|
Re: Spartan (2004)
| | Added by Gizmola on 2004-03-17 22:14:29 |
I can tell you that when all is said and done, most films do make their money back and become profitable. Movies live on forever, and generate income for the studios into "perpetuity".
In today's pay-tv/DvD centric world, many a film that bombs at the box office, becomes a hit on Video. Although an extreme example, Citizien Kane is generall considered the greatest film ever made, and that film was a collosal historic bomb. I suppose it only matters how one judge's success. Mamet has never seemed to care all that much about the concerns of commerce, and luckily we have a canon of small films from him like House of Games, Homicide, The Spanish Prisoner, The Winslow boy etc. none of which have ever been positioned as blockbusters. Wouldn't life be boring if the only films made were aimed at the "blockbuster" market, namely those who spend the most money at the movies... those that are under the age of 18.
As for Val Kilmer, he has a reputation as being notoriously difficult to work with, whether or not that's deserved. If he was looking to resurrect his career as a leading man in a big box office hit, I doubt very seriously he'd be signing on to play roles in small budget indies like "John Holmes" or signing up for a Mamet film. Dare I say it, but I suspect he actually aspires to making something more important artistically.
|
|
|
Re: Spartan (2004)
| | Added by Joe Rickey on 2004-03-18 22:45:19 |
You make good points. Maybe Kilmer has a little Johnny Depp in him, as Depp is known for taking offbeat roles and not wanting to be a leading man. His fortune has changed as of late and even an offbeat film like Secret Window is able to make 18 million opening weekend.
|
|
Add new comment
All comments are owned by their posters.
Please e-mail [email protected] with complaints.
|
