Lions Is A Turkey. But Tom Hasn't Lost His Box Office Punch

The war on terror, contemporary and relevant as it is, certainly has a part to play in Lions’ demise. It appears to audiences as the most obvious and over-familiar of issues. When Cruise asks us, “do you want to win the war on terror?” the response that comes to the film viewer’s mind runs along the lines of, “not if it’s going to be this boring.”  Cruise’s qualifier - “this is the most significant question of our time” – fails to awake us from the slumber. Nowadays, The War On Terror is, to cinema audiences, a dull and repetitive truth that has to be lived with rather than an engaging current affair.

For further evidence, look at last month’s Saudi Arabian terror-policing adventure The Kingdom. Starring Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner, this was unafraid to mix some blockbusting bombast with its (not entirely stupid) documentation of the security situation in the world’s wealthiest oil nation. But it didn’t do the business at the box office either. Paul Haggis, who brings us anti-Iraq diatribe In The Valley Of Elah in January, had better be worried. Maybe it’s the dull state of world politics that is at fault, rather than Tom Cruise.

After all, who is there to rival the box office weight of The Cruiser? Brad Pitt is the only realistic opponent. But he’s about to find a similar cold spot to that occupied by the mighty scientologist. Many have enjoyed watching Pitt waltz around the festival circuit promoting The Assassination Of Jesse James  By The Coward Robert Ford, released in early December. But will many of us actually go and see it? Sure, it lacks the off-putting liberal worthiness of Redford’s Lambs, but it’s a ponderous and overlong character piece that lacks shoot-out attraction. For our money, Tom Cruise remains the biggest name in the movies. His next blockbuster appearance will be the true measure of this. Blame Lions For Lambs on the politics.