UPDATE: It turns out that "Che" was an even bigger flop than I reported earlier. The film budget was actually $58 million, not $40 million.
The two part movie "Che" has turned out to be one of the worst box office bombs in film history. How bad was it? Well, since opening last December, this movie has earned a grand total of just $1,432,057 as of the weekend of April 10-12.
Since the budget for this film was $40 million and at least half of those revenues went to the theaters screening this bomb, that means the total loss for 'Che' was approximately the entire budget cost. Compare this to the gold standard of movie bombs, "Heaven's Gate." When it was released it 1980 it also had a $40 million budget but it earned about 3 times the revenue of the "Che" movie at $3,484,331. As a result, "Heaven's Gate," became known as the mother of all box office bombs and rare was the review that did not mention its financial disaster.
However, despite a similar bomb by "Che," it continues to get rave reviews long after its big failure at the box office has been known. So how do friendly reviewers handle the fact that it bombed horribly? Simple. They simply ignore this "ugly fact" in their reviews. Why? Could it be because "Che" glorifies a leftwing icon? However, sometimes you can read between the lines of some of these reviews such as this one which appeared in the Sacramento Bee which suggests that even though the movie was terrible, it is still worth watching:
Muddling through Steven Soderbergh's nearly 4 1/2-hour "Che" is often as much of a struggle as spreading revolution throughout Latin America.
But if you're a sucker for gritty, documentary-like filmmaking or epic tales of hopeless war, it's a fight with your attention span worth waging.
Apparently most people would rather not fight that battle despite the suggestion of this April 10 review which conveniently left how just how badly "Che" bombed at the box office.
An Arkansas Gazette review of "Che" comes close to admitting that it bombed in a roundabout way by using the term, "commercially brave."
Che: Part Two is a deeply interesting and commercially brave movie, one that recognizes the limits inherent in cinematic biography. It is meant to be experienced, not sounded for meanings, and is weakest when Soderbergh caves into his poetic impulses - Che slumps in the saddle, like Shane and El Cid, and we remember it’s only a movie.
Che - and we’re considering both parts together - is an anti-epic, a long historical film that assumes the audience knows the outline of the narrative and, beyond the installation of Del Toro in the lead role, refuses to glamorize its subject. It is more about cinema verite textures than the unearthing of pyrite insights.
Yeah, so I guess we could also describe the "Heaven's Gate" flop as "commercially brave."
My favorite review of Che remains the one that appeared in the New York Post in December by Kyle Smith:
MEET Che Guevara. Just think of him as Jesus plus Abraham Lincoln with a touch of Moses and Dr. Doug Ross. After 4½ hours of watching Dr. Ernesto "Che" Guevara heal the sick, teach the illiterate, daze the women, execute the lawless, defeat the corrupt, uplift the peasantry and spew the sound bite, I was convinced there would be a scene in which he turned water to Bacardi.
You can't spell cliché without "Che." And as I endured this mad dream directed - or perhaps committed - by Steven Soderbergh, I wondered where I'd seen it all before. The booted stomping through the greensward, the jungly target shooting? It's a remake of Woody Allen's "Bananas," right? Minus punch lines - or perhaps with them. "We are in a difficult situation," Che observes, at a point when his army is surrounded and forced to eat its horses.
And since this was written just as "Che" was opening, Kyle Smith could be forgiven for not referring to how horribly yet another film with a leftwing theme bombed at the box office.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Can they make up the loss
April 18, 2009 - 08:51 ET by 10ksnookerIn tee sales to clueless liberals and uneducated young people?
PJ Gladnick, you shouldn't
April 18, 2009 - 09:15 ET by CT PatriotPJ Gladnick, you shouldn't use the word "bomb" in your headline for any reason. Didn't you see the DHS statement from Janet Napolitano?
Thanks for this article. It made for good Saturday morning reading.
Prepare. Network. Study. Worship. Unite. Survive.
beyond me
April 18, 2009 - 09:20 ET by i was just thinkingI will never understand the left's attraction with this murderer. To me, it is one their ultimate hypocrisies. The will denounce our former President and soldiers for Abu Ghraib and what they think goes on in Guantanamo Bay, but have no problem extolling the virtues of a man who murdered his own people because they didn't agree with him.
Unbelievable. I do not, and never will, get it.
Che, in his own words...
April 18, 2009 - 09:26 ET by nolotrippen“To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.”
A leftist sound bite. One could imagine CNN’s Susan Roesgen feeling something up her leg at hearing this.
