1. I disagree...
The "film community" constantly complains that Hollywood only sees dollar signs, that they aren't really interested in all these indie films that are actually better than any mass marketed film. What your box office tally above shows is that this isn't true when it comes to an agenda. So Hollywood won't make films they know are going to lose money, but yet they made at least 6 about the Iraq war without any agenda...

Posted at 12:31PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Ben

2. Well, yeah -- I'm not claiming the movies were MADE without any agenda. (I guess I should also note that "Redacted," for example, wasn't exactly studio-financed.) I just think they (the ones that "failed") were RECEIVED in the same way as other "indie" flicks with little general appeal.

Posted at 12:38PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Gene Novikov

3. People interested in a military movies are generally conservative and pro military. Stop Loss wasn’t made for them, nor was it marketed to them. The vast majority of Hollywood is anti military and anti Iraq War (by the way the war is over, we are preventing the current Iraq government from being over ran by terrorist), so everyone they talk to feels they same way they do and they can’t grasp why the rest of the country doesn’t feel the same way as all their friends in the Hollywood.

Posted at 12:35PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Isaiah

4. Vast numbers of people aren't into horror movies, or musicals, or stoner comedies, yet they keep on being made. Whether you agree with the war or not, there ARE people who don't agree with the war, and I assure you they number more than the people who went to see these movies. Your post makes it sound like the anti-war crowd is only a teeny-tiny minority, and I assure you that it's not.

I am against this war, and I haven't seen any of these movies. Why? Because I'm smart enough that I don't need a morality play, which is what all these movies seem like. They are not just movies that take an anti-war viewpoint; they are BIG IMPORTANT WORKS OF ART that are designed to change people's minds, as if we are so malleable that watching Lions for Lambs would make someone change their opinions. No matter how good the movie is, being talked down to is being talked down to, and I don't want to pay $12 for the chance of that happening.

Posted at 1:01PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Sam

5. Missed Valley of Elah in the theaters, but I still plan on picking it up on DVD.

Redacted never played anywhere near me. DePalma has seemed like a huge let down over the past decade. I really don't know whether I'm going to bother with Redacted on DVD.

I thought The Kingdom was a pretty well made film. Overall, I enjoyed it.

Rendition played in my neck of the woods, but I wasn't thrilled about the prospect of going to see it, so I kept putting it off until it finally dropped out of theaters. I MIGHT pick it up on DVD.

Lions for Lambs seemed like it was going to be one of those really boring, heavy handed films. That hasn't stopped me before, but it stopped me this time. I also have a personal issue with Redford, in that it feels like he hasn't bothered to keep Sundance true to its spirit. I might pick it up on DVD, if I'm bored.

I couldn't even remember what Home of the Brave was until I clicked on the IMDB link. I'll give you two words for why I didn't see this film - Fifty Cent. No chance of picking it up on DVD, either.

It might be nice if you had budget figures next to the box office receipts.

Posted at 12:41PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Stewart

6. I wouldn't say I avoid Iraq War movies so much as the fact that the current crop of mainstream movies about the war look, well, banal. I blame that on marketing more than anything. The trailers for some of these make the movies seem about as interesting as warm toast (I'm looking at you 'In The Valley of Elah').

I'm a liberal. I rather like my beliefs, but I also want these movies to challenge them a little bit rather than going beyond the simple axiom of 'war is bad.' Disturb me a little bit. Push the thesis a little further rather than landing on a simple statement. I've seen a fair share of movies that could be considered 'anti-war,' and I think that the few filmmakers (e.g. Kubrick, Coppola) that discuss it go beyond making their films simple message movies.

Out of that list, I've only seen The Kingdom; and while I think it sets up a rather nice argument, it's more of film that dissolves into an action-thriller with political trappings than it is a full-on anti-war movie (I apologize for this badly-written sentence).

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the BO failures for Home of the Brave and Redacted due to their extremely limited releases?

Posted at 12:49PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Talk Talk

7. Well, presumably they would have expanded had they done well in their limited releases. But someone was clearly asleep at the wheel; the marketing for "Redacted" in particular was just woeful (as I recall the trailer had almost no images from the film), though that one was a tough cookie anyway, as I said.

