lambs” level of filmmaking.
aengus on November 2, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Via Lucianne.com
Redford, Cruise and Brad Pitt–three aging pretty boys who used to bring in the female audiences because of their looks. Now that they’ve aged and have to rely on their acting “talent”, they’ve all made a series of bombs. Cruise and Redford have this anti-American piece of garbage that has tanked. Pitt has the Jesse James glorification move that’s made about $3 million so far. They’re all getting what they deserve for thinking that anyone cared about their message (anti-American, Leftist garbage) or “talent” (if that’s what you call it).
Hilts on November 2, 2007 at 12:59 PM
He was good in ‘The Sting.’
…but he sure has turned to crap these days.
James on November 2, 2007 at 1:00 PM
There really aren’t any pro-war movies (outside of Leni Riefenstahl).
Fortunately, John Wayne is dead (so they say, but it may be a clever ruse to smoke out the commies), or he would be a trifle annoyed. His war movies were all about self sacrifice for a higher ideal.
Also, John Ford would take exception…
Krydor on November 2, 2007 at 1:00 PM
LOL….yep…can you imagine the American public being served up ‘They We’re Expendable’ and not impeaching someone for leaving all those troops behind die?
Limerick on November 2, 2007 at 1:03 PM
to die
Limerick on November 2, 2007 at 1:03 PM
How about Chuck Norris and Golan-Globus get back in business again?
GogglesPisano on November 2, 2007 at 1:06 PM
A couple of quotes from a reviewer here in KC who’s already screened it but won’t go into details until next week:
“Politically very, very left-wing”
“I just wanted to throw up at some of the things in there.”
Jack’s not what you’d call a right-winger either so when he’s says something’s way left he really means it.
KCSteve on November 2, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Coming Home. Forgot about that one. When Bruce Dern responded to the hippie protestor with ‘Peace on You’ and flipped him the bird, that was good. Jane Fonda’s naked ta-tas looked like two fried eggs hanging from a rusty nail.
pistolero on November 2, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Actually all three are very talented, however you are correct when you say that Redford and Cruise have fallen into the trap of thinking that anyone gives a damn about their political ideology. Brad Pitt on the other hand is simply misfortunate in the choice of his pictures.
doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 1:10 PM
One of my favorite movies.
Benaiah on November 2, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Based on the semi-recent successes of “Saving Private Ryan” and “Band of Brothers” you’d think Hollywood would realize the real dough’s in Americans fighting a war they don’t want to fight, but not using that as an excuse to lose.
yo on November 2, 2007 at 1:11 PM
GogglesPisano,
Golan Globus served up the greatest anti-jihadi movie of all time with the epic Delta Force. Damn, I loved that movie as a youngster. First 30 minutes played like a documentary, then it was “here’s what Chuck Norris and Lee Marvin would have done.” I still watch that and smile. Take that, hijackers! It’s SUPERBIKE and Chuck Norris.
Limerick
Hollywood could use a guy like Duke. There was some talk about Bruce Willis doing a film based on the work of Micheal Yon, but I have no idea where that is at.
Krydor on November 2, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Yup (glad someone’s following me on this!) All of the blockbuster anti-war films were done when the troops were no longer in harms way. The news media delivers enemy propaganda enough, do we really need Hollywood to be shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars to push crappy films “with a message” on us?
Again, this is just a huge miscalculation on Hollywood’s part… they read the polls that show the American people have turned against the war, but they’ve taken it a step further by assuming that people are turning the anti-American corner they (Hollywood libs) turned long ago.
In a way, I guess I’m glad they’re doing this now, because the movies are failures. If they did in a few years, people might be more comfortable checking them out, and they might be misled in to believing the agenda driving writing is based on the realities of the war.
RightWinged on November 2, 2007 at 1:15 PM
I don’t want the ghost of John Wayne mad at me! By pro-war movies, I mean movies suggesting it would be better if we had more wars.
Come to think of it, I can see making Hotel Darfur, but Don Cheadle would have to bulk up and learn to fire two machine guns at once.
saint kansas on November 2, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Well if they want to that’s their choice. Unless they go to the point of giving away military secrets or troop movements or something then it falls under free speech.
Personally I think it’s funny to watch them throw their money away because these movies are tanking (pun intended).
Benaiah on November 2, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Saint Kansas,
Western culture doesn’t work like that. Most of the propaganda films are based around the external threat that you must begrudgingly fight. There is a natural distaste for war but the survival instinct trumps it.
Krydor on November 2, 2007 at 1:24 PM
People like Clooney, Redford, et al desperately want to be taken seriously as “thinkers” instead of the dimwits they actually are. Remember about fifteen years ago when actors and actresses suddenly started showing up in public places wearing hornrimmed glasses (with windowpane lenses)and toting big books so they’d be taken for intellectuals? Spy Magazine did a really funny piece satirizing them and the fad sort of dwindled. But the impulse never dies, I guess.