If you didn't know these
April 18, 2009 - 09:53 ET by JerryIf you didn't know these were Che's words, they could easily have been attributed to any modern day liberal's feelings towards conservatives.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
CHE
April 18, 2009 - 09:41 ET by well99The left what can you say.They love Mao,Pol Pot,Stalin and the rest of those mass murders.Fact is stranger than fiction.
Che
April 18, 2009 - 16:01 ET by DoktorFrankenChe is Chit
Dok
April 19, 2009 - 05:06 ET by well99You aint kidding.
History through
April 18, 2009 - 10:37 ET by RR GOPHistory through Commie-colored glasses-typical.
I've lately come to realize how even historical documentaries which one would think are innocuous, and unbiased are often skewed towards the Left, and unashamedly pronounce the film maker's personal sentiments.
Sure, a film is going to be somewhat sympathetic to its subject even if the subject is evil. The sympathy comes into making the viewer wonder what circumstances led a one-time helpless infant in it's mother's arms turn in to what he/she did later in life. Evil is only frightening when tinged with the buried Humanity and potential goodness within...but sadly has been subdued by evil.
The point is not to excuse the evil-not to twist it into something positive. Then, that is propaganda.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
Never could get the
April 18, 2009 - 10:42 ET by BlazerNever could get the left's romantic attraction to communist murderer's. They love to romantiscize monster's like Guevarra as heroes, when in fact ol' Che' who had no problem shooting folk's in the head without a trial, when confronted by his own fate went out like a pu$$y, kicking and screaming like the coward he was.
"Do not shoot! I am Che Guevara and worth more to you alive than dead."
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Hollywood Imitates The New York Times - Self Immolation
April 18, 2009 - 11:02 ET by rammingspeedThis is Hollywood's best: Soderbergh, the great director, del Toro the Academy Award winner. This movie is vomit. Diarrhea. The mere conception of it as a "documentary" about a social hero is insane.
Hollywood has begun paying a price for this tripe, and it's going to get worse for them because they are unreconstructed children of the hippie Left, circa 1960s.
Did you see it?
April 18, 2009 - 11:08 ET by JasonCDid you see it?
Did you see it? The
April 18, 2009 - 11:18 ET by BlazerDid you see it?
The problem here Jason is this is being portrayed a first person account of Che' or filmed the way Che' would have liked it if you will.
Maybe they should have filmed it introspectivley from the standpoint of those who suffered at the hand's of Guevarra some of whom are actually still alive, instead of portraying this guy as some sort of Errol Flynn in Revolutionary garb.
I think I would trust Dith Pran's version of The Killing Field's more than Pol Pot's.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
I don't see a problem with
April 18, 2009 - 12:33 ET by JasonCI don't see a problem with the story being told from Che's point of view. This doesn't necessarily whitewash him as a character and as a historical figure. A Clockwork Orange, after all, is told entirely from Alex's perspective, but it doesn't change the fact that the reader sees him as a sociopath.
apparently
April 18, 2009 - 11:50 ET by kdizzydazenobody saw it.
A fair question, mind you, but you got a better chance of seeing a one legged man winning an ass kicking contest than you do finding someone who viewed this movie.
God made man, but he used a monkey to do it -- DEVO
Fair enough, but those who
April 18, 2009 - 12:08 ET by JasonCFair enough, but those who haven't seen it are in no position to be critiquing it or making claims about its ideological imperatives.
PJ, critiquing the film or
April 18, 2009 - 11:12 ET by JasonCPJ, critiquing the film or the obession that some elements of the left have with Guevara is legit. But the thrust of your article is nonsense. Since when must film critics base their discussion on whether the film in question appealed to the masses? There is a wide and distinct difference between critical acclaim and box office success. Most Americans who went to the cinema in February went to see Paul Blart, Mall Cop. Does that mean it's on par with Casablanca?
As for glorification of such figures in epic film, let's not forget that people generally laud Braveheart, Gibson's usual messiah-complex theatrics notwithstanding. In real life, of course, William Wallace was not exactly the admirable and noble fellow that the film depicts. Does this mean that Gibson, and those who enjoy the movie, are guilty of revisionist English/Scottish history?
Castro himself approved of
April 18, 2009 - 11:40 ET by BlazerCastro himself approved of this film, so that's reason enough for me not to see it. At a whopping 235 minutes, I have no desire to see Castro's Gone With The Wind.
I recall a Cuban American poster on another site as saying, the fastest way to get your a$$ kicked in South Florida is to walk through little Havana wearing a Che' t-shirt.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Yep
April 18, 2009 - 11:48 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsDoes this mean that Gibson, and those who enjoy the movie, are guilty of revisionist English/Scottish history?
