Everybody has their own choice I found the commercials for National Treasure to be insulting, the plot appeared laughable and the idea that I would consider it a “suspense thriller” pathetic.
No if it bombs it will show that war movies can’t be profitable now. So then we won’t get the pro-America war movies we’ve been saying we want. They tried to play it liberal and it deservedly bombed, now they’ve tried to play it straight and it bombed too, they’ll now be canceling future war movies.
Even in the History Channel, which I usually like a lot (I learned a lot more about "true" "da Vinci Code" and its fallacies from several THC documentaries way before I saw the movie, and of course was not looking forward to see the movie and, not expecting much, was not "disappointed" when I finally saw it, but I loved the original "National Treasure" - hence my preference for follow up which may or may not disappoint me when I finally see it on cable), the story of Charlie's War was told by... Charlie Wilson and ... Aaron Sorkin, who at the end of the program couldn't help but bring the subject of our culpability in 9/11, then just a bit later backing off saying that it really was fault of the "crazies" - duh! thanks for being so subtle, Aaron... Reagan was only mentioned once in the documentary along with now-familiar "unilaterally decided" (though at least not in a derogatory sense).
Also, I found the commercials for "Charlie's War" very condescending and trying to pull one over on me - to me they practically screamed "come, have a jolly good time with Good Time Charlie and see who really beat the Russians in Afghanistan and ended the cold war - a boozing, womanizing liberal southern Democrat - it's not who you thought it were all this time, and if it were not for us, Hollywood people, you'd never know and stay ignorant". Apparently, I was not alone in that feeling, based strictly on commercials alone.
Frankly, I don't think that if this movie is a commercial success (with all the final editing to make it commercially viable - i.e., appeal to a "wider" audience - instead of subtle propaganda) that it means Hollywood immediately starts putting "good war" movies - this one will only serve to immunize them from all the crap they have been putting out. And I don't particularly want phony Hollywood pro-America "Rambo"-type movies, I just don't want to deal with and subsidize all the crappy anti-America "war" movies... The commercials for "Lions for Lambs" would not even mention the word Iraq, trying to sell it as a mystery or crime drama.
So, if it bombs, may be (though not much hope there) it will force them to think why it bombed, just as they already figured out why anti-America movies (not just "anti-Iraq" movies or TV series) are bombing in BO. If they are capable of rethinking that, not just look at us as their cash cows or dogs that they need to throw a bone once in a while to "finance" next round of their propaganda, e.g. like Oliver Stone's World Trade Center which got great reviews because it was unexpected from that source (I did not find it all that great), they'll be doing much better in domestic sales and as an industry, in general. If they just try to satisfy their ever-shrinking market, only by looking to expand it internationally, they'll keep finding less and less success.
BTW, I do separate profession of acting and actors from their political views, when it comes to judging their work. I find that Tom Hanks is very talented actor and enjoy a lot of his movies, new and old. Julia Roberts, while excellent in Pretty Woman which gave her a star status, is easily replaceable in just about any other movie I have seen her. In general, in Hollywood, the "stars" are [again] just a BO draw and have really no relationship to the quality of the movie anymore. So, that means I don't do much for Hollywood, but Hollywood has not been doing much for me for a long time.