All about Eve - old

I've just returned from the UK premiere. No way should this be a best picture contender. It's ok, nothing more. It's a film that never quite takes off. The dialogue is clunky cliches and I found that really off putting. Redmayne is all mannerisms and nowhere near his performance in Theory. It's Alicia Vikander's film and she is rightly getting the plaudits though, !personally I preferred her in ex Machina and Testament of Youth.

Everyone who who was bored rigid by the last instalment of the Hunger Games, I suppose, if they had remained awake long enough to think about it.

Actually, I acknowledge this in my very first point. That's why I raise the issue of the title. Universal should have known there had been little interest in a film about him the first time ( the Kutcher version). Therefore if they were going to make another one they had to sell it differently. And they failed to do so at every stage of a stodgy marketing campaign. I agree with Tony87trt, it's more complex than just saying people don't want a film about Steve Jobs. Do you think the public was clamouring for a film about nerdy Mark Zuckerberg or Stephen Hawking? But they went to see both in droves. By contrast, the public loved Princess Diana but the film about her was a genuine flop. There have been several films and documentaries about Hawking in Britain. The man himself appears on TV shows here. There seemed to be nothing new to say about him. Yet the small team behind The theory of Everything sold this glorified TV movie to the world and took it to Oscar glory. Much is in the clever selling of a product.

Not sure I have to justify it. I preferred Truth, that's all.

I preferred Cate in Truth and I liked the film better than Carol too. But I agree, Carol is going to be the one she gets nominated for.

It's an uninspired, 'jump on a bandwagon' idea. Actresses taking the lead in films is a hot topic so Hollywood responds by remaking movies with males leads and just casting women. I feel the same way with demands on forums for a black Bond. Uninspired, patronising charity that benefits the lucky token few. Giving Sandra Bullock a big movie isn't going to change much. It's just cosmetic posturing. Get female writers in to create new, interesting, enduring female characters. Get female directors, producers to make films. Invest money in helping female newcomers into the business, nurture talent. Yes, it takes longer to do all that but only hard work creates a solid foundation. In Britain there was a TV drama written by a woman called about a group of women who took over the heist their husbands couldn't complete. It was original, groundbreaking and viewers loved it. From it came Helen Mirren's fantastic Prime Suspect series and a whole host of female led, gritty dramas, every bit as compelling as anything written and produced by and about men. That's real dynamism.

Jake, we'll have to agree to disagree that it's pointless fluff. I found parts of it deeply moving, largely due to Ronan's wonderful performance. I think many people will leave the cinema more touched by this film than any number of more worthy ones.

I find the Steve Jobs numbers really disappointing. It's an impeccably written and acted film and I hope that the voters in the various awards bodies recognise it for the fantastic movie it is. I've followed its progress on Twitter and I can honestly say that of those who have seen it I can count on my fingers the ones who disliked it. Everyone else can't find enough superlatives to describe it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I wonder whether Universal really thought this one through. 1. The title : they must have been aware that the Steve Jobs brand had not been a success with the first film. So why not give the film a different title. It seems a small point at first but I think it's actually quite important. The theory of everything wasn't called Hawking. The imitation game wasn't called Turing. A beautiful mind wasn't called John Nash. The social network wasn't called Zuckerberg. The titles made the films seem as if they were about something more than just the man. Yet they were more biopics than SJ is. With SJ the film was set up to stand or fall on people's interest in Steve Jobs. 2. For a film about a great salesman, the film was sold to the public in a stodgy, old fashioned way. Universal's marketing team did nothing remotely interesting to sell it to a younger crowd or those in the relevant fields. Totally uninspired marketing. 3. The lead actor - yes, Leo is a bigger movie star than Fassbender but Jesse Eisenberg means nothing to the public and Eddie Redmayne can still travel on public transport in his home city even after winning an Oscar. So the public is not necessarily put off by a less famous lead. In fact Fassbender has a growing fan base. There is nothing more he could have done. He took on a troubled production because he loved the script and put in a scorching performance. So, clearly the subject of SJ didn't click with the wider public and the dull marketing didn't catch on. Not his fault. 4. The drip drip release strategy damaged the chance of a solid, if unspectacular opening. A film like this needs the momentum of good reviews and festival/ premiere buzz. Both had died down by the time the film went wide. In Europe it will open a good month after the premiere made the front pages. 4. The toxic coverage of sites like Variety and Deadline haven't helped either. Within hours of release these sites were screaming 'flop' for a film which was more accurately underperforming. While much of the general public may not read these sites, word spreads. Negative stories spread like wildfire on social media and people do get put off.