The answer would be, yes. Ummm, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't 'movies' just entertainment, even if based on historical events? If I want history, I rely on books and maybe documentaries, not Hollywood films.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
I like to think that film
April 18, 2009 - 12:22 ET by JasonCI like to think that film can be much more that 'entertainment', but point taken. Let me rephrase. Does the unrealistic glorification of Wallace in Braveheart make it any less of a successful or artistic film? I think 99% of viewers would say no. You should see certain conservatives on this site freak out when I say that the one-sidedness of Gibson's other exercise in messianic fetishism, The Patriot, is made a bit cheesy by its whitewashing of established history. Apparently, wide historical license is acceptable when it flatters the right (no pun intended) bias.
There's a basic flaw in your premise Jason
April 18, 2009 - 13:23 ET by Dee BunkThose critics point out historical inaccuracies in Gibson's films and are generally snobbishly dismissive of them.
Hello! This is America! If you live here you should be more comfortable with movies for our way of Government than against it - I think Cuba will let people in - they just won't let um out
I think you're
April 18, 2009 - 13:49 ET by JasonCI think you're overestimating the number of critics who give Mel Gibson a hard time. You act like there's a massive conspiracy against him, when in fact, many of his films are acclaimed. I was pointing out historical inaccuracies in Braveheart to make a point, not becuase I actually think they detract. The inaccuracies in The Patriot are so grotesque and over the top that I do think they affect the quality of the film.
But we've been down this road before. It would be nice if films weren't in the business of marshalling sentiment toward any way of government, really. I haven't seen Che and can't comment on whether it does or not. But another posters comment that the movie is from his point of view does little other than to make me want to say: "Yeah, so?"
Don't think I've ever heard a review of a Mel Gibson film
April 18, 2009 - 15:17 ET by Dee Bunkwithout strong caveats.
And "yeah so" this is America. No inaccuracy of Gibson's was so "grotesque" as to turn the bad guy into the good guy as this film does.
Didn't see this but saw Motorcycle Diaries which had similar subject and same kind of adulation from the critics. There was nothing artistically outstanding about that film. Roger Ebert (despite being a far left liberal) was one sane one who brought up the shame in romanticizing people like that.
Critics...Mel
April 18, 2009 - 15:56 ET by BlondeAny comment on the critical acclaim of Gibson's Apocalypto?
It meets your "criteria"....no "marshalling of sentiment for our government" there, Jason.
Yet, one of the finest films in the last 20 years, was panned, IMO, because it was Mel's brainchild.....you know...after the Passion.
I hope he fails, too.
Exactly Blonde - Apocalypto was an amazing film
April 18, 2009 - 16:54 ET by Dee Bunkas was Passion and most things he does. I love to compare Apocalypto with Terrance Malick's "New World" because they told a similar story in a similar time.
Despite being pretentious and boring, Malik's version gave a very inaccurate world were Indian women were stupid, helpless and nothing but sex objects dependent on Men for everything. Indian men were good and did right by their helpless women & White men were evil and took advantage of women and minorities. It was pathetic.
In Gibson's version, both the heroes & the villains were of the same race so as not to make it about race, and the women were resourceful and strong.
Both films really tried to contrast the hunter gatherer life style vs the agricultural one. Gibson's film obviously favored the hunter gatherer and even though I don't completely agree (I think a hybrid of the two is best), it made great points in a beautifully poetic way. Lots of good subtle symbolism as apposed to over the top goofy stuff in Malick's version.
Critics loved Malick's and never complained about his inaccuracies & that's all you heard about Gibson's.
Blonde, Dee, spot on.
April 18, 2009 - 17:29 ET by BlazerBlonde, Dee, spot on. Apocolypto was an amazing and beautifully shot film. One of the best this decade imho.
I am Jaguar Paw, son of Flint Sky. I am not afraid. My Father hunted this forest before
me. My name is Jaguar Paw. I am a hunter. This is my forest. And my
sons will hunt it with their sons after I am gone.
Did you guy's catch the subtle reference to midnight cowboy when the villager's were being taken to the Mayan capital ?
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Blazer
April 19, 2009 - 09:05 ET by Dee BunkI haven't seen Midnight Cowboy- I've meant to but haven't got around to it.
Nicely put, Dee
April 18, 2009 - 17:37 ET by BlondeI was totally stunned the first time I saw Apocalypto. And the second, and the third.
Visually, it is one of the most sumptuous films I've ever seen. And although I loathe subtitles, I felt they added, rather than subtracted, because the dialogue had to be simplified...which fit in perfectly with the story.
Apocalypto is one of those movies I can watch over, and over, and over....yet I feel because it was a Mel Gibson creation, it wasn't accorded the critical due it deserved.
