Are Russell Crowe and Leonardo DiCaprio not big enough to open "Body of Lies"?

My colleague John Horn is finishing a story for our Thursday paper that makes a bold prediction — it's possible that "Body of Lies" may lose the opening weekend box-office race to a week-old movie about a talking dog. Yikes! When it comes to star power, it's hard to imagine a movie having more fuel injection than "Body of Lies," which has two of Hollywood's top A-listers, Russell Crowe and Leonardo DiCaprio, along with top director Ridley Scott. So why is the heavily promoted Warners political thriller tracking so poorly?

Horn talked to two rival distributors who contend that Warners has an uphill battle. He writes: "For all the advertising Warner Bros. has bought in support of 'Body of Lies' — remember the incessant spots for the film during the Summer Olympics? — the film's awareness is unexpectedly low so close to its release. Audience interest, they further say, is concentrated among older males, who generally don't rush to the multiplex on a film's first weekend." Horn says the film's early reviews have been good, but not glowing, adding that "even though 'Body of Lies' is not explicitly about the war in Iraq, recent movies with even a vague Middle Eastern story have labored to sell tickets."

After talking to a few film analysts myself, I think "Body of Lies" has even bigger problems. It is coming out at a time when there is horrible market-place fatigue — a nice way of saying that people are either too burned out or distracted to want to see many movies right now. There certainly are plenty of distractions, with the country embroiled in a hard-fought presidential election and suffering from a gigantic economic collapse. Hollywood is supposed to be recession proof, but is it depression proof too?

Moviegoers were assaulted last weekend with six wide-release new films. This weekend is nearly as crowded, with Screen Gems releasing the low-budget thriller "Quarantine," Universal opening the football drama "The Express" and 20th Century Fox bring out "City of Ember," along with a host of holdovers from last week. It's simply another example of Hollywood being unable to exercise any self-discipline. Always under pressure from their corporate bosses to boost profits, studios simply make too many movies, leaving it to their increasingly frazzled marketing departments to figure out a way to open them all. According to a Michael Fleming story in today's Variety, the production floodgates are about to burst open again, with as many as 40 new studio films slated to be in production by next summer, a situation guaranteed to create another disastrous box-office logjam in 2010 and 2011.

If "Body of Lies" doesn't open, it will be easy to say that even a film with lots of action scenes and great characters still couldn't persuade moviegoers to see a story that might possibly involve politics or the Middle East. But the real blame will fall on DiCaprio and Crowe. They are mega movie stars, and mega movie stars are supposed to open pictures. That's why they get paid the big bucks. If the movie ends up being a disappointment, it could be another nail in the coffin of the old-fashioned star system, which has been shown to be increasingly unreliable in terms of delivering large numbers of moviegoers.

Outside of 2007's "American Gangster" and 2006's "The Departed," which both had two mega stars and an A-list director at the helm, it's hard to think of many recent films that justified the cost of all that high-priced talent. Those two films worked because they were set in a commercial genre — gangland thriller. "Body of Lies" doesn't have that going for it. Most of today's studios prefer to team one top star with a character actor or lesser-known sidekick, whether it's Tom Cruise and Philip Seymour Hoffman in "MI3," Matt Damon and Julia Stiles in "Bourne Ultimatum" or Will Smith and his dog Samantha in "I Am Legend."

Dogs have a great life. They don't get a piece of the gross, but no one expects them to open a movie either. Movie stars are burdened with higher expectations. And if "Body of Lies" doesn't cut the mustard this weekend, you can bet that a lot of movie star fees will start going down almost as fast as the stock market.

Photo credit: Warner Bros.

Comments

[michael]

there is no way this movie is going to be a disappointement. NO WAY, the movie is going to be number 1 in the box office and will stay long in there. i mean, come on if movie goers can not be interested in what LEONARDO DICAPRIO AND RUSSEL CROWE deliver in this movie, then i will be forced to believe the taste of people for good, quality movies is robbed by these days boring movies. cartoon movies and movies which are made about dogs don't deserve to stay in the box office, in my opinion. the only reason that leonardo dicaprio is in this movie has got to be a good enough reason for movie goers to go and watch this movie. he has been delivering us so much than we can expect from one movie star, his body of work and ways of acting or playing his characters is simply amazing. i am certain this movie will be a box office hit in a country even kind of movies like the dark knight can make good money in the cinima. i have been counting days to watch this movie and i will be the first person in my city to go and watch this movie on friday,which is the opening date.

[R]

Hey hollywood actors here comes the landslide of indifference to you. You've been in our face too long and too often and now it's your turn NOT to see our faces at your movies.

Get used to it.

[Lara]

If Body of Lies doesn't open at #1 it will hardly affect Leo's career. He's a mega star and quickly becoming a legend in his own right, he won't be forgotten nor will his celebrity status be diminished. I think his movie will do well even if it isn't #1. I certainly plan on seeing it and any other movie that he makes. I never agree with the critics and neither does the rest of the general public.

