Why did it so bad at the Box Office?!

[deleted]

Wanted to see hubby direct his six-foot MENSA member and a qualified archer wifey Geena in an action flick in a more contemporary setting, and it was good! Geena does come out fine as a versatile actress doing action scenes. And as one comment saying after landing up home all tired from a hectic day it does a good job of unwinding. Says a lot about the movie. And how can one even compare Lost in Translation to this one? TLKG is certainly not pretending to compete in the Oscars or even Hall of Fame!!! But Geena sure was fantastic in Thelma and Louise.

So, at the end of the day, this didn't work, as everyone said coz it had a woman in the lead role, and perhaps wasn't so vigorously marketed as Kill Bill where Quentin has his feet firmly in the ground coz he's not directing his wife.

The film is awful. It flopped because of that reason, and that reason alone.
What makes it awful has been said - awful acting, awful stunts, awful dialogue and cheesy even though it thinks it's not and tries it's hardest to be serious.

Great no brainers that do it properly have to be MI:II & Ong Bak but there are plenty of others.

This one sucks.

[deleted]

I'm trying to hack it as a professional screenwriter in Hollywood. Does that count?

I'm bald and overweight only on the inside, Harry. And as far as lonely goes, well, you're a cheeky bastard but I'll bite--a/s/l?

____________
45! 22! Fight for freedom 'til we're free!

It shouldn't have bombed, it was a great movie, lots of action, funny lines and it even had a good plot.

Geena Davis was good in this and as always I love Samuel L Jackson, he put the icing on the cake.

Whoever didn't think this movie was good doesn't know a good movie when they see one.

I saw it when it came out and love it each time I watch it which is quite often now that I have it on DVD!

First off, I want to thank everyone for posting on this movie; it has helped me a great deal as I am writing a dissertation chapter on it. Of course, this means I'd like to put my 2 cents in the mix. As to the question of box office sales, although it may have faired poorly at its original release, the NY Times and other sources that have been tracking the DVD market have suggested more than once that Sam Jackson films (along with Steve Buscemi?!) rank among the highest if not the highest in DVD sales. Therefore, the film's post-theatrical release 'box office' needs to be taken into account, and possibly stand as a corrective to box office sales. Yet, the truth of the matter is that gender most likely did play a part in its reception. However, I want to argue with the earlier poster who said women don't like action movies?! How films are marketed, and yes action-spectacle films are primarily marketed to young men, is a distinct topic from what 'women' supposedly like or dislike. And, in fact, by the middle of the nineties, producers such as Joel Silver and large production companies started actively marketing action films to both men and women (see: True Lies), finding that not romantic subplots but comedy encouraged women to attend these films; so you can thank the girls for the witty repartee in most of these movies.
I am really responding, though, to the IMDB review that says if you think about this movie it is actually "stupid". I'd like to call that for what it is: denial (disavowal). As the comments here clearly address, the film brings up a great deal about the constructed nature of gender. I think the woman who pointed out Keith Ferguson's discomfort w/ Samantha's butchness hit it on the head. Interestingly, her "Samantha" character, the feminine, domesticated role he was more comfortable with than Charly. I would direct you to check out the photos on the IMDB page, particularly the one where Charly rides up the Xmas lights to kill _the father of her child_. In this scene, she sets on fire the banner of the happy white nuclear family behind her. Remember, Davis was bringing with her the fame and controversy of Thelma and Louise when starring in this film. That she becomes Charly after fending off the unwanted sexual advances of the man from the party is no coincidence. I apologize for pontificating (I have already published an article on the role of women action heros in this film and The Matrix elsewhere) but I wanted to throw it out there that maybe the film generates such debates for reasons beyond 'good' and 'bad', which are essentially subjective, but rather creates such responses because of the kind of themes and characterizations that this film represents. Just by casting a woman as the action hero, the re-masculinizing that typically occurs in action films such as Rambo and Die Hard are turned upside down. As much as Sam is masculinized over the course of the film, so is John McClane and Rambo (the latter as a personification of post-Vietnam America and the former as the American husband now unnecessary to the corporate-climbing post-feminist woman). Finally, because it offers an action-packed and witty critique of gender roles, racial politics and right-wing corruption of U.S. democracy (remember, this was during Clinton's administration) this film ROCKS, or at the very least, deserves a thoughtful reconsideration by its detractors (Mr. Ferguson, I'd be happy to send you my full chapter to further enlighten you to the cultural and aesthetic riches afforded by Long Kiss Goodnight).

I dunno about the box office, but it was a popular movie in the early years of DVD, up there with Jurassic Park and Contact as a home theater demo movie. I rented it more than once on laserdisc to give my subwoofers a workout.