MikeQ

What filmlover said! Thrilled for Arrival's surprise win! Peace, Mike Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whoa, first surprise of the night! Peace, Mike Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bracing myself for a La La Land sweep tonight. Hoping Arrival will squeak out some surprise wins, maybe for Editing and Sound Mixing. My no guts, no glory would be Villeneuve for Best Director, but I know that's not happening. Peace, Mike

Arrival officially passes $100 million. Peace, Mike

John Wick is on Netflix for those who want to watch it (or at least it is here in Canada, where I am). I didn't catch it when it originally came out in theatres - it was never even on my radar. I just watched it on Netflix, and it was very enjoyable. There's something about the John Wick character - it's the principle for him, he's standing on principle. And it's all done in a very stylish, sophisticated way. There may be a lot of violence and a lot of killing, but here it doesn't usually feel mindless and blurry, the way so many action movies are. It was just kind of mesmerizing, in a way. Anyway, it does make me want to check out Chapter 2, so I'm going to make a trip to the theatre to see it. Many reviews seem to indicate that the lightness and charm are the only things missing this time around, which will be too bad, but the reviews are also saying this film is even more stylish and exquisite than the first and ups the ante with the action, so that's good. I hope it continues the world building of the first - the interesting rules and relationships (and characters) - as I love the little contained world the first made for itself. Peace, Mike

A $15 million Friday for Lego Batman is a slight disappointment for me. That's only a $12.8 million true Friday, and around $54-55 million for the weekend. Tracking had it opening to $60-65 million, and I expected $65+ million given strong reviews and great marketing. Still strong, of course, but I did expect more. I will hope for very good legs. Peace, Mike

Has anyone shared the real Friday estimates yet? They're up on BOM: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/ A really impressive $7.9 million for Split. Peace, Mike Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, it looks like La La Land has this in the bag. Moonlight is really the only other contender, but it can't compete with a record 14 nominations for La La Land. My nom counts for all films with multiple (i.e. more than one) nominations: La La Land - 14 Moonlight - 8 Arrival - 8 (no Amy Adams) Lion - 6 Manchester by the Sea - 6 (no Editing) Hacksaw Ridge - 6 Fences - 4 Hell or High Water - 4 Jackie - 3 Hidden Figures - 3 Passengers - 2 Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them - 2 Florence Foster Jenkins - 2 Kubo and the Two Strings - 2 A Man Called Ove - 2 Moana - 2 Rogue One - 2 Deepwater Horizon - 2 Peace, Mike

I really wanted to love this film. I really wanted to love it. But it just didn't enchant me in the way it could have. One of the issues for me is that the characters ring somewhat hollow. Emma Stone is wonderful, and Ryan Gosling is solid, but I don't feel like I really know these characters. Part of this, I believe, is that while the song and dance is good, not much of it emotionally resonates with me - the spirit and passion are missing. It wasn't clear to me why Sebastian and Mia had to break up - there didn't seem to be a strong enough impetus for them doing so - but this was something I could overlook for the purpose of the story. Then we flash forward to Mia, who is now apparently a big movie star. We see that her coffee is ready to go when she stops by the cafe, she has a big house, a handsome husband, and a nanny. I kept trying to figure out what this left with me by the end of the film when Mia and Sebastian have their knowing glance/nod/smile to each other, and I couldn't figure it out. It left me feeling kind of empty. Am I supposed to be happy now that Mia has become a big star? This doesn't inspire me. Certainly the film that she gets to go work on in Paris is a very good set up, both because she is discovered and asked to audition by a talent scout who saw her in her one-woman show, a personal artistic endeavour of hers; and when she auditions for the film, the film is positioned as one with artistic integrity, with the comment that the character will be created around the actress, and so on. So we get the sense that is the perfect project for Mia, one in which she can obtain artistic fulfillment and have her genuine talents recognized and put to good use. But then there is no pay off - what we see when we flash forward confuses me. And while Sebastian's situation resonates more with me, the character isn't very likeable. I wanted the film to sweep me up in a celebration of artistry and living a meaningful creative life, deep in spirit and soul, and it just didn't do that for me. I'm disappointed. Peace, Mike

I really wanted to love this film. I really wanted to love it. But it just didn't enchant me in the way it could have. One of the issues for me is that the characters ring somewhat hollow. Emma Stone is wonderful, and Ryan Gosling is solid, but I don't feel like I really know these characters. Part of this, I believe, is that while the song and dance is good, not much of it emotionally resonates with me - the spirit and passion are missing. *SPOILERS* I wanted the film to sweep me up in a celebration of artistry and living a meaningful creative life, deep in spirit and soul, and it just didn't do that for me. I'm disappointed. Peace, Mike

