why did this movie flop? - Out of Sight (1998) Discussion

[–] Three Gun Fish 17 years ago

Despite being one of the more popular authors ever adapted to film, Elmore Leonard seems to hit and miss a lot. First, it's hard to capture the rhythm of Dutch's storytelling and, second, not everyone cottons to his type of vibe. For every GET SHORTY you discover, it's after having waded through a BE COOL or TOUCH.

That said, I think most audiences don't appreciate the "book" structure of storytelling. JACKIE BROWN, also Leonard material, wasn't well received. I think JB and OUT OF SIGHT are marvelous films -- they just weren't IMMEDIATELY gratifying.

I learned everything from watching
Jean-Claude Van Damme's BLOODSPORT.

reply

[–] Bigredhunk 17 years ago

It probably didn't help that Clooney hadn't cemented himself as a Hollywood heavyweight yet. All he had going for him was the "ER" fame. Neither "The Peacemaker" nor "Batman" did well. In fact, Soderbergh(sp?) is credited for turning Clooney's acting around. Before SS, Clooney did the Clooney head bob thing. It was annoying. He used it in "ER," then used it in all his movies. When he talked, he'd bob his head a bit from side-to-side, because (I'm assuming) he thought it was charming. It got old. Soderbergh really helped Clooney become an amazing actor. Getting him to stop the head bob was a great addition to Clooney's evolution. Just watch any role he did before "Out of Sight" and then watch any movie after. You'll see it right away.

reply

[–] birdy12 15 years ago

The film was never aimed to open during summer but instead at the end of the year. Another film was supposed to open at that time but got delayed. So Universal decided that they would put Out of sight instead. Even if it was absolutely not a summer movie. That was the main reason why the film flopped. But even if it didn't work boxoffice wise, it is now regarded as a great film (one of the best of 1998) and one of the sexiest one.
The only reason why George Clooney did the "bobing head" had nothing with him believing it could be charming but that was a tic he had even in his real life at that time.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lathe-of-heaven 11 years ago

I don't agree with your take on the film, BUT...

I frigg'n LOVE your screen name!!!

Phuk'n AWESOME!!!

I have over 4000 films, many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK!

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gorgsharpy 17 years ago

Soderbergh messes it up IMO. He is no Tarantino. He doesn't know how to direct a love tragedy.

reply

[–] Senator_Corleone 17 years ago

Um...this isn't a love tragedy...at all. It's a great film, though.

reply

[–] Quankers 16 years ago

It definitely has some tragedy in it. Two people who have great chemistry, which is just a modern way of saying they are soul mates, but can never be. Because of their occupations, she is hunting him, and he is trying to elude her.

...but Tarantino? How can you (gorgsharpy) say that Soderbergh is no Tarantino because he 'doesn't know how to direct a love tragedy' (which is dead wrong)?

What Love tragedy did Tarantino direct? Kill Bill?

Comparing Soderbergh to Tarantino is like comparing a subtle and disciplined artist with a tantruming child finger-painting a wall.

reply

[–] triviadude 16 years ago

I agree it's a Romeo and Juliet type story. But instead of the problem being there families, the obstacle is their jobs.

You could argue that it isn't technically a tragedy in that Jack gets away at the end, instead of a more realistic ending where he goes to prison for the rest of his life or he get's gunned down.

But the thought of these two not together is tragic enough for me, even if Jack does get out of prison.

reply

[–] jdown-1 13 years ago

<<Comparing Soderbergh to Tarantino is like comparing a subtle and disciplined artist with a tantruming child finger-painting a wall.>>

Well said. I totally agree.

reply

[–] lathe-of-heaven 11 years ago

I think I can see where you are coming from, but I agree with some of the responses below to a point...

Soderbergh's style (not that I am any expert at all) has more of a subtle, aloof cool that can be off-putting to people who don't like it. I think though you are right to a degree in the sense that Tarratino has like a total SH*TLOAD of passion which carries over into relationships within his films. So, there is a huge fundamental difference, especially when conveying the chemistry between a man and woman, which I THINK is kinda where you are coming from.

On the flip side however, in my lowly and wretched opinion, I felt the romantic chemistry between the two leads was beautifully and artfully done. Very tender and real... So, I don't THINK Soderbergh was really stressing the 'Tragic' elements so much within the relationship as he was showing a very REAL bond between them, which I think the last few minutes of film supports (as opposed to being a full out tragedy...)

I have over 4000 films, many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK!

reply

[–] lferrigon-1 17 years ago

I have seen it many times and have loved it.

reply

[–] jsyers 16 years ago

I didn't realize it failed at the box office either, but heck, this was ten years ago. I just rewatched it and I am amazed at how many talented actors were involved. Back then, I knew almost nothing about a lot of them, but since, they've proved their talents in performances that garnered more attention. Too bad this one didn't get its due because it is really good IMO.

reply

[–] wmjahn 16 years ago

Well, it ain´t as good as many fans of it think. I have seen it and was pretty bored, the dialogue was mostly blabla, Lopze is a fat-assed Latina, but no actress (she can´t sing either) and even Clooney is usually better than in this one (at least in pretty much all of his later movies).

I don´t know what all the fuss is all about this movie, it is plain simply just average.

For me it is therefore pretty logical, why it was no success, but of course I´ll now get some beating from fans of the movie. :-)

(a PS: Soderbergh is certainly pretty knowledgeable on movie history and knows European movies better than many other directors. For me this is a failed attempt to make some kind of Francois Truffaut or Rohmer movie - a mixture of Jules and Jim, etc. - in other words, to copy and make a variation of a French nouvelle vague movie in the 90ies).

reply

[–] PAPICHOLO1 10 years ago

"fat assed Latina:..Obviously your a flat assed Caucasian. .Stop hating bcuz you aren't built to pplease men.

reply

[–] moffieboi 16 years ago

How good a movie is usually has little to do with how well it does in the boxoffice. There have been tons of movies "better" than this one and did a lot worse and there have been tons more than were "worse" that made a lot more.

reply

[–] joonas1038 16 years ago

I HAVE SEEN IT AND I LIKE IT

reply

[–] yellow_bow_tie 16 years ago

I don't know how it did at the box office, but I remember I was pretty bored by it when I was really young. Now that I'm older I love it, it's one of my top favorites. I think that there is a disconcerting amount of film-goers that have childlike attention spans. If you think about it, there aren't any explosions throughout the whole movie, and that probably makes it pretty unattractive to the general population.

reply

[–] willianswalker 14 years ago

This movie flopped because it was absolute crap.

reply

[–] MrBullo 11 years ago

Why did it flop?:-

1) The presence of many well-known actors heightened expectations that were ultimately let down.
2) The script wasn't particularly clever.
3) The story was disjointed (not a destroyer in itself but part of a pattern).
4) The diction wasn't always clear.

......... need I go on?

reply

[–] johndeckbose 10 years ago

No, actually you need to find a time machine, go back to the moment before you posted those insipid and wildly inaccurate comments, and re-evaluate how much you think you understand about movies.

By the way, Out of Sight had a $48 million budget and has grossed $77 million worldwide, so I kind of doubt its investors consider it a flop.

reply

[–] ColinInLa 10 years ago

I disagree wholeheartedly with every one of your four points.
--------------------
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."

reply

[–] johndeckbose 10 years ago

$77,745,568 worldwide bank.

Not a flop. You're correct that its domestic gross did not cover the budget, but why should that be a defining line? The film took in another $40 million worldwide.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=outofsight.htm

reply