Why wasn't Collateral Damage (2002) a bigger hit?

I felt it's actually a solid action movie and better than the average Schwarzenegger movie post True Lies, for sure. But for some reason I remember it being negatively received at the time, and nobody really thinks highly of it. Did I miss something?

Well, I can understand why it wasn’t received well by critics, because it’s not exactly a deep thought-provoking experience. But it is interesting that it flopped, technically it’s a box office bomb. I guess people get tired of Schwarzenegger playing the exact same guy all the time.

It's worth noting that the film was originally set to come out in 2001 but got delayed on account of 9/11, which isn't surprising considering that the plot is about a terrorist bombing. Even accounting for the delay, I can imagine audiences weren't necessarily up for such a movie, even (or is that especially?) if it was a typical Schwarzenegger action movie. Such a thing might just scream "too soon".

That being said, I'm also inclined to agree with the idea that it's just not a good movie (in my estimation, it's one of his worst).

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Two big factors.


1. It got it from both ends with two superior war films... Black Hawk Down was the number #1 movie for a month before it came out and We Were Soldiers came out couple weeks after it so it only had a small window to make money.


2. Arnold's box office appeal was dropping rapidly,



Jingle All the Way 1996 Howard Langston
Batman & Robin 1997 Dr. Victor Fries / Mr. Freeze
End of Days 1999 Jericho Cane
The 6th Day 2000 Adam Gibson / Adam Gibson Clone
Collateral Damage 2002 Cpt. Gordon "Gordy" Brewer

Oh okay, I know that Schwarzenegger's box office went down hill after Eraser, but I thought that Collateral Damage, and The 6th Day were him back in form, so to speak.

I am not sure, but I might stick my neck out and say by the late 90s, people got tired of Hulking men like Arnold and Stallone blowing things up. And probably to this day those types of movies have found it hard to find a footing in the industry.

__________________
My Favorite Films

But I didn't think Schwarzenegger was that hulking back in 2002. He plays a firefighter so the muscle he had worked for the story I thought, but in this movie, he is very mortal compared to others, and comes close to being killed just fine I thought. And when it comes to blowing things up, I thought that the terrorist villains and CIA characters were doing more damage than Schwarzenegger.

I mean when I see firefighters and police in real life, they are muscular and ripped a lot of them, so isn't it somewhat realistic for someone in that field to be muscular?

The tone of this thread feels to me like you’re trying to argue against all reasoning being offered. As with many low-rated movies, Collateral Damage has its fans, but I think the majority of people didn’t find it compelling, that’s all there is to it. It’s not that it’s more unrealistic than other Arnie films etc, but it’s not any better than any mediocre action film either. That’s just my opinion, of course.

But when you think of Arnie, you always think of muscle. That is all he stands for. I live in US, so that does not always apply. I have seen a lot police officers, firefighters that are really obese. Sometimes a fate of a movie is already determined before it's released.

Oh okay. But then there are these other Arnie movies though that are hits, like Commando, or True Lies, and I wonder how are those better written than Collateral Damage though. Do people like those ones better for the action?

Well Commando came out when Arnold was in his prime and it's just stupid fun to watch one man blow up an entire army.

True Lies is James Cameron...enough said.

You picked a movie from the 80's, one from the 90's a pit it against a movie in 2002. Once we hit 2000, everything had to be sleek and high tech and Arnold felt like a relic already.

I believe what Iro said was the most correct. They had to delay and reshoot a lot of the movie because of 9/11. People weren't into terrorist movies for a few years and this one suffered. I think Eraser was the last good action film from him in the 90's. I personally love End of Days, but action horror is a rare breed and people weren't ready for it.

The 6th Day is the key film I think where Arnold's star status of 80's action star began to fade. That movie was dumb, no one cared for and people were looking for a different type of action star. The Transporter came out two years later (same year as Collateral Damage) and people were more interested in THAT type of action star.

After two failures Arnold went back to his big successful franchise, The Terminator and did the 3rd entry in the series and then handed the action star status over to The Rock in the Rundown. Then he became Governor and came back when no one really cared about him anymore (Last Stand, Escape Plan, Sabotage).

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Oh okay. I actually thought that The 6th Day was one of Schwarzenegger's better plotted movies, and underrated. However, I haven't watched it in years, so maybe I may feel differently about it, if I did.

As for Collateral Damage, I didn't think that people would have a problem with it because of 9/11. Because after 9/11, I read that The Siege (1998), was the most rented movie because of 9/11. And if that's true, there are bigger terrorist attacks in that one, compared to Collateral Damage, so if The Siege was popular after 9/11, I didn't think audiences would have a problem with Collateral Damage therefore (shrug).

I re-watched The 6th Day at some point in the last couple of years and what struck me about it was how much it borrowed from Total Recall - it's set in the future, centres on a brand-new technology (cloning/memory implants), has him play an everyman who gets caught up in a corporate conspiracy, etc. I still think that's enough to make it passable as far as his lower-tier movies go, but I definitely wouldn't go so far as to call it underrated.

I think The Siege feels more "Go America" than Collateral Damage. Maybe people wanted to have that experience instead of a one man action hero. Who knows....

This question has already received more thoughtful response than it deserved, but for the record these were the biggest moneymakers of 2002: Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, the first Raimi Spider-Man, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, and Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones. Beyond those big boys the top earning action movies included the fourth Brosnan Bond entry Die Another Day, Matt Damon in The Bourne Identity, and Vin Diesel as xXx. xXx made over a hundred million dollars more than Collateral Damage did at the domestic box office.

Competing against those movies at the box office of course Collateral Damage was an afterthought. Plus as everybody has already said the movie is dopey and dull and Arnold was past his prime by many years.

If somebody likes the movie, more power to ya, but there is zero mystery as to why the critics savaged it and audiences ignored it.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Yeah that's true, all those movies you mentioned are better than Collateral Damage, accept for maybe Attack of the Clones.