In performing my routine check of e-mail late yesterday, I happened to spot an article on Yahoo.com by Dean Goodman of Reuters, whose article bleakly proclaimed: "Nicolas Cage bombs at box office with 'Bangkok'." I had to give myself a little chuckle because the fickle article makes no mention of "The Dark Knight," which for the past several weekends has propelled the box office to record numbers. So what if this weekend was a slump? The cushion of the success of "The Dark Knight" easily provides Hollywood for one weekend of weakness.
Here are the first few quotes from his article:
"Less than a year after starring in the biggest movie of his volatile career, Nicolas Cage led the North American box office to its worst weekend in five years on Sunday with one of his weakest. My point for discussing this article is because I am amused to no end by this reporter's sensationalism in constantly remarking this past weekend's box office tank, apparently "the worst in five years." How quickly people forget that the box office exploded this summer, especially with the releases of "The Dark Knight" and "Iron Man." With this summer's box office leading studios to probably their fattest bonuses in years, how amusing that reporters quickly turn on the box office by neglecting its awesome summer performance. So this past weekend was not so lucrative... Fine and dandy. But the box office can take a brunt like that with superheroes having protected it.
'Bangkok Dangerous,' a thriller in which the 44-year-old actor plays a jaded assassin, opened at No. 1 with estimated three-day earnings of just $7.8 million, distributor Lionsgate said. While no one was expecting it to be a hit, industry observers had predicted it would earn more than $10 million.
The last box office champ to open lower was the David Spade comedy 'Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star,' which kicked off with $6.7 million during the weekend of September 5-7, 2003."
Meanwhile, jeez, does Goodman not like Nicolas Cage or what? Not only did Cage "bomb" at the box office, the "volatile career" of the "44-year-old" clearly did not generate any appeal for a film "no one expected to be a hit" since it "was not screened in advance for critics, which is rarely a good sign." And apparently Cage "has actually done a lot worse at the box office." Does Goodman think he's slipping in old age or something, even if he has no peak in the article with which to work? For that matter, Cage's obligatory 1995 Best Actor Oscar ("Leaving Las Vegas") indication was notably missing from this article, too.
In summary, Goodman's narrow, low-blow piece dispensibly neglects the positives of Hollywood's recent box office and actor Nicolas Cage for all negative propaganda, apparently hoping to get his point across better. And here you thought Hollywood was sinking because of Nicolas Cage...