Filmovie Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 This looks like shit. And if it's half bad as much as Unbroken was, it will still be shit. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Well, it screened last night and so far on RT An unabashed vanity project that struggles to turn its own beautiful inertia into a virtue. Justin Chang / Variety This languid piece of would-be art cinema will prove once again that even the biggest names in the world won't draw an audience to something that, in and of itself, has no reason for being. Todd McCarthy / Hollywood Reporter Any time you get to see a filmmaker's soul on display, if that doesn't intrigue you enough for two hours, you're missing out. Fred Topel / Nerd Report Plays like an unconscious parody of Last Year at Marienbad, L'avventura and any number of other 1960s European dramas about beautiful people having existential crises on yachts and in villas. Alonso Duralde / The Wrap 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 So in other words it isn't a crime against cinema yet it isn't very good either, and mostly unsellable to mainstream audiences despite the power couple. Seems like Universal's decision to dump it was the right call. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Variety kinda destroyed this with a chainsaw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Jolie will survive this just fine. If Larry Crowne, which was a total vanity project for Tom Hanks, didn't hurt his career then this will have no impact on hers either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TStechnij Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 This is a total mess but has a couple of moments of occasional genius. The direction is fine. The screenplay is a joke. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 5 minutes ago, TStechnij said: This is a total mess but has a couple of moments of occasional genius. The direction is fine. The screenplay is a joke. The premise seems very hard to pull off though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cochofles Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 3 hours ago, filmlover said: Jolie will survive this just fine. If Larry Crowne, which was a total vanity project for Tom Hanks, didn't hurt his career then this will have no impact on hers either. Unlike Hanks, Jolie has a vagina, which intrinsically makes her more prone to be discarded by the Hollywood powers that be. I wish she would regain her commercial instincts. Come on, Angie, tell the Wonder Woman producers that you'd like to play Cheetah or Circe. I bet they won't be able to refuse and you'll get yet another box office smash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cochofles Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) Wow...the reviews are brutal and the film seems like an insufferably pretentious attempt at the kind of old-school movie aesthetic that Todd Haynes can actually make work for today's audiences. I am rooting for Angie, but after three shots, it's kinda clear she is just not a good director. Someone please tell her to go back to her action heroine wheelhouse, and if she wants to make a great dramatic film, tell her to hire a director that can direct. Edited November 6, 2015 by Cochofles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 18 minutes ago, Cochofles said: Unlike Hanks, Jolie has a vagina, which intrinsically makes her more prone to be discarded by the Hollywood powers that be. I wish she would regain her commercial instincts. Come on, Angie, tell the Wonder Woman producers that you'd like to play Cheetah or Circe. I bet they won't be able to refuse and you'll get yet another box office smash. Jolie is unlikely to be "discarded." She's become one of the most powerful, and some could say influential given her global accomplishments, people in show business, even if her box office power isn't undeniable (all of her hits hail strictly from the "popcorn" side of cinema; even movie studios have figured out at this point that audiences won't show up when she does drama, which is likely why By the Sea is being dumped in addition with these bad reviews). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 4 hours ago, filmlover said: Jolie will survive this just fine. If Larry Crowne, which was a total vanity project for Tom Hanks, didn't hurt his career then this will have no impact on hers either. They both cost around the same but I'm finding it difficult to believe this movie is doing similar to $35m/$72m. LC wasn't a good movie but Hanks delivered a viable wide release for the studio and I didn't hear about him insisting on being in charge of the marketing. Also, Jolie doesn't have near the the box office or critical record that Hanks did. That said she'll be fine and will get more directing chances though not the carte blanche on this size budget she was given here. