MovieChat Forums > Cutthroat Island (1995) Discussion > A tale of 2 and 1/2 stars...The Reel sto...

A tale of 2 and 1/2 stars...The Reel story behind Cutthroat Island

posted 20 years ago by Trailblazer44
17 replies | jump to latest

Cutthroat Island is a bomb. That is not debatable. Its budget appraoched $100 mil and then grossed a mere $10.

Visitors to the Cutthroat Island board are going to mainly fall into 2 camps: The Hungry Vultures who agree with the majority of audiences and critics that this was, to say the least, an underwhelming underacheiver worthy of having its bones picked over; and then the Championing Fan who seek answers why people dis a movie they like/love. Anyone who knows the story behind the movie can skip this.

However, if you're genuinely interested in an analysis of why critics recoiled and the larger public balked at it, I'd suggest a book by a guy named Thomas Pope called "Good Scripts, Bad Scripts: Learning the Craft of Screenwriting Through 25 of the Best and Worst Films in History." What it mostly boils down to are 3 people - 2 of whom are in the movie and one who isn't.

Basically, Cutthroat Island was developed as a on-screen pairing of box office heavies (at the time) Geena Davis and Michael Douglas. Pope can take you through the gritty details if you're interested, but you can probably guess the gist of it: Douglas didn't like the script, they reworked it, they lost their open window in his schedule, he backed out.

Enter Matthew Modine. That would be gigantic marquee star Matthew Modine? No, the real guy that no one cares about. And neither did Geena Davis. Not wanting to share billing and screen time with Modine, Davis wanted the script reworked to make her the exclusive star with Modine in the supporting role. Pope's book gives a nice analysis of what was lost in the many translations and why certain plot devices don't really work - mainly due to lost and transformed material to make Modine's character fit in the plot.

How come every time I post, I get this same bullsh!t signature?

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Trailblazer44 20 years ago

That response is nothing short of insane. Unless you're Matthew Modine's mother, there was NOTHING to offend anyone, fan or critic of Cutthroat, in what I wrote. ALL I did was point the direction toward someone who has an argument about what didn't work in this movie that lead to the reaction it received. I didn't even give my opinion of the movie at all. Seriously, get help.

How come every time I post, I get this same bullsh!t signature?

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cobram-1 19 years ago

Never really thought about it before, but this movie could have been saved by Michael Douglas as the main character (ala his portrayal of Jack in "Romancing the Stone" in 1984.) Would have been a completely different feel to the movie having Douglas go against Frank Langella, who gave a great performance with what was left of the script.

[–] Robin-Sparrow 19 years ago

Well, dear, dear me, it might have been a bomb financial-wise; that's true enough. But, if yer lookin' to say that the fact that it was a bad movie is not debatable, then I'd have to disagree. It IS debatable, and I'm sure yer getting a lot of C.I. fans flaming you horribly for posting this. So, I won't go through all that stuff about "OMG ITS A GREAT MOVIE DONT DISS IT" or "WHATS YOUR PROBLEM", because I'm sure someone else has already (even though I'm a rabid CI fan myself and really, really want to). What I will say is that yes, I'm sure it could have been a better movie when they first wrote it, but it also turned out in the end to be one of those great movies that nobody appreciates/hears about at first, but lots of people find it and grow to love it later on.

[–] Trailblazer44 19 years ago

Again, this thread is NOT a critique, but a book recommendation for film fans who are interested.

So flaming responses from CI fans are not only silly, they're insanely inappropriate.

How come every time I post, I get this same bullsh!t signature?

[–] Robin-Sparrow 19 years ago

Well then I am sorry, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who mistook it for a critique of CI that happened to throw in a book as a bonus. Ye should've said it was a book recommendation from the start, mate.

[–] spamthisa_holes 19 years ago

Blazer420,

Thanks for the book reference. I intend to get it.
I have great interest in CI in comparison to POTC. I am amazed it did so poorly since there are so many movies that really contain no more flaws than than CI, and yet for some reason, the "unwashed groundlings" (me included) who normally flock to action only flicks saw fit to turn their noses up on CI.

I saw CI in the theatres and had no real issue with it. I saw POTC and thought it was midly more entertaining because of Dep. POTC also had the hook of nostalgia for the Disney ride and family appeal.