I hope he fails, too.
I haven't seen Apocalypto
April 19, 2009 - 01:54 ET by JasonCI haven't seen Apocalypto and the therefore cannot directly comment on the film itself (a recusation based on fundamental common sense that I wish other posters would heed in their knee-jerk and uninformed critiques of certain films and shows and musical genres that they're not really even familiar with). However, you are incorrect in claiming that it was denied acclaim. I will provide you with the same film review aggregator I showed to coco earlier:
http://www.mrqe.com/...
As you can see just at a glance, the reviews are all over the place. Indeed, they could be described as polarized; a lot of acclaim and high scores and a lot of panning (which of course is quite often the case with a big and/or controversial film. Not even a cultural landmark like Titanic is universally lauded). But there are quite a few critics who give Apocalypto an excellent score, my personal favorite (James Berardinelli) included. I'm disappointed to see that Ebert, the quintessence of American film criticism who has been recently tarred as a leftist for daring to suggest that Palin was a poor VP choice, isn't represented here. Though it's worth noting, perhaps, that he gave Passion of the Christ 4 out of 4 stars and Braveheart 3.5 out of 4.
Also interesting to note that Apocalypto is panned by one critic from the organization "Christian Spotlight on the Movies" and ranked as mediocre by another. I read their reviews regularly; they rate all movies on two separate scales - moral content and cinematic quality - and are quite conservative and strict in their criteria.
In other words, this link alone helps to debunk two conservative fantasies: 1) That film critics consistently engage in (leftist) groupthink, and 2) That film critics particularly have it out for Mel.
Apparently it's not okay for some critics to simply disagree that Apocalypto is so great. But it's a totally different situation than critics lauding the artistry of a film that happened not to recoup its production cost.
You hit the nail on the head Jason
April 19, 2009 - 08:07 ET by Dee Bunkwhen you said "which of course is quite often the case with a big and/or controversial film."
The point is that Apocalypto was MANUFACTURED to be controversial by certain critics and the media. "The New World", "Che" & "Motorcycle Diaries" were not.
I don't think anyone claims that every film critic acts in group think. I even brought up how Ebert rightfully slammed Motorcycle Diaries for it's romanticizing Che.
You can't just look at the overall ratings either. Many of the overall good reviews of Apocalypto still had serious digs against it for supposed historical inaccuracy or violence etc.. that those same critics didn't do with "New World" or Che.
PJ's story is about the critics she mentions and doesn't say that every single critic out there lauded Che. I'm sure if you look (I haven't) these critics she mentions probably didn't give the same glorified treatment to Apocalypto.
I just don't think that
April 19, 2009 - 16:36 ET by JasonCI just don't think that some critics focusing on certains aspects of realism or violence or what have you on one film but not on another, completely unrelated film, necessarily suggests liberal bias.
Yes, PJ's story is about the critics she 'mentions' (i.e. cherry-picks). In any rational universe, what these critics thought about Apocalypto would be irrelevant. It's absurd to expect a critic to go back and make sure that a review of Che is thematically consistent with a review of a different, completely unrelated film. Apparently this is not the case in the world in which anyone who takes issue with a Mel Gibson film is just ragging on him because he's religous. I've thoroughly, ahem, 'debunked' that paranoid notion above, showing a variety of critics who lauded Apocalypto and Passion. Now you're complaining that even those who gave the highest possible rating to the former might have made reference to historical inaccuracy or depictions of violence. Give me a break.
You know what, Jason?
April 19, 2009 - 16:52 ET by BlondeI've thoroughly, ahem, 'debunked' that paranoid notion above, showing a variety of critics who lauded Apocalypto and Passion.
Done with you.
Don't ever respond to me again.
I hope he fails, too.
Never heard that one
April 19, 2009 - 17:05 ET by JasonCNever heard that one before.
You asked above about critical acclaim for Apocalypto. I demonstrated that there is quite a bit of it. And I happen not to buy the idea that any even remotely critical commentary of Gibson's films is a critique of his religion, as many conservatives seem to like to believe. So what's the problem?
And I was technically responding to Dee here. Not you.
You give it a break Jason
April 19, 2009 - 17:09 ET by Dee BunkYou're welcome to think what ever you want, but it any reasonable persons world, how a critic takes issue with violence or historical inaccuracies of one film but not another is the whole point How convenient to just sweep all that away and "cherry pick" how certain less bias critics acted to defend the bias of other critics. That's crazy.
Again, also relevant is the scale of the controversy surrounding the different films.
