53 million dollars?!
WTF?!
shareMust've been tunneling. There's no way a piece of crap like this cost this much.
Laura:You left a dead prostitute buried alone in the desert?
Kyle:She's not alone.
I was gonna say the same thing. I mean $53 million? There weren't any special effects or anything. I can see this movies being as much as it made in the box office which is 19 million or less.
My job is to inform, not persuade- Dan Rather
I'm sure A-list actors such as Danny Glover and Joe Pesci weren't cheap back when this movie was in production. The studio probably rolled the dice on just that alone and went way over-budget thinking it was going to be seen by the masses from the "Lethal Weapon" fan base.
According to Box Office Mojo, "Gone Fishin'" was #3 on opening weekend and lost to the second installment of "Jurassic Park" that came out one week prior. Huge mistake pitting it against a major franchise. You also had other popular flicks playing in theaters such as "The Fifth Element", "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery", "Liar Liar", and "Volcano".
Add to it the one-year delay from Disney, the death of a stuntwoman, hiring other actors, barely any marketing (from what I remember), them fumbling around with the release date, this film was doomed from the beginning. Given the fact that it was only shown for four weeks (one month instead of the average three) and five weekends, it was in and out of theaters. There wasn't enough time to recoup their losses.
It could've possibly faired a bit better if it was going to be shown as planned during the 1996 holiday season, but even then that would be an uncertainty.
Eh, I liked it. It gave me a few good laughs. I believe the rating is suitable.