Day Zero (2008)
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1177706-day_zero/

a poorly rated, poorly earning anti-war movie. The list is long, here's some others :

'Lions for Lambs'
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lions_for_lambs/

'Redacted' - another pile of total garbage that the public ignored.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10008755-redacted/

'Rendition' - total flop.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rendition/

'In the Valley of Elah" starring Tommy Lee Jones. It made about $6.2 million at the box office. Total turkey.

"No End in Sight" - took about a million and a half. Disastrous.

if the movie business and the US media is so right-wing, then how come money is found to make these sorts of movies when they always seem to fail commercially?

I think the following are 'anti-war' too though:

deer hunter

apocalypse now

full metal jacket

platoon

I think they all took a few quid in their time!

I think they all took a few quid in their time

not while the war they were depicting was actually going on, they didn't.

I think the following are 'anti-war' too though:

deer hunter

apocalypse now

full metal jacket

platoon

I think they all took a few quid in their time!

They might have done well but they were garbage also. Improbable characters, improbable stories as imagined by Hollywood film makers who never went near an actual war.

Day Zero (2008)
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1177706-day_zero/

a poorly rated, poorly earning anti-war movie. The list is long, here's some others :

'Lions for Lambs'
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lions_for_lambs/

'Redacted' - another pile of total garbage that the public ignored.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10008755-redacted/

'Rendition' - total flop.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rendition/

'In the Valley of Elah" starring Tommy Lee Jones. It made about $6.2 million
at the box office. Total turkey.

"No End in Sight" - took about a million and a half. Disastrous.

if the movie business and the US media is so right-wing, then how come money is found to make these sorts of movies when they always seem to fail commercially?

In actual fact most of the media and all of the movie business in the USA is left wing as are 99 percent of the actors. Most people in this country detest the war in Iraq but unlike the Vietnam war they support the troops fighting in Iraq and reserve their dislike for the politicians who got them into the mess.

Nobody really cares about movies that depict terrorists being banged about that's why they bomb at the box office. I watched 9/11 live the morning it happened. Falling towers, people running for their lives, others jumping to their deaths from high up in the towers. If slapping a few terrorists around can in any way prevent this happening again it's fine by me.

Day Zero (2008)
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1177706-day_zero/

a poorly rated, poorly earning anti-war movie. The list is long, here's some others :

<!-- the sound of gobbling turkeys removed -->

if the movie business and the US media is so right-wing, then how come money is found to make these sorts of movies when they always seem to fail commercially?

What's the baseline turkey rate for the jingioistic gung ho crypto fascist boys own escapades that you are comparing these films to?

What pro-war films are there? Why would anyone be pro-war, anymore than they would be pro-murder or pro-genocide for example?

I think they all took a few quid in their time

not while the war they were depicting was actually going on, they didn't.

Dr Strangelove did well at the box office during most of the late Cold War and continued to be hugely popular thereafter. It still grosses millions of dollars every year, worldwide. It just happens to also be a brilliant film.

Box office takings are not proportional or related to the quality of the film.

Some flops are brilliant films : most blockbusters are sheer offal.

Very few blockbusters are quality films; "How I stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb" is one of them.

War is cerap.... end of! We've all had enough of it, that is why any war films, pro or anti.... go down like a lead balloon.

Presumably because the 'good' guys don't always look 'good' ........

Presumably because the 'good' guys don't always look 'good' ........

I think you have a point there.... John Wayne was an apology to his Country folk, he was a shirker who played the Hollywood hero yet he was nothing but short of an actor but revered, none the less. :hihi:

On the other hand there was a famous war time hero who actually did the deed he acted in the film and won the Medal of Honor, for his heroism and made the big screen in a way that all the women loved him and he was such a sincere guy.... I think they called him Audie Murphy.... Now what was that film called?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy

What a guy?

if the movie business and the US media is so right-wing, then how come money is found to make these sorts of movies when they always seem to fail commercially?

The movie business right wing? Hollywood is acknowledged in the US as being predominantly left-wing. A fair number of US media outlets are also considered left-wing by US standards.

The reason these films failed is that the US public didn't go to see them. Even people who are anti-war get tired of being preached to all the time.

They might have done well but they were garbage also. Improbable characters, improbable stories as imagined by Hollywood film makers who never went near an actual war.

Erm...not sure about that - I always thought Oliver Stone had served in Vietnam?

And I'm surprised you find films like 'Apocalypse now' and 'Full Metal Jacket' to be garbage - I thought both were excellent movies :huh:

EDIT

Just found this on Oliver Stone's WIKI page (I Know, I Know, Wikipedia bad etc...)

A veteran of the Vietnam war, Stone served with the United States Army from April 1967 to November 1968. He specifically requested combat duty and was assigned to the 25th Infantry Division and the 1st Cavalry Division, and was wounded twice in action. His personal awards include the Bronze Star with "V" device for valor for "extraordinary acts of courage under fire", and the Purple Heart with one Oak Leaf Cluster.

And I'm surprised you find films like 'Apocalypse now' and 'Full Metal Jacket' to be garbage - I thought both were excellent movies :huh:

I think it's a truth almost universally acknowledged that they ARE both excellent movies ;)

I particularly like Apocalypse Now.

I think it's a truth almost universally acknowledged that they ARE both excellent movies ;)

I particularly like Apocalypse Now.

See of the two, I prefer FMJ - but both pale in comparison with Mr Bean's Holiday :P

I am joking BTW!

Erm...not sure about that - I always thought Oliver Stone had served in Vietnam?