I could be wrong, but I
April 19, 2009 - 17:22 ET by JasonCI could be wrong, but I don't recall all that much controversy surrounding Apocalypto. I remember some critics thinking it was ridiculous and over the top and some other things, but as I've demonstrated, others loved it.
As for violence, I think we've had this discussion before, but I think it's not just what kind of acts of violence are depicted, or even how graphically its shown, but the context and tone, which shape our reaction. Did you see Funny Games for instance (http://efilmcritic.c...)? At the end of that film, you feel as if you've seen a total violence-fest even though it all takes place off-screen. A film like True Lies (I only though of that because it's on TNN right now), on the other hand, is filled with violence, but for whatever reason we read it as benign and not all that disturbing. You could finish the latter and go on with your life, happy that Arnold got the bad guys. Finish the former and you will be truly disturbed.
Why?
It would be one thing to say, here's why the violence in Apocalypto is justified, esp. in comparison to films x/y/z. But I think it's absurd to suggest that just because a critic took issue negatively with violence in that film, they are hypocritical for not doing the same with another, totally different film.
But again, I haven't seen Apocalypto and can't comment specifically on it. These are just my ideas about filmic violence in general.
You're going in circles Jason
April 19, 2009 - 18:28 ET by Dee Bunkand making up more and more excuses. Of course there are different types of violence and some is gratuitous and some isn't. That's my point. It's not gratuitous in Gibson's films like it is in something like Pulp Fiction or True Lies but the same critics will have a problem with Gibson's films but not those. Gibson's films don't glorify violence in any way. They are meant to make you extremely uncomfortable with it like Funny Games (from your description).
Of course you didn't even try to make an argument about historical inaccuracies but it's the same thing. The point of most films is not to be historically accurate, but more historically realistic for the setting of their message.
When people complain about historical accuracy of nit picky details that have little to do with the overall message of a film are okay with sweeping changes to manufacture a different message of history then that shows bias.
Film critics don't even care about current event accuracy in so called documentaries like Michael Moore's but they'll trash an artsy film for nit picky details. Crazy.
I disagree with your
April 19, 2009 - 19:02 ET by JasonCI disagree with your characterization of Gibson's depiction of violence. I think, if nothing else, he glamorizes and heroicizes violence, at least in the films I've seen. That's not a put-down, Braveheart is tremendously enjoyable. But I think the violence is pretty non-affecting, even if gory. It's not the kind of violence that makes me think about things differently. We'll have to agree to disagree on that, since it's obviously strictly a matter of taste. But Gibson's brand of violence has never made me squirm...it's just sort of there, advancing the plot, making sure you know how brave Gibson's character is. But again, I'm talking about his war epics, I am not at liberty to discuss the particulars of Apocalypto.
It is interesting that violence in the context of historical re-enactment (Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan, etc) is generally considered less offensive, even if it's graphic.
P.S. You might enjoy this
April 19, 2009 - 19:02 ET by JasonCP.S. You might enjoy this review of Fahrenheit 9/11:
http://www.bucketrev...
JasonC ~ Glamorizing a terrorist is never a good idea. This is
April 18, 2009 - 11:49 ET by pahubernot about aesthetics or lighting.
I do not accept your basic
April 18, 2009 - 12:19 ET by JasonCI do not accept your basic premise that it 'glamorizes' a 'terrorist'. Have you seen the film? If not, discussion over. If so, please provide some semblance of an argument supporting your reading of it.
No, JasonC I know discussion with you is not productive.
April 18, 2009 - 12:50 ET by pahuberIt was a statement of FACT.
Again, you like to ignore those pesky little details.
pahuber
It was a statement of
April 18, 2009 - 13:41 ET by JasonCIt was a statement of FACT.
So you have seen the movie? Otherwise, how would you be qualified to claim that it glorifies him?
Jason ~ don't you mean "glamorizes" the terrorist w/o quotes.
April 18, 2009 - 13:10 ET by pahuberYou do KNOW he WAS a terrorist, correct?
BTW... our last meeting I took the time to write out why shellfish was no longer valid while other parts of OT were... you know the ABC pushes normal transgender article a few days ago.
No response from you. It seems like most liberals, like yourself, like to provoke, but not stick around for the answer so I am not surprised you would respond to me the way you did.
have a nice day :)
You explained to me, from a
April 18, 2009 - 13:44 ET by JasonCYou explained to me, from a scriptural perspective, why it is in fact okay to eat shellfish. Which I never doubted, though my belief that it's okay to do so is based on humanism and commonsense. You did not, however, explain why it's nonetheless okay to use Leviticus as an anti-gay text.
I don't think Guevara is the savior some make him out to be, but I don't think he's on the level of our modern definition of terrorist either. I'm sure Batista saw him as such.
