I Still Don't Understand Why This Bombed! - The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996) Discussion

[–] jon2121 16 years ago

I think 1996 was just bad timing for TLKG. It was kind of by itself back then. Since then you have had all the Die Hards, Bourne movies, Laura Croft, Kill Bills and many similar movies.

TLKG started being shown again on premium channels a few years back and was received quite differently.

I remember the ratings were only 2 stars when it first re-appeared on cable and satellite. The next time I looked, it had three stars.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rickamortis 13 years ago

Uhhh this movie came out before every movie you mentioned, except Die Hard.

"IMDB... where 14 year old's can pretend to be jaded 40 year old movie critics"

reply

[–] Dubz1300 13 years ago

"Since then you have had all the Die Hards,"

huh? die hard came out in the late 80's...and the second die hard movie (which was directed by the same director of TLKG) came out in 1990..

don't forget the under siege movies came out around the same time, which some stupid stallone movies...the action movie was big in the mid 90's..

michael bay even took it to a new level with bad boys and the rock (his only two decent movies, imo)..

reply

[–] shaneo6930 15 years ago

I know! This is my favorite action movie, even surpassing Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs.

Maybe it was a big ass mother in a gorilla suit.--Sam Winchester

reply

[–] Dustbowler 15 years ago

Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs aren't action movies.

Not sure why this didn't do better, good cast, script, action. One of Geena's best characters/performances. Granted this was just one year after the infamous bomb Cutthroat Island and might have hinder this movie(having the same director and star) but still should have been a big hit.

Who says violence is not the answer?

reply

[–] JohnQuincyWydell 13 years ago

Cutthroat Island had hurt both Harlin and Davis' careers.

Add that to the fact this was an action movie opening in '96 after Eraser and The Rock had already done big business, and a lot of people just plain passed on giving it a chance.

reply

[–] tombo19842000 13 years ago

Wouldn't say it bombed. It made it's money back and made $30million ontop of that.

Wasn't a box office smash hit but certainly didn't bomb!

reply

[–] jamescole2035 13 years ago

"Wouldn't say it bombed. It made it's money back and made $30million ontop of that.

Wasn't a box office smash hit but certainly didn't bomb!"

Estimated Budget= $65,000,000.00

Box Office Gross= $33,447,612.00

This movie lost almost $50 Million dollars when you factor in that the producers see less than a 50% return on box office receipts.

A major, major bomb.

reply

[–] Doom 13 years ago

Actually, worldwide it made $89,456,761.

Regardless, it was definitely considered a disappointment box-office wise.

Everyone involved was receiving bad press at the time, and the publicity machine responsible for the movie's release pretty much sucked.

A shame - it's a great film. But I'm glad to see at least these days it's more well appreciated.

------

Wait a minute... who am I here?

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jxh13 13 years ago

It seems like one of those unsolved mysteries that we may never fully understand, like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and the continued popularity of Phil Collins. 1996 was a fairly cruddy year for movies, but "The Rock" made a ton of money, "Independence Day" made a ton and a half, even "Eraser" made a ton of money, but TLKG can only make half it's budget back domestically. "Mission Impossible," "Twister," "Ransom," all mediocre action movies that scored big in 1996. Maybe the October release date didn't help. Would it have been better as a Summer release, or a December holiday film? Maybe the audiences weren't interested in seeing Geena Davis shoot people. The 'R' rating probably didn't help. Looking at Box Office Mojo, looks like more people wanted to see Chris O'Donnell in the tepid Grisham thriller, "The Chamber." Go figure.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] B-Dubb 13 years ago

I liked it, it was better than average as an action movie. But nothing outstanding.

This is B-Dubb, and I approve this message.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Profondorosso75 13 years ago

I totally agree. this is one of my favorites. davis and harlin at the time had bad raps. shane black is one of my favorite writers. the script is almost foreboding of future events.

"it was the first nativity where joseph stares at the wisemen's tits all night"

reply

[–] artis5001 13 years ago

Actually, it wasn't well received because in a way it was ahead of its time. I mean, a "FEMALE action star"! WOW! 14 years ago it wasn't a concept regularly thought of as a box office draw.

The female lead was supposed to be the "damsel in distress". Even "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" was joked about (Heaven forbid, a WOMAN is the one who fights violently and saves the day.) It was something that simply wasn't well received. And even if she was the cliched "gun-toting, @$$ kicking, backflipping, sex kitten" she was relegated to the role of the sidekick, never the STAR.

So TLKG could be considered the precursor to action movies with strong women as the lead. Tomb Raider, Mr & Mrs Smith, Kill Bill, et al. If this were made today, more than likely, Angelina Jolie would be the star (Salt, anyone).

reply

[–] Dubz1300 13 years ago

"I mean, a "FEMALE action star"! WOW! 14 years ago it wasn't a concept regularly thought of as a box office draw."

you guys need to do better with your film history..

sigourney weaver broke through as a female action star in 'Aliens' and was even nominated for an oscar she kicked so much butt..

if anything, weaver set the way for other female heroines in film..

reply

[–] jon2121 13 years ago

No history lesson needed. "REGULARLY thought of" does not mean "NEVER thought of".

reply

[–] sportsfan99 13 years ago

Well I just recently watched it and now I wished I had watched it earlier since it came out as I thought it was one of the BEST action movies I'd seen. It had everything I enjoy about action movies sprinkling in some humor.

But maybe one turn off for me was the damn title. Whenever I heard of the title from years past it just doesn't sound like an action movie to me. It sounds like a romance novel made into a movie, or some little chick flick thriller so maybe that's why I put it off from watching it for so long.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Crowsley 13 years ago

Once again, Raisins displays her sick obsession with age.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dphoadley 13 years ago

[quote]An action movie starring a woman over 40 in the lead role...[quote/]

Geena Davis was born in 1956, so she wouldn't have been OVER forty when this movie was made. She'd have been either thirty-nine at the time, or just TURNED forty. Either way, even today at age fifty-five, I still find her quite attractive and pretty, and even sexy!

My Gallery: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/member.php?my_gallery

reply

[–] cysubtor 13 years ago

Well, the title doesn't help. I almost didn't check it out because a Long Kiss Goodnight sound like some chick flick when you don't have a movie poster or something to go by.

reply

[–] moviegeek1 13 years ago

That's it--the title. I managed a movie theatre when this movie was released and I had to actually convince people to go see it. I remember two GI's came in to see a movie and wanted a recommendation. I told them to see this movie and at first, they bristled and asked, "is it a love story or something?" I explained that it was an amazing action movie, they decided to go see it. I made sure I was there when they came out and asked them what they thought. They RAVED about it and said that it was the best movie they'd seen in a long time.

Even with the movie one sheet, the title cost it box office, I think, just like what happened with The Shawshank Redemption two years earlier. A bad title can sink you.

Sister, when I've raised hell, you'll know it!

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]