Hilts on November 2, 2007 at 1:30 PM
LONE SURVIVOR also manages to raise real issues – not phony pre-fab issues. Also highly deserving of adaptation: WE WERE ONE and ROBERTS RIDGE. They’re neither “pro-war” nor “anti-war,” though they all are very pro-warrior. If liberals really did “support the troops,” they’d be in your theaters (or maybe your TV sets) soon, if not already.
CK MacLeod on November 2, 2007 at 1:33 PM
I bought this book after hearing about it here on another
thread. You’re right Tony, it would be a blockbuster!
bernzright777 on November 2, 2007 at 1:33 PM
yo on November 2, 2007 at 1:11 PM
In the same vein, there was The Great Raid, staring Benjamin Bratt, Joseph Fiennes, James Franco and Connie Nielsen, 2005.
Closely based upon the true story of the hugely successful US Ranger raid and liberation of the Cabanatuan POW camp during WWII.
Both pro-America and pro-mission. Great flick.
georgej on November 2, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Cold Mountain was boring, anti-war, and did well. I think.
Guess the ROP won’t be filming any anti-war movies to evaluate.
tomg51 on November 2, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Tom Cruise looks like he should be coaching SEC football or something. He’s supposed to be a Senator in this film???
Oh wait, yeah that’s a good fit, actually.
RW Wacko on November 2, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Hollyweird is far to invested in propagandizing their political and moral ideologies to give a $hit what the public is willing to pay to see anymore. In spite of Hollyweird’s best efforts most Americans still love a winner and despise a loser, and there is nothing and no one that the American public loves to see win more than America herself.
This of course profoundly contradicts the leftist/socialistic ideologies of Hollyweird and the America is the root of all evil crowd. So continue making movies that promote their ideologies even if it bankrupts them.
doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 1:44 PM
No offense, but I saw a movie poster with a lead review at the top from a blog – ANY blog, even one I like – I’d laugh out loud … and go see if they’ve got an Adam Sandler flick showing.
They might as well paste “this movie sucks” on the top of the poster.* Or … “you might like it, if it matches your political ideology perfectly, since we all like being told what we already think …”
Naw. “This movie sucks” covers it.
The Cabanatuan raid is one of the great yet largely unknown stories of WWII. If you haven’t read “Ghost Soldiers,” I highly recommend it.
Professor Blather on November 2, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Yeah, I’ve seen the first part 20 times and the second part twice. Little did Kubrick realize he’d made a comedy classic.
Jim Treacher on November 2, 2007 at 1:47 PM
There there is “We Were Soldiers,” staring Mel Gibson. From the book “We Were Soldiers Once, and Young.”
Pro-American, pro-warrior. Rather neutral on the war itself.
Certainly, the Vietnamese government took a dim view of the movie. The Vietnamese actor who played the VC commander (Don Duong) was accused of treason for making the film, and was arrested. Pressure from America caused Vietnam to release him and allow him and his family to immigrate to the USA.
georgej on November 2, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Anybody mention “MASH” or “Slaughter-House Five?”
Both anti-war to the core, both funny as Hell. For the latter, it helps to have a slightly warped sense of humor and to have read the book a few times.
And I’m sure somebody mentioned “Dr. Strangelove!” Yeeee hawww!
Professor Blather on November 2, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Will Kos’s famous “kiss of death” be extended to movies as well? It’s been so successful with political candidates.
My guess: yes.
I was actually looking forward to seeing this flick until I found out it was another anti-war movie. Count me out as well.
AlexB on November 2, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Hollywood has had its hand in the making war since the beginning of World War II.
The world was headed toward rearmament and warfare in the early to mid-1940s, and the movie industry, like every other aspect of life, responded to the national war effort by making movies, producing many war-time favorites, and having stars (and film industry employees) enlist or report for duty. The US government’s Office of War Information (OWI), formed in 1942, served as an important propaganda agency during World War II, and coordinated its efforts with the film industry to record and photograph the nation’s war-time activities. Tinseltown aided in the defensive mobilization, whether as combatants, propagandists, documentary, newsreel or short film-makers, educators, fund-raisers for relief funds or war bonds, entertainers, or morale-boosters. Films took on a more realistic rather than escapist tone, as they had done during the Depression years of the 30s.
A variety of war-time films, with a wide range of subjects and tones, presented both the flag-waving heroics and action of the war as well as the realistic, every-day boredom and brutal misery of the experience: Dive Bomber (1941), A Yank in the R.A.F. (1941), Wake Island (1942), Guadalcanal Diary (1943), Bataan (1943), Winged Victory (1944), and Objective, Burma! (1945). Warner Bros.’ Sergeant York (1941), directed by Howard Hawks, was typical of Hollywood offerings about the military.
kiakjones on November 2, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Anybody mention “MASH” or “Slaughter-House Five?”