JasonC ~ I went back re-read your question. It seems clear that
April 18, 2009 - 14:58 ET by pahuberyour question was answered.
"If shellfish doesn't apply to modern Christian doctrine for that reason then neither should homosexuality, right?"
In a nutshell I laid out what the distinction between OT & NT were. Mainly, how one is to worship God then & now. That is the crux of the two Testaments.
Homosexuality, a sin then and is still a sin now. JC quoted from the OT extensively...etc. The sin of homosexuality was never superseded.
I took the time to lay it out clearly.
--------------------------------
Just a question... do you consider Timothy McVeigh a terrorist for what he did?
If so then how is che' any different?
I will concede the Biblical
April 19, 2009 - 02:02 ET by JasonCI will concede the Biblical issue; frankly, I'm not convinced but you clearly know the Bible better than I do. However, even if the Phelpsian slogan God Hates Fags was found right smack in the middle of the gospels, I would not regard homosexuality as immoral because I simply don't see the logic in taking a single western text - even a very important one - as the end-all-be-all arbiter of moral behavior.
Why, exactly, are McVeigh and Che comparable? Is anyone who mounts a violent insurrection against a government a terrorist? How about those involved in the French Revolution, for instance? The problem of applying the term 'terrorist' to these historical situations, I think, is how dramatically the term has been defined by post-9/11 politics and culture. It simply doesn't apply to Guevara, or anyone else in history, in its current incarnation.
Good morning Jason
April 18, 2009 - 11:58 ET by cocodrieBox office success is based on the approval of individuals willing to buy a theater ticket.
Critical acclaim is based on the opinion of individuals living in the cloistered world of liberal mutual admiration societies.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
But those individuals'
April 18, 2009 - 12:18 ET by JasonCBut those individuals' approval is not what makes a film artistically or ethically 'good'. And vice-versa. By this logic, Brent Bozell would have to admit that Family Guy is a cultural touchstone because it's among of the most successful and lucrative TV shows ever. We'd all have to say that the Twilight series is superior to Great Expectations, because after all, it sells a heck of a lot better these days.
Critical acclaim is based on the opinion of individuals living in the cloistered world of liberal mutual admiration societies.
What could you possibly be basing this on? Take a look at MRQE's search results for Che - http://www.mrqe.com/... - just a quick glance will show you how all over the map a selection of major critics were on this film.
Jason
April 18, 2009 - 13:07 ET by cocodrieBox office receipts have nothing to do with quality but reflect how many people were willing to spend money.
Film critics are very similar to washington politicians - they live in their own world surrounded by their peers isolated from normal society.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Box office receipts have
April 18, 2009 - 13:54 ET by JasonCBox office receipts have nothing to do with quality but reflect how many people were willing to spend money.
Exactly my point. This is why PJ's premise basically makes no sense.
Film critics are very similar to washington politicians - they live in
their own world surrounded by their peers isolated from normal society.
Rephrasing your claim and making it into an analogy doesn't do anything to demonstrate its validity. I'll ask again: What do you base this on? You're claiming that anyone who writes cultural criticism for a living is automatically excommunicated from "normal society" (would that be anything like Palin's fantasmatic "Regular America", by chance?). How do you support this statement?
Jason
April 18, 2009 - 14:06 ET by cocodrieWhere did I say CULTURAL criticsm? Movie critics have no relevance compared to normal society.
Definition of normal society - people who work for a living, are married to someone of the opposite sex and go through life without trying to ridicule others, You should try it sometime.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Film is a part of
April 18, 2009 - 14:22 ET by JasonCFilm is a part of culture. Thus, a film critic is a particular type of cultural critic.
Yay, I'm normal!!!
Reviews
April 18, 2009 - 15:55 ET by P.J. GladnickThis is why PJ's premise basically makes no sense.---JasonC
So how many reviews have you read that at least make some mention that this "Che" movie was a big box office disaster? 40 million bucks to produce and only a little over a million in receipts. I think that is more than a little noteworthy.
Apples and oranges.
April 19, 2009 - 01:38 ET by JasonCApples and oranges. Commenting on box office receipts is simply not an inherent part of film criticism.
Heaven's Gate
April 19, 2009 - 07:35 ET by P.J. GladnickApples and oranges. Commenting on box office receipts is simply not an inherent part of film criticism.
Oh yeah? Try finding a review of "Heaven's Gate" that doesn't refer to its BO flop. I also read a lot of reviews of flops that mention their financial failure. BTW, I was informed late yesterday that the "Che" budget was actually $60 million, not $40 million as I reported which makes this flick an even BIGGER flop than I believed.
