By Monday morning, however, the studio and its partners found themselves facing a costly fight to save their showcase awards entry, as “Flags” took in just $10.2 million at the box office—a relatively tiny beachhead that did not match expectations or its mostly strong reviews. The picture had failed to excite enough older viewers who could remember, readily identify or relate to its subject, the bloody battle for Iwo Jima, to make up for its lack of appeal to younger audiences and paucity of recognizable stars.
2 comments:
It's a little tough to figure. Eastwood's movies usually make money, and a film that criticizes the exploitation of war should resonate with audiences. Perhaps people are tired of seeing dead US soldiers in the news and don't want to see them on the screen, either.
I saw FOOF this weekend and it was a beautiful movie (strange adjective, I know, considering it showed the carnage of war.) It was beautiful in that it showed the nobility of the average guy in the face of a horror and the mass marketing of war. It also avoided the now-cliched "war is hell" theme started by "Deerhunter" nearly 30 years ago.
Why, then, isn't it making money?
Maybe I'm cynical--but most moviegoers (who tend to be young) don't want to be confronted with anything that makes them think, feel, and learn about the past. They rather see an idiotic Adam Sandler comedy or escapist fare. We don't live in an era that lends itself to thoughtful introspection. That's why a movie like FOOF doesn't bring in the throngs.
I bet FOOF will do much better on DVD rentals since that represents a wider cross-section of the viewing audience...
Post a Comment