So why was CI such a fiscal failure? Was it critics being more forgiving of POTC? Sure there were weaknesses in giving Geena Davis such a script, but a $80 million weakness?

It still a mystery to me and I intend to read the book you recomended just for this reason. I didn't like CI so much I felt the need to get the DVD, but I have just got it so I can study it as a failure to avoid in my own swashbuckle writing.

I have been playing it and POTC back to back.

Take care and take courage that at least someone got the intent of your original post.

Brian

[–] Trailblazer44 19 years ago

Yeah, Brian. Thanks.

Every time somebody replies to this thread, I get the email notice and I'm blown away that people are upset. WTF? Calling a movie a "bomb" because it lost $80 million dollars is kinda far from controversial. Nor does it give you much insight into MY personal opinion of it.

Hell, the fact I'd bother to make a book recommendation should tell you I recognize there is enough interest (on both side of the fence) to warrant wasting my time. Lord knows I wouldn't do so for, say, "Red Planet" or "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle." (Although I would like to know what the hell happened in making "Blair Witch 2.")

How come every time I post, I get this same bullsh!t signature?

[–] SeriouslyMike 18 years ago

Am I remembering correctly that Geena Davis was Harlin's wife back then?

Mike Sterling
Stupid movies can be fun...But not all of them.

[–] Trailblazer44 18 years ago

I wanna say this project is where they met.

Then got hitched, then made "Long Kiss Goodnight."

You could check that chronology.

How come every time I post, I get this same bullsh!t signature?

[–] SeriouslyMike 18 years ago

Harlin's bio says they were married since 1993 - so I understand that this movie was made for two years. Especially the scenario rewrites. :P

Mike Sterling
Stupid movies can be fun...But not all of them.

[–] TensersFloatingDisk 18 years ago

That's an interesting argument, and I agree with the previous poster who suggested that Michael Douglas would have given a very different feel to the film. One of the better reviews I've read here states that the main problem with the chemistry between Davis and Modine is that in her (arguably succesful) attempt to play the dominant personality, Davis came off like Modine's mother. Certainly Romancing the Stone's Jack wouldn't have provided quite the same foil.

But is the author you're referencing arguing that it was *just* the script, or even primarily the script, which ruined Cutthroat Island's box-office chances? I've read some compelling, though anecdotal, evidence here that one of the other main issues was the failure of the company which produceed the flick, and their subsequent failure to advertise the movie. I know that my wife and I accidentally stumbled into it during our honeymoon simply because the movie theater was the only thing open at Christmas time. I'd heard nothing about it previously. Heaven knows there are plenty of crummy movies which have run away with huge box office due to good marketting schemes. Couldn't the reverse be true here?

[–] Trailblazer44 18 years ago

Well, hard to say. Understand the author's thrust is to address problems with scripts rather than explain why films have poor box office. I'm sure he'd agree that there's many ingredients in failure stew, and the overly-rewritten script for "Cutthroat" is just one. Marketing and timing certainly can contribute. I recall seeing an article prior to the release of "Pirates of the Carribean" that fortold a grim boxoffice future for the Johnny Depp vehicle because of the poor track record of pirates on film in recent years; "CI" just one example. There's also an argument to be made that action flicks with female leads have a longer row to hoe, a trend that continues to this day (hello, "Catwoman", "Aeon Flux", "Electra", etc.)

How come every time I post, I get this same bullsh!t signature?

[–] TensersFloatingDisk 18 years ago

"There's also an argument to be made that action flicks with female leads have a longer row to hoe, a trend that continues to this day (hello, "Catwoman", "Aeon Flux", "Electra", etc.) "

I'm not so sure about this last point -- it seems you could offer an "Underworld" or "Tomb Raider" for every one of those flops. Though maybe there is a tendency for filmmakers with female action leads to focus as much on the T&A as on story, character, and art. That's getting off topic, though.

[–] Dance_Force 18 years ago

In other words It's Micheal'e fault!!
However Tomb Rider is defenetly the best movie out of Undercrap, Aeon Sux, Whorewoman and Eracta.
I even enjoyed the story of sexy Lara with hot new future Bond.

-can't belife I left my damn' shirt up there-

Brokeback Mountain