You seem unable to accept the TRUTH that "Che" was a FLOP. Got that? FLOP!!!
Of course, you wouldn't know that from reading the glowing reviews that ignore this inconvenient truth.
Wait...so was Che a
April 19, 2009 - 16:42 ET by JasonCWait...so was Che a flop?
Schaedenfraude noted.
And this has what, exactly, to do with a film review in which one lauds or pans a movie? Would it also be liberal bias somehow if the reviewer didn't mention the name of the production assistant and the catering company? What exactly does a 28-year-old Western have to do with this film anyway? A film's financial status isn't necessarily all that interesting, unless there's some particular measure of interest behind it, such as it being expected to do really well (like Gigli, for instance), or being made on a tiny budget and then becoming a cult classic (like Blue Velvet), or breaking all kinds of records (like Titanic). I assure you, no one involved in Che could have possibly expected that it would make a ton of money. I just don't see why you think it's so important to mention a film's box office failure as even slightly relevant to its content, just because some critics apparently did so with Heaven's Gate 30 years ago.
Paul Blart, Mall Cop
April 18, 2009 - 12:07 ET by kdizzydazenow that is just sad.
Yup. But by the standards
April 18, 2009 - 12:24 ET by JasonCYup. But by the standards of some, apparently, it's a masterwork.
Movie Bomb
April 18, 2009 - 15:47 ET by P.J. GladnickMy point is that in all the glowing reviews, especially in the recent ones, you have to look mighty hard to read any reference to how badly it bombed at the box office. I mean it was a MONUMENTAL bomb and yet NO discussion of this fact.
Its a review
April 18, 2009 - 16:28 ET by ImAllRightReviews are there for the purpose of giving someone a brief idea of EITHER why or why they wouldn't want to see the movie based on the picture itself.
You're really trying so hard for something so silly, I just don't get why you care so much that some critic for a local paper didn't mention how bad it bombed, as if that takes away from it doing so terribly anyway.
Major REACH here.
Is there really nothing better to talk about today?
"Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man." - Ronald Reagan
BO Bomb
April 18, 2009 - 16:43 ET by P.J. GladnickI just don't get why you care so much that some critic for a local paper didn't mention how bad it bombed, as if that takes away from it doing so terribly anyway.
Not just one critic. ALL critics. Maybe there is one or two critics out there that mentioned its massive BO failure but I sure didn't seem it. A MAJOR failure at the box office such as this is at least worthy of mention. Remember, 40 MILLION bucks spent and it didn't even earn 3% of cost. Is the public saying something in their rejection of this flick?
Kinda like
April 18, 2009 - 19:33 ET by general companymslsd and cnn. Must be the same buisiness plan. Think they will be asking for a bailout soon?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Well here's another
April 18, 2009 - 17:36 ET by BlazerWell here's another reason Ode to Che' won't make any money. Just to be objective, I figured I'd try and watch the thing on Comcast pay per view. Comcast is showing it in two part's at $9.99 a piece. That's $19.98, over twice as much as you'd spend at the box office.
Thank's but no thank's.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
"BO" Not Body Odor
April 18, 2009 - 12:30 ET by Wildcatter1980Oh, and here I thought the "BO" in the title stood for body odor.
Who knows, though. Someone may start selling "revolution-worn" tees with the unique scent of Che already baked in. (Don't forget to hold your nose.)
--
We already have term limits. They are called elections. We can & should vote out those who do not represent & serve us! - Me
Chenge
April 18, 2009 - 12:36 ET by totalkaosdaveTotalKaosDave
Chenge you can believe in...
What American in their right mind would spend their...
April 18, 2009 - 14:38 ET by R D Helm...hard-earned money to give up 4.5 hours of their watching a movie that glorifies a low-life, murdering commie scumbag like Che, who no-doubt busted the gates of Hell wide open when he went through them head first.
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
Why are you reaching SO HARD with this post
April 18, 2009 - 16:24 ET by ImAllRightThat Sac Bee review was really supposed to be an example of left wing bias? - That's a bit of a leap.
I don't see the point in picking out obscure newspaper reviews to try and say that the left are trying to cover up a bomb.
Its 4 hours about a ruthless murderer, the reviewers did their job in giving reasons to both see it and not see it. They explained it was either a dud in theaters or was 4.5 hours of muddling movie as well as saying briefly who it would appeal to.
Really weird post on your part as it seems you were short on actual news to cover and had to go to a last, last resort. Either that or you might just be feeling really anal today, because that's kind of how it came across to me.
I dunno, seems like you and Bozell with all of his cartoon issues need to re focus your watchdog eyes.
"Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man." - Ronald Reagan
Conservative Movie
April 18, 2009 - 16:47 ET by P.J. GladnickI don't see the point in picking out obscure newspaper reviews to try and say that the left are trying to cover up a bomb.
I didn't see the fact that it was a miserable bomb mentioned ANYWHERE. Also if a conservative had made a movie about a conservative hero and it bombed as horribly as the "Che" movie, you can bet there would be reviews all over the place crowing about how it bombed.
Absolutely. Great post and my sentiments exactly!
April 18, 2009 - 17:42 ET by pahuberpahuber
Quite common, actually
April 18, 2009 - 18:33 ET by CyranoOften the best movies out there do little BO, while movies about "drift racing" and the "Saw" series clean up. Just look at all the trash on the bestseller list any given week. And heck, Van Gogh was a starving artist until the day he died, if I remember my HS Art History correctly. Clearly popularity has nothing to do with quality.
I'm ugly, but I'm eloquaint... elaquent... elly... I tawk reel gud!
Commando with Arnold S, is much more realistic than this
April 18, 2009 - 18:40 ET by pahubercrap.
Ya think?
April 18, 2009 - 19:06 ET by CyranoDid you see the movie? I've only seen part one, but it followed the definitive bio of Che pretty much to the letter.
I'm ugly, but I'm eloquaint... elaquent... elly... I tawk reel gud!
I agree about BO
April 19, 2009 - 02:31 ET by chaosmongerI haven't seen this film nor do I plan to. Some movies do fail at the box office only to be successful on TV or rentals.
Che would be a hard sell in this country no matter what. The movie got A LOT of hype before it was released and you had to figure it would not do very well. Kids wear the Che shirts but have no idea who in the hell he was. This movie also shows, once again, how out of touch Hollywood is with the general American public and in this case, even with the left.
People go to the movies to be entertained...if they wanted a 4.5 hour lecture, they would go to PBS. This movie was doomed to fail. Che is not a household name to most Americans.
Box Office doesn't mean much to the hard core left. Take "Milk" as an example...the movie didn't do as well as all the hype and the Oscar for best actor it received. As long as they get their propaganda or slant out there, who needs BO? They know their other lefty, movie projects will still get green lighted.
BO is For
April 19, 2009 - 06:32 ET by kilrodI thought BO was for o-Dumb-uh, and this review quote:
(MEET Che Guevara. Just think of him as Jesus plus Abraham Lincoln with a touch of Moses and Dr. Doug Ross. After 4½ hours of watching Dr. Ernesto "Che" Guevara heal the sick, teach the illiterate, daze the women, execute the lawless, defeat the corrupt, uplift the peasantry and spew the sound bite, I was convinced there would be a scene in which he turned water to Bacardi.)
From this qoute I thought the movie was about o-Dumb-uh and they were just using Che as an alias. Boy howdy, sure glad i did'nt waste my time and money watching it.
And yeah, i remember the sub-slime media trying to promote and glorify this flick, so give em Hell P. J.!!~~!!
(GRINS) kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
Compare to The Lost City
April 19, 2009 - 08:59 ET by slickwillie2001Contrast the critics treatment of this film with their full assault on Andy Garcia's 'The Lost City', about Castro's coup in Cuba. Garcia's film was historically accurate, which is unacceptable to fans of dirtbags like Castro and Guevara. This is pure politics.
What Studio Released This Movie?
April 20, 2009 - 21:47 ET by The7SticksActually, I just checked IMDB, and it was IFC Films. I say was because I read an article that the studio may have gone defunct as have a bunch of other independent film labels.
I also just pulled up a Variety report about its overall box office performance worldwide: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117999312.html?categoryid=13&cs=1. Actually, it cost $60 million to make and distribute Che, and it apparently did better internationally, but not by much: "Overseas grosses are somewhat better, with about $20 million from a half-dozen major markets, led by Spain at $9.7 million"
I think the difference between this and Heaven's Gate could be summed up in one phrase: Heaven's Gate sunk United Artists. There was a lot of recognition for that studio, but most people who don't live here in LA have probably never even heard of IFC Films, let alone the IFC channel that started that film label. So I would attribute that aspect in part as to why Che hasn't been compared to Heaven's Gate. Politics definately had a factor in this too, but if you knew what the plot for Heaven's Gate was (it was essentially a four-hour overbloated epic love story that took place during the Johnson County War in Kansas), it probably wouldn't make for a similar comparison.
The story about Heaven's Gate's failure is chonicled in a fascinating book called Final Cut by Stephen Bach, a former UA executive that witnessed the behind-the-scenes commotion of that particular film.