Posted at 12:58PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Gene Novikov

8. Gotcha. De Palma's output as of late has been below par, but I think Redacted's the only other movie on that list that I'd be interested in seeing.

Posted at 2:20PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Talk Talk

9. I enjoy war fims of all genres. However, the good ones are made after the fact, Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, We Are Soldiers, Platoon; Full Metal Jacket, the Longest Day, Patton, even Battle at Midway(made just a few years after WWII). Society, particularly Historians, have had an opportunity to digest the events and influences of the war and can make meaningful conclusions about it. Making a movie about the war while it is still going on is different. The long-term perspective is non-existent or purely speculative. It's hard to make a point about an event while it is still going on. The final outsome is not written yet. Who knows if the men and women lost died in vain or not. Therefore these films are usually propaganda, either for or against the war. The films mentioned in the post are mostly dramatic recreations or pure fiction. Documentaries, such as HBO's Baghdad Hospital, provide a real look at what is going, not someone's idea of what is going on. It is the editoralizing of the events that is, at least for me, a turn off (even in documentaries). Some parts of society don't necessarily want to deal with what is happening. Therefore, none of these are the veritable cash cows that post war movies are, such as Saving Private Ryan or Pearl Harbor. The few that are making money, such as the Kingdom, are great stories not about the war specifically but, great human stories. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I avoid these Iraq War movies like the plague but, I'd rather make up my own mind. I would rather talk to the men and women on the ground in Iraq about the war and let them influence me, not some millionaire dreamer in Hollywood.

Posted at 12:56PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Clint

10. This is a super-important point.

I'd add Gallipoli to your list of great after-the-fact war movies.

Posted at 12:59PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Gene Novikov

11. Personally, I don't like the idea of paying $10 a ticket for a movie that aims to anger or distress the viewer. One should be paid for that. When I see a movie, I want it to either entertain, inspire or make me appreciate something. One such movie was World Trade Center (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/). I don't really mind how current the subject matter is. WHat matters to me is the tone.

Posted at 1:20PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Tristan

12. MMM the word liberal is an odd one as it implies anti-war thereby excluding a lot of the audience as it suggests a lack of patriotism in watching that kind of film. The problem with all of the american Iraq films is that they are not looking at the situation from any other point of viewbut the american one, but not with any real depth. Whither you view the misguided pursuit for Iraq Oil dressed up as imposing American style democracy on a foreign muslim culture tht clearly dont want it !!!as allowable or right is a separate issue. The movies themselves market themselves to a liberal audience but in an attempt to inform rather than offend are all too similar in tone. Once youve seen one youve seen them all. The other problem is that after over 5 years the situation is no where nearer an end than it ever was - which is the real crime by the way why not make a movie about that!!! Americans need happy endings or at least resolutions. Its time you looked at the situation fresh from an entirely different perspective. Maybe when Bush has been laid to rest and americans stop being hated by the world audiences will get that!!

Posted at 1:58PM on Mar 26th 2008 by pete thomson

13. My wife and I enjoy war movies and ultimately movies that deal with real situations. It helps if they're dealth with in a real way but I'll even take a procedural or action perspective as well ("the Kingdom"). I didn't bother with DePalma's "Redacted" cuz it felt too much like his "Casualties of War". We both liked "Rendition" and "Lions for Lambs" but I think my favorite was "In the Valley of Elah". Sure, there's the whole ham-handed ending but it's really a movie about Combat PTSD (as are many of these movies), a topic that is very real and has often been neglected. There are other films that have dealt with this post-war condition, like straight-to-DVD film "Home of the Brave" (it was alright) and Christian Bale's "Harsh Times" (a solid film).

"Stop-Loss" looks to be touching on PTSD as well as the stress of war. No matter what your poitical leanings are....it seems to me it can't hurt to see such a film for the simple reason to possibly understand what has been and is going on.

I just would rather see a film about this subject matter then I would watch Fox News, CNN or read any of the pundits take on what is happening. If I want to know more after I view the movie, I'll do my own research.

Posted at 3:03PM on Mar 26th 2008 by DAVID F

14. These movies all tanked despite big, big name stars, tons of press coverage and, except in a few cases, wide exposure.

