October
15
Body of Lies: Decline of Movie Stars?
Several bloggers address the Body of Lies boxoffice debacle in a number of different ways. Peter Bart says that the problem lies in its stars, like Leonardo DiCaprio, who don't know how to behave like identifiable brands. Patrick Goldstein suggests that today's stars aren't carrying their weight. And Stephen Schaefer suspects that Iraq War movies are musts-to-avoid.
We have plenty of gifted movie stars--and we need them. Movie stars can boost any movie--as long as they don't cost too much.
What was Warner Bros. chief Alan Horn thinking when he greenlit a $100 million Iraq War movie in this climate? He was ignoring the marketplace, blinded by movie stars. He thought he was making a bet on a damned good movie--so confident that he didn't take a partner. He assumed moviegoers like me would overlook the subject in favor of the stars. I showed up. But many other folks did not.
Horn was the same guy who banked on family film Speed Racer with the Wachowskis. And paid Jim Carrey full freight to star in the costly period drama The Majestic. I'm all for studio heads taking chances. Just not foolish ones. Because then it becomes more difficult for other people to take even smart, calculated risks.
[Photo by Richard Burbridge for the NYT Mag]
Subscribe to this blog's feed
I think the main reason for the Body of Lies BO performance is that the movie just didn't look interesting from the trailer. I was also very confused from the first trailer as to what the movie was actually about. I'd lay the blame on the marketing department, not the filmmakers.
Posted by: Mark | October 15, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Agreed. The concept seemed like every other secret operative film there has been. I remember when Spy Games under-performed at the Box Office.
I would love a good Iraqi war movie...but something more like Three Kings or The Last Detail... not something that tries to force the hollywood opinion on it.
Posted by: SeanH | October 15, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Remember Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down which was released late in 2001 right after 9/11 and a lot of people thought it was a very risky move. But it turned out to be the right one since the film was a monster hit at the box office. The country was definitely in a "rah-rah" mood and the film rode on that wave.
But now after 5 years trapped in a bitter, bloodly unpopular war with no way out with a clear victory, the public has had its fill of Iraq and with the problems in the Middle East altogether. I've always felt if the war had been truly over after that boneheaded "Mission Accomplished" stunt on the aircraft carrier with Bush, any film dealing with the Iraq war would have been a success. It is was far from over and people are sick and tired of it
Personally I liked Body of Lies a lot, but it's the wrong films at the wrong time, though I genuinely thought it would be the film to break the Iraq War box office "curse". Not surprising that Scott is going to do his Robin Hood film, Nottingham, to be followed by sci-fi picture. I donlt think he's going to be visiting the Middle East again for movie ideas.
And what's this will mean for The Hurt Locker I hate think since I really want to see it
Posted by: Sergio | October 15, 2008 at 02:30 PM
Am I the only person excited to see Rule 34?
Posted by: SeanH | October 15, 2008 at 03:10 PM
What's Rule 34?
Posted by: Sergio | October 15, 2008 at 05:44 PM
I agree with SeanH that "BOL" is a good movie hurt by element of 'timing'
And most importantly, its opening weekend boxoffice will not deter me from seeing the future films of DiCaprio or Crowe.
Posted by: perceptions | October 15, 2008 at 06:15 PM
Sergio: I can't wait to see The Hurt Locker. Bigelow really deserves a hit, but I fear the audiences will stay away.
Posted by: Mark | October 16, 2008 at 04:18 AM
russel crowe? check.
ridley scott? check.
leo? check.
trailer? terrible. didn't tell me anything about the movie I didn't already know from the one sheet.
reviews? mixed.
conclusion. I'll wait for HBO.
I could care less that it takes place in Iraq the movie DID NOT LOOK GOOD.
The only problem with the timing was that it was released it in a crowded marketplace.
And it is not really fair to blame the subject matter considering most of the "Iraq War" movies have been crap anyway.
Posted by: onehornarmy | October 16, 2008 at 06:38 PM
If I was Alan Horn, I'd be pissed. Ridley Scott and perhaps Steve Zallian absolutely butchered William Monahan's Body of Lies script. Stop working with Scott, Bill Monahan.
Posted by: Mr. Gittes | October 17, 2008 at 01:15 PM
Rule 34 is a Last Detail type of dark comedy that has a non-liberal / non-conservative view on the soldiers who come back from Iraq.
As far as acting goes ... neither role seemed to strecth the talents of DiCaprio or Crowe. I wen to see Sally Hawkins in the little Anne THompson-ed Happy-Go-Lucky tonight instead of BOL or W (or sex drive).
Posted by: SeanH | October 18, 2008 at 03:06 AM
As a marketer myself, I (almost) always resent when blame is laid at the feet of promoters. I added the (almost) to the previous sentence just for "Body of Lies." In this case, I believe marketing failed. The trailers did not make me want to see this movie. They did not tell me about the brilliant source material. They did not push the star value (but then, how could they when the stars just talk on the phone to each other through the whole movie?). They did not even communicate the central themes. Ironically, the film shows CIA intelligence zooming in with pinpoint accuracy on surveillance targerts a world away, but the trailers couldn't even focus on a couple of key elements upclose. The poster campaign was also nondescript and bland. People I talked to didn't even know there was a Leo DiCaprio/Russell Crowe reteaming coming to theaters.
Posted by: Nick Pullia | October 20, 2008 at 09:06 AM
@Nick Pullia, these two teamed up before? Seriously? Without going to IMDB I can't recall, that kind of sums it up. Crowe = failure @ BO and you can't run Leo against pothead/bonehead Shia (who is a friend of friend).
Maybe Crowe's really awful accent, maybe it being a retread of other movies (Spy Game similarities abound), maybe Leo does not get his social obligations to act more like a star and less like Barry bonds, maybe it was just a bad trailer. Crowe has been all but useless since Romper Stomper, I can't name one movie I liked him in.
Posted by: TH | October 20, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Agree with the posts that marketing on this one did seem up to par. The blue-toned posters with flabby Russell Crowe were unappealing at best. Dull trailer in need of a theme or something for the audience to want to see. It's sad because I'm sure the cast and crew worked very hard on this picture.
But Marketing needs to get more conceptual like they did in the 1970s which helped brave political films of that day, even the studio pics get seen and become blockbusters. No more BIG HEADS of movie stars on posters! (Stop writing this into contracts!) No more boring, risk-adverse trailers! Get edgy! Get conceptual. Have some real style AND substance. The two things are not mutually exclusive!
Posted by: Blame Marketing | October 20, 2008 at 02:13 PM
This film was great. I have just seen it a coupple of days ago and I was impressed that americans think like that about the government. I find this film very realistic and very impresive. Of course there are some little mistakes, but overall i think it is a "must watch" film.
Posted by: Adrian Pircalabu | November 11, 2008 at 01:11 PM