In the same vein was Catch 22.
georgej on November 2, 2007 at 2:01 PM
REDFORD, STREEP, CRUISE…WE’RE JUST BETTER THAN YOU.
benrand on November 2, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Dumb Bombs just don’t hit their mark
Defector01 on November 2, 2007 at 2:03 PM
I believe I heard Bill O’Reilly say something about “Lone Survivor” being made into a film and that Marcus Luttrell was talking to someone in Hollywood about it but I got the idea it wasn’t a bomb thrower producer.
I also loved “We Were Soldiers”. That was an excellent movie but I don’t remember if it did all that much at the box office. This is going back a bit (in terms of history) and it does have Martin Sheen in it but “Gettysburg” wasn’t too bad either.
Catie96706 on November 2, 2007 at 2:09 PM
what about “Jarhead”
Kaptain Amerika on November 2, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Cruise is a talented actor albeit with a very limited range. As long as he is cast right (Minority Report, Collateral) he is worth watching.
aengus on November 2, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Whats worse than a dumb bomb that cant hit its target? A really expensive dumb bomb that blows up in its users face. Gooooood Morrrrrnniinnnggg, Holllllywwweirrrrdddd………..This dumb bomb is for yoooooouuuuuuu……..
doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 2:16 PM
kiakjones on November 2, 2007 at 1:59 PM raises an important point about the movie industry. They were on OUR side in WWII.
Now they are on Al Qaeda’s.
Despite the efforts of Hollywood to help sustain the war effort, by spring 1945, the American people were tired of the war. The collapse of the Third Reich in April/May gave a temporary boost to morale, but the spector of invading Japan in November 45 — in light of the concurrent invasion and fight for Okinawa — was frightening. Dropping the atom bombs on Japan saved at least 500,000 US lives and maybe two million Japanese. And most importantly, it ended the war, which America deliriously celebrated.
[BTW, Paul Tibbets, the pilot of Enola Gay passed away yesterday.]
Had the media acted then as they do today, the public would have demanded peace on terms acceptable to Japan, which would have included withdrawal of all American interests in the far east, leaving Japan with the empire it conquered, including the colonies captured from the USA, GB, the Dutch, and the French.
Which is why the current behavior of the media and Hollywood is dangerous for America. America seems to be rejecting the Hollywood left on the issue of Iraq, for now. And that’s a good thing ™.
georgej on November 2, 2007 at 2:17 PM
what about “Jarhead”
Kaptain Amerika on November 2, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Clearly anti-war AND anti-Marine.
georgej on November 2, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Yup:
aengus on November 2, 2007 at 2:31 PM
To pimp out my own submission for a bit, The Longest Morning is currently the second most popular story at Digg. If digg seems to like a story about courage without the anti-war rhetoric, maybe America will too.
BohicaTwentyTwo on November 2, 2007 at 2:35 PM
David who?
Vizzini on November 2, 2007 at 2:38 PM
IMO, Hollywood stars, directors, and producers have gotten too vocal about their personal political opinions. We know what this movie is going to say, and pretty much how it’s going to say it– because we hear it all the time from them. There’s no need to see it because there’s no promise of surprise.
I’ll pay for a movie because I want to see something new, something interesting. If I want Streep and Redford to bash me over the head with their anti-war message, I can get that elsewhere.
MayBee on November 2, 2007 at 2:48 PM
They might as well come out and say:
Now that would be knowing their target audience.
Slightly off-topic, but I just love the way O’Reilly usually describes dKos as a “Far Left hate site”. Thanks for calling a spade a spade, Bill.
ReubenJCogburn on November 2, 2007 at 2:52 PM
God Bless Paul Tibbets…thank you for your sevice and doing your duty…paul newman and tom cruise can kiss my butt…
areseaoh on November 2, 2007 at 3:00 PM
People want to see actors act. As soon as they start trying to share what they “feel” you see red numbers.
When will they ever understand people write what makes them seem real and they act it? Nobody likes “them”.
Silly actors.
Hening on November 2, 2007 at 3:08 PM
CK Mac, FINALLY somebody else mentions “We Were One”! I thought I was the only person on the planet who ever read that book. It’s the best modern war book I’ve read yet, and I’ve read several. Also checkout “Jawbreaker” and “House to House”
Tony737 on November 2, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Well, he’s kinda short. How extended could his range be?
Katie has to get the good china off the top shelf for him …
Professor Blather on November 2, 2007 at 4:07 PM
You know, considering these people are all so very anti-war, you wonder why all they ever produce are tanks and bombs.
BKennedy on November 2, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »