4-Day Wknd Est: AS - 105.3M, Pad - 25.2M, TWR - 24.5M,Taken 3 - 17.44M (pg 109)

[The Panda]

Drive isn't a good film but how on earth does that affect Boyhood?

It's like saying you didn't like Harry Potter so you won't watch Marvel.

I mean...come on.

I'm not a huge fan of drive either (although I can appreciate what it tried to do), but what irks me is thinking that a film being art (and all films are art, some art is just shitty) makes it bad. One of the most moronic things I have heard in a long time.

[Warhorse]

Drive isn't a good film but how on earth does that affect Boyhood?

It's like saying you didn't like Harry Potter so you won't watch Marvel.

I mean...come on.

No, people I know said Drive was boring, and the same people said that Boyhood is boring, so I'm going to skip it. Yeah, I like some boring movies like The Black Stallion, but I'm perfectly fine skipping Boyhood. 

[The Panda]

No reason to get all bent out of shape, it's just my opinion and I know what I like and what I don't like. Don't like it, move along! Nothing I say or do is going to change whats going on in the oscars or what other people think of films, and I'm not trying to either. Really, people getting all defensive and insulting over a movie, a bit much, don't you think?

It's not what movies you do or don't like, but your reasoning behind it. "I'm not going to see a movie because it's an art movie." All movies are art, deal with it.

For example, I can respect Baumer's opinions here (somebody who people here disagree with a lot) even if some of them fire up eye rolling flames, because he has thorough reasonings for why he likes what he likes. He also doesn't criticize a movie for being art.

Criticizing a well-beloved movie on a movie forum, saying its, "Artsy Fartsy," is the equivalent of going to an art museum and telling everyone around you why the Picasso painting (that you didn't even look at) sucks because it was artistic.

[Cochofles]

Tell them the one that can act is Chris.

But that would be lying.

[John Marston]

But that would be lying.

Any reason why you despise Hemsworth so much?

[Claire of Themyscira]

[Warhorse]

It's not what movies you do or don't like, but your reasoning behind it. "I'm not going to see a movie because it's an art movie." All movies are art, deal with it.

For example, I can respect Baumer's opinions here (somebody who people here disagree with a lot) even if some of them fire up eye rolling flames, because he has thorough reasonings for why he likes what he likes. He also doesn't criticize a movie for being art.

Criticizing a well-beloved movie on a movie forum, saying its, "Artsy Fartsy," is the equivalent of going to an art museum and telling everyone around you why the Picasso painting (that you didn't even look at) sucks because it was artistic.

Eh, well to be honest, I don't go to art museums because I often find the highly regarded work to be, questionable. I'm just not into that kind of world. And it's still mind boggling that people are in love with Boyhood. Honestly, I already read on mulitple forums, people honestly believe that the only reason the movie is getting all sorts of attention is because of it's gimmick. I need a bit more substance than watching a kid age for 12 years. Lucky for me, Harry Potter came close enough, so I think I'll stick with that. 

 

Cheers!

[The Panda]

Eh, well to be honest, I don't go to art museums because I often find the highly regarded work to be, questionable. I'm just not into that kind of world. And it's still mind boggling that people are in love with Boyhood. Honestly, I already read on mulitple forums, people honestly believe that the only reason the movie is getting all sorts of attention is because of it's gimmick. I need a bit more substance than watching a kid age for 12 years. Lucky for me, Harry Potter came close enough, so I think I'll stick with that. 

 

Cheers!

 

[Avatree]

 

Ugh, I read the synopsis of Boyhood, and it just screamed award bait, and sounds awfully boring from the way critics reviewed it. 

It's fine to find a movie boring, there are plenty of films that I think sound boring so choose not to try. Boyhood is one of them.

But awards bait? Why would you film a movie for 12 years just to get awards? And why release it so early in the year?

 

I'm tempted to watch Whiplash, but that's a netflix movie for me. I tend to hate crowds so I go to the theater sparingly.

Watch Whiplash in the cinema or don't bother at all. There aren't many films I would say that about but it's true in this case.

 

 

Also, you should stop spouting that rubbish about films not being art or whatever it is you're trying to say.

[AniNate]

I suppose a movie can still be "artsy fartsy" without being "awards bait", but I think it's unfair to write off Boyhood as being that when the point of making the film was to present the theme of coming of age without the dramatic gloss typically applied to it. You may find that boring, but you should at least admire the effort.

[Blankments]

Time for a post I'm sure has been said several times in this thread, but I wanna write it out. HOLY SHIT FOR AMERICAN SNIPER. Even if I haven't seen this, this is a major win for stuff in Hollywood that most analysts have said are dead in the current times.

 

The R-Rated Blockbuster: With movies like Unbroken and others clearly censoring themselves for a PG-13 rating, people have said big R-rated movies don't happen anymore, and for good reason. For the past few years, studios have shied away from the R-rating when trying to get big money. Yet, American Sniper, with it's R-rating, looks to have sold more tickets than any opener last year besides Trans4mers. Great!

 

The Mid-Budget Film: American Sniper is only budgeted at 58M. Middle budgeted movies like this have been dying because studios have started to believe you can only have uber-small budgets to guarantee a profit, or take a big risk for great reward. American Sniper proves that a movie doesn't need to be 200M-budgeted to provide a spectacle to an audience. A mid-budgeted movie can now do huge.

 

The Quality January Movie: January has proven again and again it can only handle 40M openers and poor reviews. Yes, Sniper is a December release technically, so I shouldn't be counting the reviews. Yet, the success of Sniper shows that if studios really wanted to, they could open a movie in January with good marketing and nice quality to huge heights.

 

The Quietly Marketed Film: Nowadays, most movies include as many scenes as possible in the trailers and TV spots. With Sniper, I maybe saw the same three minutes of the movie in every bit of trailer or TV spot, and you know what? It worked, but not because of mystery box bullshit. The movie had great marketing that sold the concept while not really revealing anything outside of the central premise. This is a far change from most summer blockbusters or films in general; one that worked well for American Sniper.

 

The Star-Driven Movie: For the first time since Hancock really, we have a film we can credit its success mostly to the appeal of the main actor. Yes, the marketing was good, and yes, Clint Eastwood's name brings people in. Yet, I would blame American Sniper's success almost entirely on Bradley Cooper, the rare actor who can sell to every demographic as a great guy who also stars in recently, only quality films. Cooper marketed the film around on talkshows too, and I honestly think, with this, Cooper is on the 90s Tom Cruise level of being a draw. With any other actor in the lead currently, I don't see 90M OW; no one else comes to mind as famous in every type of acting as Cooper at the moment. American Sniper's success shows that "Star Power" is still alive today in Hollywood.

[Avatree]

Totally agree, Blanks. I thought the movie was pretty bad but I'm very glad that a lower budget film in January, that doesn't have to be part of some grand Iraq War Cinematic Universe, has broken out to be huge.

 

I disagree about Cooper selling the film but other than that you're very much right.

Edited January 19, 2015 by treeroy

[AniNate]

The Quality January Movie: January has proven again and again it can only handle 40M openers and poor reviews. Yes, Sniper is a December release technically, so I shouldn't be counting the reviews. Yet, the success of Sniper shows that if studios really wanted to, they could open a movie in January with good marketing and nice quality to huge heights.

 

Honestly, we're usually quite spoiled by quality films this month. The reality is the late-expansion Oscar bait is always going our to be "quality" haul in January. There's every incentive for studios to get their film a screening gig in December for Oscar consideration before they "officially" release it in a less crowded market this month. I don't think there's need to do any hand-wringing over whether they actually open this month or not.

 

Paddington is somewhat noteworthy in not having a limited release, though it did have awards screeners if riczhang is to be believed.

Edited January 19, 2015 by tribefan695

[DAJK]

I'm still shocked at this weekend! You go 2015!

