New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Don't get your hopes up. Star Wars: The Hobbit of Hogwarts is not a real movie.

Kim Hollis: Lions for Lambs was supposed to mark the triumphant return of Tom Cruise and United Artists this weekend. Instead, it earned only $6.7 million in 2,215 venues, just barely more than Magnolia made when it went to wide release several years ago. What accounts for this movie's epic failure to connect with audiences?

Pete Kilmer: It's the topic. No one wants a war movie that's a downer right now. I think the public thinks they get more than enough of that on the news. I personally can't wait to see it...on DVD.

Tim Briody: I'm falling asleep even attempting to discuss its box office, so take that for what you will.

Joel Corcoran: Public inertia was acting against this movie from the beginning. This movie should've been released either three or four weeks ago (well before the holiday season was encroaching on us) or another three or four months from now (to offer more distance between "new Tom Cruise" and "couch-jumping Tom Cruise" in the public's mind). Another big factor was the phoned-in marketing campaign behind this movie. The reach and frequency of the advertising seems suitable for a release in December or January, not this current week.





Reagen Sulewski: While the subject matter is certainly a big part of the story here, another factor is that it really was never clear what this movie was about. Mostly it looked like a film where people gave speeches to each other about... something. The non-action action movie, if you will, and who wants to see that? It was a movie without a market, and the abysmal reviews certainly didn't help.

Max Braden: The weak response to Rendition probably had some effect on this opening. I'd expect this to have no legs based on the response from within the theater I attended. The movie goes nowhere, and I think critics led with that. Also, this movie preaches more than movies like The Kingdom or Three Kings, and I think audiences would like to think they're smart enough to debate their own thoughts than to have the debate delivered right at their feet.

Kim Hollis: I said it when Rendition crashed and burned and I'll say it again. Movies like these absolutely live and die by their quality. While they might not have huge audiences in early weekends, they can oftentimes pick up momentum with stellar reviews. Neither one of these films had good or even mediocre reviews, and with serious subject matter, people will pay attention to what critics are saying. If the word is out that the film is preachy, forget about it. People aren't even going to give it a look.

David Mumpower: Lions for Lambs is Cruise's worst opening since Magnolia, and it doesn't even have the benefit of raining frogs to sell it on home video. Note to Hollywood: the raining frogs genre is an untapped financial windfall waiting to happen. But I digress. The point is that Lions for Lambs had two huge factors lined up against it. The first is that the so-called flyover states have spoken with their wallets and pocket books this year. They won't be paying to be preached at by the so-called Hollywood liberal elite. The second is Tom Cruise. This one isn't tricky. If people are so turned off by his presence that they will disavow themselves of a brilliant action flick like Mission: Impossible III, they certainly aren't going to see something like this. Cruise could star in Star Wars: The Hobbit of Hogwarts and still bomb out at this point.

Continued:       1       2       3       4       5