Deepwater Horizon | 9/30/16 | New Trailer on Page 2 | IMAX confirmed | Budget: 156M

[Blankments]

2 hours ago, 4815162342 said:

The first half of this movie with the slow build of procedural tension is the stuff I live for in these kinds of movies.

Agreed, definitely the best aspect of the film outside of the disaster itself

 

BTW, I totally was wrong; watching the film, you can definitely see the budget. Technical marvel

[TalismanRing]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-analysis-can-deepwater-horizon-be-rescued-934561
 

Quote

"Deepwater Horizon is a hard sell. This should have been a $60 million film. The budget was out of control," says box-office analyst Jeff Bock. "It was always going to be tough to get audiences interested in one of the largest ecological disasters in U.S. history."

 

 

Quote

Sources close to Lionsgate counter Wahlberg was front-and-center from the beginning, and that the independent studio spent more than it usually does on marketing — roughly more than $40 million. They also note that Deepwater Horizon led all other movies in terms of ad spending in the two weeks leading up to its release. Lionsgate inherited the project, co-starring Kate Hudson, Kurt Russell, John Malkovich, Gina Rodriguez and Dylan O'Brien, when it acquired Summit Entertainment.

 

 

[kowhite]

I think Lions Gate should embrace making what I read is a good mvoie for bad money.

 

I respect that.  Don't back down.  I respect that gusto.

 

Even though it's super obvious this was a money loser.  Wear it with pride Lions Gate.  This ain't no Gods of Eygpt.

 

Though in a sane financial suit business move world...yes, no more than 60.  Wear that disdain for economic sense with pride.  I actually admire it.  You're all rich, fuck it.

Edited October 4, 2016 by kowhite

[DAJK]

You can see the budget on screen. Not quite like Mad Max but if this was actually made for 60M I would be applauding still. 

 

Great movie. Almost tested up. Realized more than a few times I wasn't breathing.

[JohnnyGossamer]

I was thinking about how this one defines the term indifference for me. Check it out on premium cable. Might even love it then. Who knows? Just looks so... So... So... Berg.

[wildphantom]

It's excellent. Expecting good word of mouth to carry this in the coming weeks. 

[zackzack]

The first explosion shut everybody in the theatre. Well done action but I feel it could have more substantial ending. Kurt Russell is still kicking ass.

[kitik]

Just got home from seeing this.

 

What a fantastic movie!

 

And yeah, I loved the operational stuff at the beginning.

[John Marston]

Wonder why this failed while Sully succeded

[efialtes76]

26 minutes ago, John Marston said:

Wonder why this failed while Sully succeded

Clint Eastwood+Tom Hanks>>>>>>>>>>> Berg+Wahlberg

Edited October 7, 2016 by efialtes76

[Jake Gittes]

Also this isn't an inspiring story. Only briefly so when Wahlberg is helping people close to the end, but by and large the second half is basically a horror show.

[lilmac]

One of the biggest boxoffice surprises this year but for the wrong reasons. I expected it to do much better. Not just because of Mark's starpower but the subject matter as well (disaster films do sell, see Sully).

[DMan7]

The movie was good but pretty cliche dialogue and story at the beginning with the family and the slow burn leading up to the actual disaster, but it's a true story so it gets a pass.

[lilmac]

3 minutes ago, DMan7 said:

The movie was good but pretty cliche dialogue and story at the beginning with the family and the slow burn leading up to the actual disaster, but it's a true story so it gets a pass.

 

Oh man, I dislike movies like that. They overexpose the family man angle. I get that they want to give the film substance but get on to the action already!

[The Futurist]