There's a Lot of Pressure Being Put on Cruise, MGM and 'Valkyrie'
Will Cruise ever step out of the shadow he created for himself?
Photo: MGM Studios / United Artists
An article over at the New York Times headlined "A Studio, a Star, a Fateful Bet" has a primary focus of discussing MGM's current woes as a studio in general, but also dips into the reality that they haven't had any real success for quite some time. I mean, even Quantum of Solace was co-financed and co-distributed by Sony Pictures Entertainment. Of course MGM holds the sole rights to the 23rd James Bond film, but they have to hope they have their head above water by the time that film rolls around. I am sure the current economic crisis isn't helping matters much as far as that idea is concerned.
Based on everything that has happened the article ends up pointing at the December 26 release of Valkyrie as a major test for the studio as well as its star, Tom Cruise. Considering the film centers on a group of men who set out to assassinate Hitler with Cruise playing a German officer, the release date, subject matter and casting has all come into question. The film has bounced all around the release schedule, has had to endure reshoots and despite some fantastic looking trailers still undergoes scrutiny based on the lack of German accents, especially from Cruise who plays the films figure-head Claus von Stauffenberg.
Speaking under anonymity only, one person told the Times, "Let's face it, there was a time when the movie wasn't on track; it is now." Is it?
The article assesses the situation saying "[if Valkyrie] fails, [Cruise's] status as a superstar, damaged by a rough parting with Paramount Pictures in 2006, slips another notch. And this time United Artists – clipped by a Cruise flop last year in Lions for Lambs – slips with it." Some lofty expectations considering the film will have to contend with the animated The Tale of Despereaux, Jim Carrey's new film Yes Man, Adam Sandler's Disney flick Bedtime Stories, Brad Pitt in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, the Jennifer Aniston and Owen Wilson rom-com Marley and Me, Will Smith in Seven Pounds, Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino and the Titanic reunion with Kate Winslet and Leo DiCaprio Revolutionary Road. Just how much money is it assumed the American moviegoers have? Once again the economic crisis rears its face like Putin over Alaska.
The article points out billboards that have started springing up downplaying Cruise's involvement by featuring Cruise with five fellow actors and three slogans. The last of them, notably group-oriented, reads: "The conspiracy begins this December." The release date move to December was assumed to be due to an attempt at awards consideration but apparently the film will be released with no Oscar campaign.
Valkyrie's budget is rumored to be somewhere around $75-90 million and is said to be getting a $60 million marketing budget. Does this mean this flick is going to have to post $150 million just to break even? What number are we looking at to make it considered a hit? Or better yet, what does it have to do to not be considered a failure?
I can't help but wonder, if Valkyrie does indeed fail, what happens to MGM? What happens to Cruise? Can he not dig himself out of the hole his couch jumping put him in back in 2006?
Showing 9 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New CommentNOTE: The Facebook login option has been disabled. We apologize for any inconvenience. |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Tom: it was good while it lasted but I've had enough of your crazyness….so long.
considering what else in on offer of the Christmas period this film would normally be the type of film I would go see.
But Cruise is in it, to me that equals one dimensional Tom Cruise being Tom Cruise but this time with a german uniform and eye patch. The marketing is playing down Cruise involvement for good reason. Apart from his off screen rantings people are coming to realise that as far as cinematical expectations are concerned Cruise is stuck in a timewarp, when todays calibre of actors take risks with they way they choose to play characters, Cruise chooses the same formula he has worked with for 20 odd years smile, run and hard clare that is his entire skills base. It's old boring and frankly not worth the price of a cinema ticket.
If a better actor had played the lead in Valkyrie it would have been worth watching as it stands the most interest I can muster was to watch the trailer – it made me laugh, now that can't be right.
Brad, I'm curious to your thoughts about all the films this season with Nazi backdrops. I feel like this is kind of under the radar and I'd like to hear some of your keen analysis on it. I mean Defiance, Valkyrie, Boy in the Stripped Pajamas, The Reader, etc. Is this unusual? Is it for Oscar play? Studio big-wigs?
Sorry if I got of Valkyrie subject, but I guess I'm just looking at this in a big picture for cinema.
Although it continues to be fashionable to slam Tom Cruise (for reasons both warranted and unwarranted), I think it's foolish and ignorant to think Valkyrie not living up to its potential will somehow ruin his career. If anyone has anything to lose, it will be Bryan Singer. He rose to A-list director status for two reasons: The Usual Suspects and X-Men. Since then, he's disappointed with Superman Returns and now possibly with Valkyrie. Will the goodwill he earned from his first three movies (not counting Apt Pupil) carry him past all these failures?
@Natrix: It's funny you bring this up because I was just talking about this to Laremy and he had a writer write up a story about this just today over at Film.com (read it here).
There are always a ton of WWII films, but from what I can tell, with the films this year it seems only Defiance and The Boy in the Striped Pajamas hit home the Nazi angle. I know Valkyrie is all about going after the Nazis, but if the trailers lead us to believe anything it's going to be an action flick, which is a slight change.
The Reader seems to be more of a love story and Miracle at St. Anna at least told a different story than we have seen, even if it wasn't very good.
It's tough to tell when enough is enough, but it's certainly a valid question.
To be honest, I didn't see Lions for Lambs, but every other Tom Cruise movie besides Mission Impossible II has been a great movie. I don't like his craziness, but I can't fight with his ability to make great movies
@Brad Brevet: Thanks Brad! That article is like exactly what I've been thinking about. At least I'm on the right path when I think of these things I suppose.
Actually, German accents would bother me. I'd wonder why all these Nazis are speaking English.
I saw the trailer and it actually looks quite intriguing, but there are simply too many other movies to see in the next month or so; I'll likely catch it on DVD. If I were MGM, I would have moved Valkyrie to January or February; if they're not doing an Oscar push, why not save it for the later winter when fewer interesting dramas are released? If it were coming out then against less competition, I would almost certainly catch it in theatres.
a surprising Cruise snoozer, despite the big decibels…
After phonetically memorizing a handful of lines of opening dialog in Deutsch, Cruise gets to Vulcan mind-meld with the audience in California English for the rest of the film. (To be fair, the whole ensemble's accented English was all over the map, literally, according to each actor's native tongue. This soon comes to have a net numbing effect on the audience.)
The film fails to make it sufficiently clear that previous *suicide-assasination* attempts against Hitler failed, and that von Stauffenberg was not only required (by sheer necessity) to be the one to bomb AH, but also the main charismatic personality to convince other non-conspirator commanders to go along with the coup, *after* the bomb had gone off.
The film raises many plausible questions about how the attempted coup might have succeeded, if *all* of the conspirators had von Stauffenberg's relentless and steely resolve. Some artistic license is taken, but it mostly boils down to one too many chicken poops ruining von Stauffenberg's intricate broth. The film argues that despite AH's suviving the assasination attempt, swift and decisive conspirator action, according to timetable, could have neutralized the SS, SD and AH's inner circle. This is both plausible and debatable.
It's always a very bad sign, though, that a film has lost its audience, when several people are snoring more loudly than the surround-sound, shake-you-in-your-seat crescendos that are liberally sprinkled along the course of the story. Several of the sleepers didn't awaken even for these rumblesome moments.
Where The Curious Case of Benjamin Button didn't seem nearly as long as *three hours*, Valkyrie felt like it was much, much longer than its actual two.
This film is not a complete disappointment, but it is not nearly as good as some others make it out to be.
My bet is that, this season, Defiance will be the far more credible and more moving WWII story "based on true events." And that will not be a matter of accents.