If one of these failed, or two or three failed, you can explain it away. Not this many. Not with Tom Cruise! Meryl Streep! Reese Witherspoon! Please. And when conservative critics have a point, please give them credit and don't name call or otherwise demean them or their views. Sometimes they do make a strong case. Acknowledge it. Show you're intellectually honest enough to do so.

Yes, Hollywood follows the money, except when it's time to hector the audience. And so we get "Stop-Loss" ... and I bet it won't be the last anti-Iraq, anti-war on terror movie.

Aren't any liberal critics curious why Hollywood keeps pouring millions into anti-Iraq films when they're almost guaranteed to lose money? I've talked to so many fine filmmakers who can't get their projects off the ground at first, and their budgets are miniscule. Why do you think Hollywood backs these almost certain busts but not quality fare like some indies?

How 'bout Hollywood makes ONE movie in which a brave squad of soldiers stomp a terrorist cell. "The Kingdom" came close, but it was part CSI, part quickie history lesson. And look how well it did compared to the other films on this list.

Put the Iraq War aside for a moment. Look at the enemy our western culture is fighting. They cut off people's heads! They commit unspeakable horrors. They dance in the streets when innocents are slaughtered. Tell me there's not a story in which they can play the villain.

Posted at 3:04PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Christian Toto

15. I guess there's always 24 -- which, for the record, I think is better than ANY of the movies in my post.

And like I said in response to someone else, I don't dispute that Hollywood producers have a political agenda (on the other hand I don't think there's anything wrong with that, either). My point was that when the films have failed it was more because of the kinds of movies that they were rather than their message.

Thanks for all these comments; they've taught me quite a bit.

Posted at 3:10PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Gene Novikov

16. The second biggest problem with these movies is that they are just too dumb. Why can't Hollywood make a movie about the war that is not aimed at the lowest common denominator?. What about making a movie for those of use who read newspapers and books, can we not have a movie that approaches the subject with intelligence? Why has Sorkin not yet been given $30m to go off and make an Iraq movie?

But the biggest problem with these movies is that they are just rubbish, really, really rubbish.

Without wanting to give the end away to 'Valley of Elah' I swear to god throughout that movie I was telling my wife that if that flag element was gonna be revisited in the final scene that I would throw up all over my popcorn. Talk about corny? And I am a liberal!!! Utter bilge from a director who really should know better.

So give us an iraq movie that is not made for stupid people and addresses the real issues out there, not biased in any political direction (guess that might rule out Sorkin) Not pulling punches when it comes the the US Governments huge mistakes and lies over this but not so far left that it turns into another Michael Moore love fest.

Is Hollywood capable of this?

Posted at 5:03PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Gary

17. I am not one to watch most of the Iraq war-themed movies because I think, like many movies nowadays, you get a sense of what you believe they are going to be about; and the obstacles for the character never appear (from trailers) to be too difficult.

Actually, the best example of this, I ever saw was G.I. Jane (if you don't mind me getting slightly off topic). If you think about it, you could guess that she is going to prove here worth and succeed in the end and the story is not that interesting just watching her hanging out with the boys, literally treading water. IT would be interesting if you ever got a sense like she wasn't going to cut it. I think the audience stays away from movies they feel they can predict. Especially in the case where an audience member feels they know exactly what they are going to get (right or wrong) and is not necessarily interesting in the topic, I think evidence shows they will save their money instead. It is only worsened by excuses like "propaganda", but to argue it the other way... when is the last time you think you've seen a pro-war movie (save perhaps the new Rambo movie).

The one corollary seems to be Romantic Comedies, which, as my friends and family often state, are watchable simply to get their happy (albeit predictable) ending.

Back on point, haven't you just confirmed what many suspect... Stop-Loss appears to be from your site's reviews a preachy, somber, depressing story about a much-covered topic that can't seem to distinguish itself from the pack?

Posted at 5:54PM on Mar 26th 2008 by ahkaufman

18. Don't we also need to know the budgets of all of these movies in order to determine whether they were failures or not?

Posted at 6:26PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Captain Obvious

19. Of course you mean to determine if they were commercial failures or not?

Posted at 9:26PM on Mar 26th 2008 by Gary

20. I'm sorry, Gary, did I miss something? I thought this whole post was about how well these movies did at the box office. Perhaps I was wrong.

Posted at 2:07AM on Mar 27th 2008 by Captain Obvious