I say this without judgement for now, as I don't know what the norms and standards are around the ethical treatment of animals on movie sets (and perhaps I am too "soft" when it comes to this kind of stuff), but watching that video, even though it's not much, made me feel queasy and very uncomfortable. The way the dog is continually restrained by the trainer/handler, and then forced into the water (and pulled back up), just feels wrong. But I'm willing to admit that I'm very gentle with animals, and could never imagine myself ever trying to force a dog do something like that. It just seems to me that the only ethical way to do a scene like that would be to have a dog that wants to do it, that chooses to jump in on command, and that doesn't have to be handled in the way the person in the video is handling this dog, even if this was a one time thing and the dog had completed the task before. Or alternatively, to do this scene using CGI. But again, perhaps there are different norms around this in the industry and this is generally considered acceptable handling of a dog on set? I would sincerely like to know more about this. I guess my comment for now is that I think the video understandably makes many people feel uneasy and troubled about the dog's treatment, and I'm not sure that any added context would help much. But this could be my ignorance. I've been seeing the story plastered all over my Facebook newsfeed by friends, some of whom are commenting that they will no longer see the movie, and a petition floating around to boycott the film. Definitely not a good sign for it's box office prospects. Peace, Mike

The Crown is an excellent show, and Netflix makes terrific original content, so I'm always happy when Netflix wins. Peace, Mike Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That Beauty and the Beast spot with Emma Watson's beautiful voice singing over it - goosebumps. Peace, Mike Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks great, and I'm glad it looks heavy on the horror elements. But I also loved Prometheus - come on, the self-administered alien abortion was the greatest thing ever. Keep bringing it Ridley Scott. Can't wait for this - looks like a lot of fun. Peace, Mike Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no doubt that the critics' reception is very poor. But as someone who is interested in box office prognostication and using information and intuition to figure out how a film will do exactly, I'm interested in seeing how Passengers pans out. The one thing the film does have going for it are Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence, and even the reviews thus far largely bear that out, highlighting their chemistry and talent as positives of the film. A top critic review (positive) recently added says: "The film rises and falls on the talents of Pratt and Lawrence, and they are considerable." When we take a look at a film like The Tourist, which is logically being cited as a comparison, the reviews for that film largely singled out the lack of chemistry and sizzle that Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie had together in the film. For example: "Depp and Jolie together create a chemical black hole. They couldn't produce sparks with dry hair and a comb." This lack of chemistry is highlighted in the films "critics consensus" description. I think the signs are fairly clear that Passengers won't be a blockbuster success, which is likely what Sony wanted. But I could still see it potentially doing around $130-150 million domestic, and more overseas, for a profitable worldwide gross on a $110 million budget. Of course, it could also flop too, and that wouldn't be very surprising given the reviews. I just wonder if because Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence do seem to be very good together in this film, that this may prove to be good for general audience reception (to be, at least, not as poor as critics' reception). At the least, I think an argument can be made that hiring Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence was probably the best thing they did in making this movie and maximizing its potential box office gross. One critic says in their RT snippet, "What's a rather intriguing premise, replete with meaty themes to chew on, eschews all that to focus on sexy space fun times." Thus, to put it another way, it could be that general audiences are more apt to overlook this problematic aspect of the film to simply enjoy the "sexy space fun times" it provides them. This could prove to be entirely wrong, but it is something to consider when predicting its overall box office prospects. Peace, Mike

For the record, I appreciate all of your posts related to the movie and welcome them. I enjoyed the thread more when you were posting promotional material, clips, interviews, reception, etc - all stuff that is related to the film and its box office potential. Those kind of posts gave me more information to discuss box office and how interested general audiences may be. So cheers. Peace, Mike

What looks to be perhaps a ~$150 million weekend, give or take $10 million or so, is great. I find this to be quite impressive for a Star Wars spin-off movie. It could prove to be less frontloaded overall, it there is a less of a fan rush and WOM is good. Peace, Mike

Yeah, you're probably right. I just remember seeing that the industry tracking has it at a $50 million opening. If it opens around the tracking, I think it definitely ends up above $100 million, even with poor WOM, because of the holidays. I think the poor critical reception needs to impact the opening weekend enough that it's opening is significantly lower. The winter holidays prove time and time again that the market expands and accommodates many films, so that even the crappy films end up with surprising total grosses and legs. But you could very well be right - it will be interesting to follow. Peace, Mike

Yep, pretty terrible reviews. Doesn't bode well for me enjoying the film. It also seems, based off of the general stuff I'm reading in reviews (trying to avoid spoilers) is that the problem lies in the script and story itself -- that it doesn't resolve or closely address whatever moral or ethical consideration it takes up. That's definitely problematic. It's especially problematic when the director in this case seems to make things worse or at least is unable to elevate the material. This film may do well (or half-decent) on Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence alone - will be interesting to see how general audiences react. I'm going to predict a domestic tally between $120-140 million. I do find it to be a shame that a truly original movie a studio decides to invest in ends up being so poor (critically at least). It would have been nice for this to have gotten great reviews and send a message to studios that they can invest in original material. I don't say this as a knock to superhero movies, etc, which I enjoy a lot and watch regularly, just that it would be nice to see original content alongside the established brands. But the original material needs to be better - in this case, it doesn't seem to be very good. Peace, Mike

