"Lions for Lambs" fails to roar for United Artists
"Lions for Lambs," the star-studded first film from United Artists since Tom Cruise and his longtime producing partner took over the fabled studio, has so far generated more yawns than roars at box offices.Perfectly capturing the far-left mindset of Hollywood, despite the disaster Wagner uttered this mind-bogglingly stupid statement.
After three weeks in theaters, the antiwar drama directed by Robert Redford with an A-list cast featuring Redford, Cruise and Meryl Streep, has grossed a meager $14 million in North American ticket sales and about $26 million more overseas.
That tally surpasses the $35 million reportedly spent to make the film, which was distributed domestically by UA parent company Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. and internationally by News Corp subsidiary 20th Century Fox.
Entertainment trade paper Daily Variety said the film was unlikely to gross more than $60 million in theatrical revenues worldwide and reported some industry watchers projecting the movie could lose as much as $25 million.
The film's anemic performance coupled with mostly negative reviews marked a disappointing start for the reconstituted studio that Cruise and onetime agent Paula Wagner took over after ending their producing deal at Paramount Pictures.
Wagner acknowledged that "Lions for Lambs" failed to live up to expectations but defended the movie as worth making, both commercially and artistically.Let's see how long the UA shareholders find such judgment worthwhile.
"We are proud to have made Robert Redford's film as it was a timely and engaging story with top stars," she said. "You want every picture to be successful, but the reality of the business is that not every one will be."
UPDATE: Instapundit and Riehl World View link. Thanks!