ROFL...what utter rot.
Saw the Alamo today. Thought it was fine. And respectful.
The weird Alamo-bashing campaign on FR by people who largely didn't even see the movie is one of the lamer things I've seen around here. Typical was grand-idiot Joseph Farah's article urging a boycott though he admitted he didn't see it. Of course it all started with an e-mail campaign that basically lied about events in the movie.
The movie bombed because of the lack of a major star, and the fact that most Americans have no idea what happened at the Alamo; certainly isn't covered in schools anymore outside of Texas.
"Gods and Generals" was a massive box-office flop, and FR loved that movie. "Master and Commander" was a box office disappointment, even with a major star. Seems historical war movies may be going out of style.
I heard a snip of the dialogue on NPR a couple of days ago.
Davy Crockett, with fear in his voice asks, "I understood the fighting was over in Texas. Isn't it?"
That is the publicity that is getting out to the public: a cowardly Davy Crockett. The Liberals could not care less about the Alamo. The Conservatives don't want to see a Disney (Eisener) movie that deconstructs yet another chapter in American history.
If you read John Kerry's Congressional testimony and "thought it to be fine" would that qualify any criticism of it to be "utter rot"?
Do you believe the de la Pena diaries to be forgeries or genuine?
At first I doubted that statement, since BoxOfficeMojo.com says that "Master and Commander" earned a "Total as of Apr. 14, 2004: $93,821,423 + Overseas Gross: $115,767,000." That's $209.5 million, worldwide. However, production and marketing costs were approximately $180 million, giving a net profit of just under $30 million.
That's still pretty good, but, given how good that movie was, not nearly what it should have taken in.
Then there's "Gods and Generals." Total costs: $86 million. Total BO gross: $12.8 million. Yeah, I'd call that a disappointment.