By Debbie Schlussel
I took great pleasure that over the weekend a talking dog (“Beverly Hills Chihuahua) dominated the box office, while “Body of Lies”–yet another crappy anti-American film–tanked. Read my review of this horrid film. Read about >anti-American director Ridley Scott’s moral equivalency statements about America vs. Islamic terrorists.
USA Today notes that it’s the eighth recent anti-War film to flop, but the paper’s left-wing move reporter, Scott Bowles, fails to note that these are liberal, anti-war films. Instead, he calls them “Mideast war films.” He does include one quote regarding the perception that these movies will be liberal, and that’s right. That’s the reason these movies fail. They are liberal. And not just liberal, but far-left. These Hollywoodites are rooting for America to fail–in these movies and in real life.
The fact is that “The Delta Force”–which was a PRO-AMERICAN and unfairly-panned “Mideast war film”–did better than any of these (in today’s dollars/accounting for inflated ticket prices). It’s not “Mideast war films” that fail. It’s anti-American films that fail:

It may be time to relieve Hollywood’s war films of duty.
Body of Lies, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe, was supposed to snap the industry’s losing streak with Mideast war films. With a $70 million budget and Ridley Scott at the helm, it was projected to be an easy winner at the box office over the weekend.
Instead, it lost to a talking dog and a low-budget fright flick.
With a debut estimated at just $13.1 million, Lies became the ninth contemporary war drama in the past two years to go largely ignored by moviegoers. Since December 2006, the average haul for a Mideast war film has been only $11.2 million.
And some movies, such as Grace Is Gone, Home of the Brave and Redacted, have grossed less than $70,000 despite big names including Samuel Jackson, John Cusack and Brian DePalma.
“We thought we could break through with the clutter with this one,” says Dan Fellman of Warner Bros., which released Body of Lies. “But I think the climate out there makes for bad timing with anything dealing with terrorism.”
But some say moviegoers are as leery of Hollywood’s reputation as its product.
“The movies are repeating the same themes people see on TV and the Internet,” says Brandon Gray of BoxOfficeMojo.com. “But there’s also the perception that if Hollywood does take a political stand, it’s going to be liberal and Democrat.”
So some studios are reaping the benefits of being politics-free.
Disney moved Beverly Hills Chihuahua from summer to fall to offer a lighthearted alternative, and the film took the top spot for the second weekend with $17.5 million, according to estimates from Nielsen EDI. (Final figures are due today.)
And the $12 million Quarantine was a surprise No. 2 with $14.2 million. Says Rory Bruer of Sony Pictures, which released the creepy thriller: “People are steering toward things that are pure escape from the world we’re living in.”

So why does Hollywood keep making these films, despite the lack of moviegoer support? Well, it might have something to do with that giant bailout bill, which bails out . . . gazillionaire liberal Hollywood producers?!:

Even Hollywood got something out of the Senate bill: renewal of a tax incentive worth nearly $48 million a year for film and TV producers who produce their work in the United States.

As my friend, Sirius Patriot Channel 144 host Mike Church–on whose show I do movie reviews every Friday–notes, this bail-out earmark for Hollywood is worth about $500 million.
We keep bailing out not just consumers for making bad choices, but Hollywood producers, directors, and actors for making bad choices.