Fair enough, it IS a sanitised version of the immigrant/torn between two lovers story, which in itself is nothing new. But it is also what most people go to movies for - to see attractive people living recognisable but not overly realistic lives. It's funny and sad, romantic and emotionally manipulative in an old fashioned movie way. It's this year's Philomena. And I predict that the public and Academy will love it and recommend it to their friends.

I loved this movie. Pretty much everyone I've spoken to who has seen it says they loved it. When people talk about loving a film as opposed to admiring it or liking it, it bodes well for both box-office and awards. I posted in the awards forum that, for my money, Ronan gives the best female performance I've seen this year. She is utterly compelling in the role. I totally lost myself in her story and her character and I can't give an actor a bigger compliment than that. She not only deserves an Oscar nomination, she deserves to win.

Steve Jobs will make its money back eventually but I am so disappointed about this opening. It is one of the 3 best films of this year, so far, for me. The performances are awards worthy. Fassbender, imo, is the best actor out there right now. I think he deserves the Oscar for his body of work in 2015 alone topped by an incredible turn in this film. And I say that as a paid up member of #GiveLeotheOscar. This film should have opened wide off the back of great reviews and early Oscar buzz.

This is almost a blasphemous question! Laurel and Hardy were genius. The other two were the cheap supermarket fizz to L & H's champagne.

It would be great to see an actor like Rylance walk off with an Oscar. He's the antidote to the over the top, showy turns that so often won Oscars. His performance in Wolfhall was an absolute masterclass in understatement.

I would just hand the Oscar to Saoirse Ronan now. It's a beautiful, beguiling, compelling and utterly moving portrayal. Not for one moment did I think she was 'performing' or 'acting'. I totally believed she was that character.

i was at the premiere (thanks to a tip from antovolk) and I also went to an earlier press screening. I'm the least tech person ever and I was enthralled from start to finish. Loved it and will be rooting for it during awards season. Sorkin said that for him dialogue is like music and since I really enjoy great dialogue it totally worked for me. I had no problem with the ending. It was one of my favourites at LFF along with Brooklyn and Trumbo and He named me Malala. My least favourite, in fact I disliked it intensely, was Anomalisa. Antovolk, thank you very much for your help. You're a star!

Thank you, Philip

Any info on how Macbeth is doing? It deserves a good box office imo.

Just been to the UK premiere in Edinburgh. Stunning film. Fantastic performances from all the cast. Fassbender and Cotillard can say more with just their eyes than many actors can with pages of dialogue What a shame Shakespeare will put so many people off.

I totally agree. I was making a different point.

A second Mexican may win best director this year. Surely that story deserves some of the diversity discussion.

If any of you would like to read my experience of the Oscars here's an article I wrote: http://www.itsalawyerslife.com/oscar-and-me-by-rehna/

Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady. The film played down her political accomplishments and social impact in favour of showing her as a woman largely dependent on her husband. A big performance in a small, muddled movie. Forest Whittaker in The last king of Scotland. The film wasn't do much bad as just ok. He was tremendous in it. Currently, Eddie Redmayne in the mediocre movie of the week The Theory of everything.

Tele, you have gone beyond the beyond with this one

Blankments, I love your new picture even though it's so sad. I share your pain over the snub. And everything really is awesome for Sniper.

I'm not surprised by Selma missing out. There was too much love for Nightcrawler and Grand Budapest for it to get in between them and the obvious favourites. And the lack of screeners story really has to stop now. It didn't make the London film critics circle list either and they saw it.