[Warhorse]

Does AS have it's own thread in here without being connected to clubs and whatnot, and not part of the review thread either?

[Warhorse]

Time for a post I'm sure has been said several times in this thread, but I wanna write it out. HOLY SHIT FOR AMERICAN SNIPER. Even if I haven't seen this, this is a major win for stuff in Hollywood that most analysts have said are dead in the current times.

 

The R-Rated Blockbuster: With movies like Unbroken and others clearly censoring themselves for a PG-13 rating, people have said big R-rated movies don't happen anymore, and for good reason. For the past few years, studios have shied away from the R-rating when trying to get big money. Yet, American Sniper, with it's R-rating, looks to have sold more tickets than any opener last year besides Trans4mers. Great!

 

The Mid-Budget Film: American Sniper is only budgeted at 58M. Middle budgeted movies like this have been dying because studios have started to believe you can only have uber-small budgets to guarantee a profit, or take a big risk for great reward. American Sniper proves that a movie doesn't need to be 200M-budgeted to provide a spectacle to an audience. A mid-budgeted movie can now do huge.

 

The Quality January Movie: January has proven again and again it can only handle 40M openers and poor reviews. Yes, Sniper is a December release technically, so I shouldn't be counting the reviews. Yet, the success of Sniper shows that if studios really wanted to, they could open a movie in January with good marketing and nice quality to huge heights.

 

The Quietly Marketed Film: Nowadays, most movies include as many scenes as possible in the trailers and TV spots. With Sniper, I maybe saw the same three minutes of the movie in every bit of trailer or TV spot, and you know what? It worked, but not because of mystery box bullshit. The movie had great marketing that sold the concept while not really revealing anything outside of the central premise. This is a far change from most summer blockbusters or films in general; one that worked well for American Sniper.

 

The Star-Driven Movie: For the first time since Hancock really, we have a film we can credit its success mostly to the appeal of the main actor. Yes, the marketing was good, and yes, Clint Eastwood's name brings people in. Yet, I would blame American Sniper's success almost entirely on Bradley Cooper, the rare actor who can sell to every demographic as a great guy who also stars in recently, only quality films. Cooper marketed the film around on talkshows too, and I honestly think, with this, Cooper is on the 90s Tom Cruise level of being a draw. With any other actor in the lead currently, I don't see 90M OW; no one else comes to mind as famous in every type of acting as Cooper at the moment. American Sniper's success shows that "Star Power" is still alive today in Hollywood.

Agree with all of this, not to mention it's a movie which special effects is not the focal, no 3D gimmick either. Just a good, raw movie. 

[Warhorse]

 

 

It's fine to find a movie boring, there are plenty of films that I think sound boring so choose not to try. Boyhood is one of them.

But awards bait? Why would you film a movie for 12 years just to get awards? And why release it so early in the year?

 

Watch Whiplash in the cinema or don't bother at all. There aren't many films I would say that about but it's true in this case.

 

 

Also, you should stop spouting that rubbish about films not being art or whatever it is you're trying to say.

 

I got my own home theater, so I'm pretty sure that will suffice. And maybe artsy isn't quite the word, maybe over pretentious is more correct.

[grim22]

So American Sniper was pretty good. The audience applauded at the end, and the biggest applause was when 

he shot the enemy sniper

. Sold out showing. The movie looks like it will have some really good legs.

[Avatree]

 

I got my own home theater, so I'm pretty sure that will suffice. And maybe artsy isn't quite the word, maybe over pretentious is more correct.

Alright well if you ever watch it at home, make sure it's turned up super loud, and smash your remote so that you can't turn it down.

 

So American Sniper was pretty good. The audience applauded at the end, and the biggest applause was when 

he shot the enemy sniper

. Sold out showing. The movie looks like it will have some really good legs.

I still can't imagine what it's like for an audience to actually applaud a movie. Next time I'm in the US I really need to go to a cinema, it sounds hilarious.

[DAR]

I've only been to a movie once where there was applause, Argo