I can only speak for myself, but my interest in Rotten Tomatoes scores are not because I rely on them to decide if I should like a film or not (I am able to love or hate, like or dislike, a film without need for "approval" from critics). Certainly reviews are opinions, and different opinions from different perspectives give me a sense of whether I may like a film or not, but doesn't determine my opinion of a film. I'm essentially just interested in critical reception via Rotten Tomatoes in the same way we like to quantify box office success and spend hours of our time talking about box office. It's fun and interesting to follow. Also, related to the RT trolling, 'Passengers' is very negatively reviewed on Rotten Tomatoes, it's just not the 'Passengers' we're talking about: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10009239-passengers @La Binoche: I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the expectation of bad reviews has been because of a couple insiders on these forums expressing very negative thoughts on the film, that it would not be a critical success, etc. Peace, Mike

Thanks trifle for finding and sharing these things - I don't even have twitter, so sometimes I feel very much out of tune with the "twitterverse". This has me more hopeful that the film is at least good, on some basic level. I'm looking forward to seeing it either way. Peace, Mike

That is a great article. Thank you, trifle, for sharing. I'm pleased with what it seems to indicate about the film and the process it went through. It gives me hope that I will enjoy the film, despite the seemingly negative reactions from some insiders around here. Peace, Mike

As an awards/Oscar season nerd, I thought I would point out that Arrival has been nominated for ten Critics' Choice Awards, which includes pretty much all of the big awards: BEST PICTURE BEST DIRECTOR - Denis Villeneuve BEST ACTRESS - Amy Adams BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY - Eric Heisserer BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY - Bradford Young BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN - Patrice Vermette, Paul Hotte/André Valade BEST EDITING - Joe Walker BEST SCORE - Jóhann Jóhannsson BEST VISUAL EFFECTS BEST SCI-FI/HORROR MOVIE Peace, Mike

As I mentioned, if you see it as being morally unambiguous, that is certainly one way of looking at it. I think it is a lot more ambiguous and uncertain than you suggest. Louise made a choice - any choice she makes will have consequences, for her life, Ian's life, her daughter's life, for the dimension of time. If she had made the choice to tell Ian, that is still a choice, one that is imbued with ethical considerations. What implications does this have for both of their lives? Especially when time is non-linear and their lives are a collection of moments all happening - how radically does that shape the way we view our existence? Choices are then not decisions that cause an end result, but are what weave together a broader collection of moments in time that are always happening. Ian's life is now changed because Louise made the choice to alter it - that certain moments outweigh others, moments they would have experienced it if she hadn't intervened. Thus, what about the moral implications of making the choice to alter what would have happened? Does Louise have a right to do that? Moral or ethical issues are imbued in any choice she makes. Peace, Mike

That is certainly one way of looking at it. I was personally left with much to reflect on. Another way of looking at it is that Louise is able to choose her future and is thus empowered with free will. And she chooses to still have a child, knowing that this child will die young, but that this will also create much joy - the joy that is imbued in the love we create with others and in the very experience of humanity. What does it really mean to weigh the pain of death and the joy of loved ones? Because here Louise knows it - she is living it, all of those moments in time. Perhaps she knows and feels the joy of having a daughter and a family with Ian just as much as she does the pain. For Louise time is no longer linear - the past, present and future are just different moments in time. The screenwriter has said he wanted to establish that Louise finds it more and more difficult to keep up with herself and to separate the past, present and future. This is evident when she is experiencing a moment with Hannah and Louise asks her, "what day is it?". Imagine not really knowing anymore what is past, present and future - but that time is just existence. The very narrative structure of the film emphasizes this non-linearity of time. The way we see Louise near the end of the film, her back to the camera, as she speaks to Ian and asks him "if you could see your whole life laid out in front of you, would you change things?", the realization of what is actually going on lingers; it left me feeling many things and had me wondering what this must be like for Louise. For the rest of us, it is probably easier to imagine the pain of death than to imagine the joy that will come from someone you haven't met yet. Does one not have a child because they may suffer or they will die? Does Louise never have a child because this child will die young? If she had stopped Ian and they didn't have a child together, would this mean their future together would be better than it would have been? Would they have had any future together? Would their lives independently have been better? When Ian asks Louise "do you want to make a baby", in the moment, Louise says "yes". She chooses, perhaps, to celebrate the value of human life, and of living life, knowing what this means. The film, for me, makes the case for choice and for living with our choices. Peace, Mike