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 5 hours ago, filmlover said: So in other words it isn't a crime against cinema yet it isn't very good either, and mostly unsellable to mainstream audiences despite the power couple. Seems like Universal's decision to dump it was the right call. Not a complete and total fiasco,but fails badly as a deep "art house" drama, and no way the mainstream will buy this. Yeah, with the art house crowd not impressed by it, and mainstream audiences simply not buying it. Universal was right to dump it. Only good thing is it did not cost very much and pretty sure part of the price for greenlighting it was that Brad and Angie are commited to Universal for more commericial projects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 2 hours ago, TalismanRing said: They both cost around the same but I'm finding it difficult to believe this movie is doing similar to $35m/$72m. LC wasn't a good movie but Hanks delivered a viable wide release for the studio and I didn't hear about him insisting on being in charge of the marketing. Also, Jolie doesn't have near the the box office or critical record that Hanks did. That said she'll be fine and will get more directing chances though not the carte blanche on this size budget she was given here. The whole "Angelina is in charge of everything" stuff sounds like total studio spin. If they had any confidence in the film they wouldn't be completely dumping it like they are. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 2 minutes ago, filmlover said: The whole "Angelina is in charge of everything" stuff sounds like total studio spin. If they had any confidence in the film they wouldn't be completely dumping it like they are. They're letting her get her way because they know it's a bomb but I think it's obvious they're not in charge of marketing. No way would they approve a poster where you can barely recognize the stars faces when they're the only thing selling this movie. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmlover Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Maybe she did, but I'm talking about their statements that "it was never intended to be a wide release", which sounds like nothing but spin. The ones who make the decisions as to a movie's release pattern ultimately are the distributors. Would a studio allow for a $30M production with one of the biggest power couples on the planet to sink if the film wasn't an unsellable stinker? They're cutting their losses so at least the media won't blame Brad and Angie for not promoting the movie (which they haven't really; the focus of her recent Vogue photoshoot was their family) due to their "busy schedules" if the film had bombed as a wide release, which it definitely would have. Now it'll bomb as a limited release with no one noticing and they won't loose as much as they would've otherwise. This is basically what would've happened to Serena had it been backed by a major studio. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 11 minutes ago, filmlover said: Maybe she did, but I'm talking about their statements that "it was never intended to be a wide release", which sounds like nothing but spin. The ones who make the decisions as to a movie's release pattern ultimately are the distributors. Would a studio allow for a $30M production with one of the biggest power couples on the planet to sink if the film wasn't an unsellable stinker? They're cutting their losses so at least the media won't blame Brad and Angie for not promoting the movie (which they haven't really; the focus of her recent Vogue photoshoot was their family) due to their "busy schedules" if the film had bombed as a wide release, which it definitely would have. Now it'll bomb as a limited release with no one noticing and they won't loose as much as they would've otherwise. This is basically what would've happened to Serena had it been backed by a major studio. Oh yeah, that's obvious spin. No way did Universal spend $27m for a limited release very art house indie relationship drama. They thought they were going to get something more commercial or maybe wards worthy but this way they're saving face for them and their stars. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cochofles Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) 5 hours ago, filmlover said: Jolie is unlikely to be "discarded." She's become one of the most powerful, and some could say influential given her global accomplishments, people in show business, even if her box office power isn't undeniable (all of her hits hail strictly from the "popcorn" side of cinema; even movie studios have figured out at this point that audiences won't show up when she does drama, which is likely why By the Sea is being dumped in addition with these bad reviews). That's the problem. She seems, as of late, to be uninterested in directing or being in anything commercial, Maleficent notwithstanding. And come on, no matter how powerful she is, power in Hollywood is measured by your last hit. Give her enough flops, and she will be discarded. Edited November 7, 2015 by Cochofles 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 1 minute ago, Cochofles said: That's the problem. She seems, as of late, to be uninterested in directing or being in anything commercial, Maleficent notwithstanding. And come on, no matter how powerful she is, power in Hollywood is measured by your last hit. Give her enough flops, and she will be discarded. Ryan Reynolds contradicts every theories about Hollywood. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cochofles Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Just now, The Futurist said: Ryan Reynolds contradicts every theories about Hollywood. In terms of what? You men in terms of the offers he gets versus his box office history? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 2 minutes ago, Cochofles said: In terms of what? You men in terms of the offers he gets versus his box office history? I kinda don't care if Reynolds is a box office draw or not but damn he is cast in so many movies, it really feels he s being shoved down our throats a little too much by the Powers That Be , it s really specific to him, I don't have such another jarring exemple. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
