John Cusack's War, Inc: Defying Expectations And The Corporate Media

It's not uncommon for a big-budget Hollywood flick to get mixed reviews and then go on to do gang-busters at the box office. Movie-goers' desires when looking for a little escapism on a Saturday afternoon don't always mesh with the critics' tastes. But it's almost unheard of for scrappy, independent films to do well without critical raves. Low-budget films live or die according to their reviews, and a so-so write up is usually a quick ticket to the video shelf.

That's the rule; War, Inc., John Cusack's dark parable about the rape and pillage of the Iraqi economy -- what Antonia Juhasz calls Bush's "economic invasion" of Iraq - is the exception. While the film wasn't exactly panned by critics -- overall, its writing and acting were well-received -- quite a few mainstream reviewers were dismissive of its premise. For many in the commercial media, Iraq, and the rampant war-profiteering that's marked the adventure from the beginning, is old news, and they greeted it with a collective 'ho-hum.'

Time called the film, "a great excuse to call up your old liberal pals and relive that dreamy time when war as business was an idea worth satirizing." The New York Times' David Carr wrote, "Those who suggest that the movie's core premise - war as a profit engine - is so five years ago are right in a way" (not that Carr would suggest anything of the sort himself). Reuters' Frank Scheck predicted that "the First Look release is unlikely to counter the commercial malaise for war-themed films."

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[TheBlackCat]

I saw this movie at the sneak premiere with my Iraqi vet husband. We both thought it was a very funny, very on point satire. When he was Over There he used to email me CONSTANTLY complaining of the war profiteers and said that they were mocked and loathed by the soldiers (at least in HIS platoon, obviously he can't speak for everyone), so he really enjoyed a movie that brought those guys to task.

[Calylily]

I have only asked for my money back for a incredibly BAD movie - twice in my entire life.

This was one of them!

[RTIII]

I saw it. I liked it. I recommend it.
.

[impatient]

Hey, the movie's only been in release in New York and San Francisco. If it EVER opens anywhere I happen to be, I will gladly fork over my ten buscks or so to see it.

I love the fact that books are making it to the top of the NY Times best seller's lists (Vincent Bugliosi's book) and to the topo of the movie buzz without inpt from Mainstream media and coming out sqaurely against Bush and his ilk.

What MORE could any American want?

[InofTouch]

talk about hype piece

[GQTaste]

It's only made $517,000 to date. Whoever got 5million i'd like to see a link to that. Opening Weekend: $35,336
(2 theaters, $17,668 average)
% of Total Gross: 6.8%

Widest Release: 33 theaters

In Release: 52 days / 7.4 weeks





http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=warinc.htm

[connorin]

"Defying Expectations"?!?!?!?

$517,000 in box office over 7.4 weeks? For a movie with John Cusack, Hilary Duff, Marisa Tomei, Joan Cusack, Dan Aykroyd, and Ben Kingsley?!?!?!?!?

Just how freaking LOW were the expectations of this flick????

[RTIII]

The big name media tried to kill it...
.

[drakke]

Yes, entirely expectable. It is a wonderful "satire" -- the acting is excellent. It indicates just how psychopathic TPTB are. And how little they care for anyone or anything beyond their arrogance, megalomania, and bank balances. The film is a fine indictment against the "elites" who steal and murder at will, with apparently no consequences.

[TheBlackCat]

Probably REALLY low. Has there BEEN a movie that's come out about the war that's made any money? People are just not going to many movies with a messege these days, ESPECIALLY movies about the war.

Still, you would think ANY movie with John Cusack and Ben Kingsley would pull in at least SOMETHING.

[RoloTomassi]

I've not had the opportunity to see the film [not showing anywhere in S. FL], but I would certainly see it if given the chance. Kudos to Cusack for fighting the good fight within his chosen field of work and artistic expression.

I saw film last night on cable that I'd never heard of before, titled "The Insurgents." Quite an interesting take on the possibilities of homegrown insurgence against BushCo, and well worth watching.

[jw]

Good to know at least some filmmakers have guts,

[swift goat pet for truth]

I hope JC puts up Farenheit 911 numbers.

[billu]

It's been out 7 weeks started at 3 theaters bumped up to 43 or so and is now on the decline. Total gross .5 million. It might do a like amount or a bit better on DVDs but probably not. Looks to be a cheap hbo staple for the next 6 years or so though.

[walk0nwalls]

At least the people I read had issues with the film's marriage of comedy with the Iraq war but I guess a lot of people didn't have similar misgivings.

[donaldw6]

It's still going on, isn't it? It's still the mindset of the current administration and, one suspects, their anointed replacement, isn't it? Then this is highly relevant satire. Well done, Mr. Cusack!

[billu]

The film is 31 out of 40 and hasn't even broken 1Million yet. *YAWN*

[drakke]

Could it ever occur to your republican (roboclone) mindset (big yawn from me) that the amount earned may not be a true measure of its value and quality, mr. billu. And that other "forces" may have a hand in minimizing "the take". There are deeper issues in life than money, in case you've never noticed :) Now, go watch some more NASCAR reruns

[brooonie]

Could this film have been made five years ago? Or would people have bought DVDs of it to stamp into the asphalt, like they did with the Dixie Chick's CDs? They had to wait till there were enough people sick of drinking kool-aid for a decent-sized audience.

[pbfishtaco]

Five years ago perhaps Mr. Carr or another 'professional' at the Times was writing about how well the war was going. Or perhaps was walking amongst the Aspens with someone from the administration, getting that exclusive tip about WMD.

Will we have to wait until the debacle is ten or twenty years in our rear view mirror before we can call attention to the utter bankruptcy of Military/Industrial/Congressional complex?

How long is long enough? When the statute of limitations is up on fraud??