So why did this flop?
I can get Cameron Diaz not being a draw anymore but Tom Cruise? The next year he did Ghost Protocol then Jack Reacher and then Oblivion and all these other hits.
shareI can get Cameron Diaz not being a draw anymore but Tom Cruise? The next year he did Ghost Protocol then Jack Reacher and then Oblivion and all these other hits.
shareBecause people didn't want to see it.
shareIt's interesting that it came out in the same year as The Tourist - a similar type of movie. Of course, The Tourist made more money because of the Depp/Jolie pairing.
shareThe biggest problem was that the studio had one marketing goal in mind but didn't share it with the theater owners that had a completely different expectation. The studios thought the film was best suited for a word of mouth campaign and used that as their strategy, theaters thought with Tom Cruise it was supposed to be a major blockbuster type strategy so when the initial box office receipts came in they were nowhere near the level the theater owners expected so it was doomed at that point because the theater owners pulled it as soon as they could which kille it. One would also say that Fox wasn't doing the best for a word of mouth campaign because those types of movie that grow slow need to be done with a limited release so you don't piss off theater owners that are wasting lots of screens for a movie you arne't going to pump money into on the marketing side.
In the end the biggest problem was piss poor marketing. Although as I recall the director made some bad comments about the movie at the time which is never a good thing and probalby indicates there was some behind the scenes bullshit between the director and producers/studio which may have also impacted what happened with marketing.
Cruise was originally circling The Tourist, which is probably why McQuarrie was brought on to re-write it. I wonder if the slow-boat chase was his idea. Knight & Day made more money domestically, but The Tourist beat it internationally by about $25 million. Neither movie was good.
shareThis is one of those films that I would not have been interested in seeing in the cinema but have enjoyed watching a few years later. Neither of the stars are/were big draws for me and the whole idea seemed a bit old fashioned and sub-Bond - but it's actually OK. Perhaps one of those films that benefit from low expectations?
shareYep. Low expectations needed. It's kinda forgettable but that makes it rewatchable. I remember enjoying it a couple of times years ago, but for the life of me can't remember how it ends, which is good, I will watch it again soon.
shareThe film would have worked well in the early 2000s when it was meant to be released. Production problems, rewrites, casting all problematic. The finished product is terrible as well. It flopped cuz it’s a weak film.
shareI found it to be a very fun movie to watch--thoroughly enjoyable. It's an action movie somewhere between MI and Bond, but with more humor. In fact, it really showcases just how funny Cruise can be. Plus, he and Diaz have fun chemistry.
shareI saw 10-15 minutes of the movie once, and obviously I thought it sucked.
It was completely phony, Cruise and Diaz doing their schticks and no pretense at humor or realism, no entertainment value at all.
I'm always on board with "people are allowed to enjoy whatever they enjoy" some dont like it, some do. I really liked this fun/silly/action romp, and bought the disk.
Marketing: I didn't even hear about it when it was in theaters. maybe saw one commercial, then nothing. Years later, I thought, "Hmmm I thought I saw Cruise in some action comedy" and hunted it down. they could have pushed marketing more.
This movie was hilarious, just watched it with my mom for the first time. Maybe it's because I like the Mission Impossible franchise that I thought of it more as a satire on it's genre.
shareThe romcom adventure has always been a very difficult sell.
share