Jump to content

Joel M

Free Account+
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About Joel M

  • Rank
    Box Office Gold
  • Birthday 05/31/1986

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The killer of this movie just got caught 20 years later. Zodiac meanwhile still not arrested. How come, David Fincher?
  2. For me it's a tie between Fincher, Tarantino and PTA. And I think it's 100% because they were the ones breaking out when I started getting really into movies. Seven, Pulp Fiction and Boogie Nights are among the first non-conventional movies I ever saw in my life. There's for sure other filmmakers older and more current that I adore just as much, but they don't have the same "I was there when it all began" feel for me.
  3. I don't see Mallick getting anywhere near BP/BD for a few reasons. -2011 was so bad for mainstream oscar films that a silent french film and a scorsese boxoffice mega flop ended up the 2 biggest contenders of the season. This year might end up weak but not THAT weak. -Mallick doesn't hold the same allure for the arthouse-loving part of the Academy that he did a decade ago. A big part of his legend up to Tree of Life was that he was a recluse genius that graced the world with a movie once every decade and hollywood stars were tripping over themselves to end up on his cutting room floor. Every new Mallick movie used to be the event of the decade for the arthouse crowd. That's not the case anymore, he's done as many movies the last decade as he did in the previous 40 years. -Most important of all, Hidden Life didn't exactly set the world on fire at Cannes. It was completely overshadowed by Bong, Tarantino, Sciamma and even Almodovar. I doubt the Academy will embrace him more than Cannes did. I'm not saying the movie will be a non entity like the last few Mallick movies. It will be a much bigger deal, but the most I can see is a few random below the line noms like cinematography or the stuff period pieces usually get nominated for.
  4. After Joker got that surprising win at Venice it's Joaquin's to lose. He is just so respected in the industry and would have already won if he hadn't gone off the rails with the mockumentary stuff and was in more mainstream movies during the last 15 years. I also don't think genre bias will be much of an obstacle here. Academy and their precursors have been flirting with comic book movies for a few years now (Wonder Woman, Logan, Deadpool, BP) and all those movies were considered part of big franchises and released outside of oscar season. Joker is a mid-budget fall release with a big festival win, it's R rated, it survived the critics and is gonna be killing it at the box office around the time oscar talk kicks into high gear. Even if the movie ends up just a marginal BP nominee with no other above the line noms besides Actor like Bohemian Rapsody did, I think Joaquin is still winning. The only think that doesn't work in his favour is that someone else already won for that role not too long ago.
  5. Completely agree with this. Haneke or Pawlikowski are not exactly right comparisons. Bong is and has always been a commercial filmmaker, the most common comparison/praise western critics have thrown his way is Spielberg. His movies have the same language/culture barrier that all foreign films have, but will go down a lot easier with oscar voters that groan at the thought of watching a movie with subtitles.
  6. It is known that chill Brad is the best Brad and fun Leo is the best Leo, but I think both are really special here. Even if they are giving different kinds of performances, too me they both manage the perfect balance between cartoony comedy characters and real genuine people with a meanigful connection. And the metaness of them playing a bunch of hollywood failures is just a bonus. The movie doesn't even have to wink. I really really enjoyed this movie from start to finish. It didn't bother me how much it lingered on scenes like Cliff preparing dinner for his dog or driving around LA, in fact most of them were absolutely essential to the general vibe of the film. Tarantino movies are too long or indulgent has been the most common complain I've heard for almost every Tarantino movie before or after Sally Menke's death, but in this case like in almost all of his movies for me it's not a bug, it's a feature. I also found the movie deeply respective of Sharon Tate and imo it pays a beautiful tribute to her. Even if her primary function in the movie is to build tension just by her presence, she still manages to get some of her original shine back before she was a very famous murder victim. Margot Robbie is so wonderful in it despite her limited screentime. Over the last month I really tried to avoid the discourse but still heard about the alternative history ending. Didn't felt spoiled at all in the end because how it plays out surprised me in the best way possible. I was amazed how many little things from the first 2 hours pay off in the final act, I really need to see it a second time. Too soon to say where exactly it falls in my Tarantino list, but I'm pretty sure it's in the upper half.
  7. Is the PTA thing confirmed that he was offered and passed? I thought it's still in the rumour phase, nothing official.
  8. This number is definately false. All Greek sources have Titanic admissions between 1.850.000 to 2 mil. tickets before the 2012 re-release. Here's a boxoffice list from July 98 which has Titanic at 868.000 adm. only in the capital city while it is still in theatres And here's another newspaper article from June 99 that says it reached 2 mil. admissions in the entire country https://www.tovima.gr/2008/11/24/archive/o-polemos-twn-astronomikwn-eispraksewn/ What I guess happened is lumiere took the capital admissions for whole country admissions. I guess lumiere is a good source for more current movies but Box office reporting before the 00s was a bit haphazard, I wonder if there's errors in others countries also.
  9. This goes both ways though. With dubbing: 1) You lose the original actors voice which is a big part of their performance. 2)The translation has to take liberties and change words and phrases because they have to match the actors mouth in a different language. You don't hear the exact dialogue the writer created but rather the general gist of it. This might not seem like a big deal for some movies, but imagine how much a script that has a very deliberate pace to it (like Sorkin or Tarantino) will lose in dubbing, or even a comedy that has puns and wordplay humour.
  10. I think it's 100% habit. Germany probably started dubbing everything since Hollywood movies/tv shows entered Europe and Germans have grown up with it being the norm. People not knowing english or being illiterate in general was the main reason when they started doing it in the 50s but I don't think it's a factor anymore. It certainly isn't laziness, dubbing requires more time and money than subtitles but that's what the audience is used to. Here in Greece they used subtitles since forever and even people who don't know english wouldn't watch a live action movie dubbed.
  11. The ones that fit this description are Cameron,Spielberg, Nolan and arguably Tarantino (he needs the stars for his movies to be truly big) and Leo worked only once with three of them. But a Scorsese, Inarritu even Lurman movie without Leo being a big commercial hit? yeah no.
  12. So we went from "this is making 70m OW easy" to "is this gonna make 100m?" in a couple of months. I also thought initially this would be a slightly bigger Django because of the cast but in the end it doesn't have the catchy hook/premise or even if it does the marketing can't really focus on it because it's spoiler stuff from the second half of the movie. At this point I hope it 'll end up somewhere between IB and Django at the boxoffice.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.