Hey @mechajutaro I saw your comment and appreciate it. L&OD apparently did quite well; not only does it rate quite highly, currently clocking at 70%, but it paid decently.

I've got 44 movies in my 2,401-title ROI database that released in 2010, and they average a $3.27 ROI; L&OD paid slightly above that, a solid $3.43, over a $30M budget.

Unstoppable might have been rather ambitious (reckless?), spending $100M. It returned a paltry $1.68 (which, if you want to use the Hollywood "Insider Formula", G/2-B, means it lost money, lots of money, like, $16M).

Funny thing about Denzel, as much as so many say they like him, he doesn't pull in a lot of money. I've got 33 of his movies in my database, and they've managed to only return $2.23, below the database-wide average of $3.78

What I take from that is, Denzel is willing to take scripts that are interesting to him, more as art, than as blockbuster entertainment. He's willing to be a part of telling stories he wants to tell, even if they don't pack theatres. Seems people appreciate that, even if they aren't particularly compelled to pay to see it in a theatre.

But, going through this exercise makes me feel better about not liking Unstoppable (!) insofar as I even remember it. I like Denzel (as I said), and most of his movies don't pay a whole lot more than this one did. Its poor box office, therefore, is not the determining factor in how I saw it, because I've loved plenty that he's done with as poor - if not poorer - box office performance.

@mechajutaro said:

L&OD apparently did quite well; not only does it rate quite highly, currently clocking at 70%, but it paid decently.

The high rating is strange. Anne Hathaway baring her body throughout aside, the movie was pretty damned depressing

I've read quite a few comments on that youtube page to which you linked that positively loved L&OD. It may not be for you, that's fine. One day, I may see it - if I do, and have anything to say on its message board, do feel free to engage over there.