And I'm surprised you find films like 'Apocalypse now' and 'Full Metal Jacket' to be garbage - I thought both were excellent movies :huh:

EDIT

Just found this on Oliver Stone's WIKI page (I Know, I Know, Wikipedia bad etc...)

I did 3 years in the Marines including a year in Nam. During that time never saw any of the weird characters resembling those depicted in these movies.
I'll give Oliver Stone an A for imagination though.

I did 3 years in the Marines including a year in Nam. During that time never saw any of the weird characters resembling those depicted in these movies.
I'll give Oliver Stone an A for imagination though.

I think to be fair, you have to accept that all movies will take certain liberties with the truth. They have to make the story more acceptable to a wider audience.

You will know better than any, given your experience, that the truth of warfare would be unpalatable for the vast majority of people. Most, if not all, war movies offer the viewer an idea of what it was like to be there. Even films that are praised for their realism (Saving Private Ryan, for example) still cannot tell the full story of what it was like to be there.

I think to be fair, you have to accept that all movies will take certain liberties with the truth. They have to make the story more acceptable to a wider audience.

You will know better than any, given your experience, that the truth of warfare would be unpalatable for the vast majority of people. Most, if not all, war movies offer the viewer an idea of what it was like to be there. Even films that are praised for their realism (Saving Private Ryan, for example) still cannot tell the full story of what it was like to be there.

In addition to "Saving private Ryan" there is another film that comes pretty near the reality. It's called "Once were soldiers" starring Mel Gibson which like privare Ryan is based on actual events. That's the only two I would say are worth anything.

In addition to "Saving private Ryan" there is another film that comes pretty near the reality. It's called "Once were soldiers" starring Mel Gibson which like privare Ryan is based on actual events. That's the only two I would say are worth anything.

Yeah Ive seen 'We were Soldiers'. I didnt think it was a bad film, but I remember it got panned at the time for being a bit jingoistic.

You a marine and praising a film gloryfying the Aircav? Dont say it too loud;)

Yeah Ive seen 'We were Soldiers'. I didnt think it was a bad film, but I remember it got panned at the time for being a bit jingoistic.

You a marine and praising a film gloryfying the Aircav? Dont say it too loud;)

I thought it stuck close to the truth without wandering off into some outlandish pot induced landscape.

Nowt bad to say about anyone who was there whatever their service branch and enough said on that part of my life.


Anyway my argument is that in the years following the Vietnam war Hollywood very definitely showed their leftward bias in thie depiction of that war amd one has only to look at the actors who played in those movies. Martin and Charlie Sheen, Marlon Brando and the directors,Stone and Coppola (all well known for their basically anti-American politics) so they invented sadistic, loony characters as part of the story background.
There was a definite political message there
Of course on the other end there was John Wayne who was just as bad in his gung ho glorification of something that is just plain bloody awful.

I think Steven Spielberg finally got it right and presented it all in a fair and balanced way.

I thought it stuck close to the truth without wandering off into some outlandish pot induced landscape.

Nowt bad to say about anyone who was there whatever their service branch and enough said on that part of my life.


Anyway my argument is that in the years following the Vietnam war Hollywood very definitely showed their leftward bias in thie depiction of that war amd one has only to look at the actors who played in those movies. Martin and Charlie Sheen, Marlon Brando and the directors,Stone and Coppola (all well known for their basically anti-American politics) so they invented sadistic, loony characters as part of the story background.
There was a definite political message there
Of course on the other end there was John Wayne who was just as bad in his gung ho glorification of something that is just plain bloody awful.

I think Steven Spielberg finally got it right and presented it all in a fair and balanced way.

I take on board what you're saying that an awful lot of post-Vietnam films were made from the anti (leftwing) standpoint, and perhaps gave a very lopsided view of the conflict, but ultimately, films are there to entertain, not to educate. It's up to the individual to find out the truth of matter. The over the top characters and far out situations may not be factually accurate, but they do serve the purpose of telling the story which the writers/director is trying to convey.

If people choose to base their opinions on Vietnam - or any other historical event, for that matter - solely on what they see on the big screen, then that's something the education system, rather than Hollywood, needs to address.

"No End in Sight" - took about a million and a half. Disastrous.

No End in Sight is a documentary film that focuses on alleged serious mistakes made by the Bush administration in the two year period following the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The film portrays these errors as the cause of ensuing problems in Iraq, such as the rise of the insurgency, a lack of security and basic utilities for many Iraqis, sectarian violence and, at one point, the risk of complete civil war.

How's comparing the box office success of a 'Movie' to a 'Documentary'? For brevity I am not including any of Moore's docos.


Dr Strangelove did well at the box office during most of the late Cold War and continued to be hugely popular thereafter. It still grosses millions of dollars every year, worldwide. It just happens to also be a brilliant film.

Box office takings are not proportional or related to the quality of the film.

Some flops are brilliant films : most blockbusters are sheer offal.

Very few blockbusters are quality films; "How I stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb" is one of them.

A lesson in madness, a truly brilliant anti war film

Off topic

Come and See (Idi i smotri) (1985)
A boy is unwillingly thrust into the atrocities of war in WWII Byelorussia, fighting for a hopelessly unequipped resistance movement against the ruthless German forces. Witnessing scenes of abject terror and accidentally surviving horrifying situations he loses his innocence and then his mind.

"There are few images more indelible than the sight of young Alexei Kravchenko's fear-petrified expression. By some accounts the boy was hypnotized for the movie's final scenes—most viewers will be as well."

i was under the impression that most films pretty much flop and that hollywood survived because the minority of films that really succeed make enough to right off all those that fail to break even, as such you might as well ask 'why do comedies flop at the box office' and then list a bunch of recent failed comedies.