[Christian Toto]

Stars today simply can't open movies (unless your first name is Will). It's that simple. And in a way that's a good thing if it brings down star salaries. That will give studios more flexibility in putting their money toward screenwriters/production budgets, etc. It also may coax actors to stop chasing huge salaries for mediocre to poor projects. Maybe Johnny Depp turns down "Pirates 4" if the booty isn't so big. And wouldn't it be a better world without another "Pirates" snorefest?

[William Millan]

The "Pro-American" action movie, "Vantage Point" was a huge hit. Russell Crowe said as a result of the film's exploration of the American government and foreign policy, "I don't think it will be very popular, but that's never been part of my project choice process."

This tells you the Producers would rather make a point than make money.

This is what is wrong. Americans are sick and tired of Hollywood bad-mouthing our country.

[Jan Mozelewski]

If anything is past its time it isn't the stars talked about in this article.
Its the ridiculously youth-centric focus on opening weekend numbers. Why should it matter that a movie's demograph doesn't rush out to the cinema for the latest thing.....as long as they do see it? Its that obsession with top spot on opening weekend that is doing more than anything to decrease the number of quality films being made for adults.
IThe kids go early to watch their talking dogs, dumb gross-out comedies and whatever else they prattle about on Facebook...But its a good job that actors of calibre still make movies that will last longer in the memory than a portion of fries and a soda.

In the final analysis, I don't think Box Office numbers have any real relevence to a movie's commercial success anymore. Especially for adults who hate multiplexes, its all about Home Entertainment. So a movie can do really mediocre business at the theater and make lots of money overall. The augument that actors like Crowe and Leo are given all that money simply to 'open' a movie is so simplistic and redundant frankly. May as well say that the cast of Fight Club or The Shawshank Redemption were not worth their money either because they didn't 'open' well.

...Movies need talent of this calibre for more reason than simple 'star power'

[Seattle Sapphire]

After reading the book and waiting eagerly for the release of this movie, I certainly hope I'm not alone in rushing to see it this weekend. Politics aside, the story is simply a great spy thriller and hopefully the respected Body of Work that DiCaprio and Crowe bring to the screen (not to mention Ridley Scott's) will earn them the considerable audience numbers for this film that they - and it - deserve.

[Alex Biancalana]

Well, those stars are paid too much and at the expense of other talent and crew.

Pay distribution should be more equitable. Yes, if it's the star bringing in the audience, maybe their share should reflect that, but apparently, that's not working out too well recently.

It's time for producers to tell these stars that there is always someone with more talent and appeal who will work for much less.

The days of those massive 20 to 25 million dollar paychecks should be over.

[frances Berberian]

Instead of predicting "a failure" at the box office, why don't you concentrate on the high qualities of this film! Ridley and cast have delivered a very high class picture in the mist of "crap" that passes as entertainment. Box office grosses should not always be an indication of success in the film industry. But, writers like you love to concentrate on the negative and keep the public away! of course, intelligent film goers will realize the value of Ridley, Crowe, and Leo! Like the "Insider" and Cinderella Man" it's value will be realized later.

[Victoria]

Sorry, Russell Crowe can't open anything anymore.

The only reason American Gangster did reasonably well is because Denzel Washington toplined it.

3:10 to Yuma underperformed despite a good performance by Christian Bale. A Good Year was a disaster, thanks to Crowe's attempts at being winsome.

Aaand does anyone have anything good to say about Crowe playing both the sheriff and Robin Hood in the upcoming Nottingham?

[Rick Mitchell]

Your, and other commentators, complaints about Hollywood making too many movies overlooks one very important perspective: that of the exhibitor. In order to stay in business, he (or she) needs to at least break even each week on his rentals and overhead. That means he has to have something on his screen(s) to attract enough bodies to achieve that goal. It has been demonstrated time and again that audiences will not necessarily go to see the film they passed up last week if they really have no interest in seeing it, especially in the last 20 years in which the industry has essentially been in competition with itself via initial theatrical release vs. home video. For this reason, the industry has always released at least five films of different types every week, even in January. Fewer films, and more "independent" than mainstream films, will quickly be the death of motion picture theaters.

As for the "star system", this has really always been a sham promoted by studio publicists and more recently and tragically in terms of its costs to production, agents. The only truly bankable star in film history was John Wayne, who generally brought in audiences for over 40 years, especially in films in which he lived up to the persona he'd created. Which was also true of most "stars" with any degree of longevity.

Rick Mitchell
Film Editor/Film Historian

[Tony]

Sometimes it's not about the movie, the director or the stars. It's about marketing. I had no clue what this movie was about, despite seemingly endless commercials that seemed to repeat the same scene over and over.