RED SPARROW | 03.02.18 | Fox | Jennifer Lawrence

[Kingp0va]

1 hour ago, Noctis said:

 

So how is Lively even remotely a draw?

adaline and the shallows

[That One Girl]

Just now, Kingp0va said:

adaline and the shallows

 

Ah yes, a romantic drama making 42M domestic is proof of her being a draw.

[Cochofles]

I hope that Blake and Jennifer do a remake of Bound , just to fuck with @Kingp0va's head. 

[Cochofles]

I hope that Blake and Jennifer do a remake of Bound , just to fuck with @Kingp0va's head. 

[baumer]

On 15/09/2017 at 7:24 PM, Cochofles said:

I hope that Blake and Jennifer do a remake of Bound , just to fuck with @Kingp0va's head. 

 

I think that would cause severe heart palpitations for many of us male members here.  

[a2k]

i liked the trailer. the small action bits seemed really good and hopefully they show some more in the 2nd trailer.

 

edit on re-watch: yeah i like the trailer. i hope they show a bit more of the plot than slow closeups of jlaw's face. yeah she is a star but here for the movie mostly, not just her.

Edited September 20, 2017 by a2knet

[Hatebox]

I clicked on the first page to see who the director was, saw 'David Fincher' and suddenly got excited. Bit of a letdown to find it's now the Hunger Games guy, but hey-ho.

[trifle]

 

 

https://twitter.com/JLawrenceARG/status/910337025101959171 https://twitter.com/JLawrenceARG/status/910337025101959171 https://twitter.com/JLawrenceARG/status/910337025101959171

Según la página #IMDb#mothermovie es la segunda película mas popular

Mientras que #RedSparrow sube 1168 lugares y entra al ranking #36 pic.twitter.com/sDmkQX4jWH

— Jennifer Lawrence (@JLawrenceARG) September 20, 2017

 

[kowhite]

Watched trailer.

 

Zzzzzz.

[Incarnadine]

I saw the trailer in front of Kingsman last night, not great or terrible, although JLaw looked really good in a couple of the outfits.

When I saw the trailer I had the feeling I had seen something very similar before, but I couldn't think of it until it came to me this morning. There was a TV movie in 1985 called "Secret Weapons" starring Linda Hamilton and also Geena Davis.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089983/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1

 

I also couldn't help but think of "The Americans", like how Keri Russell's character would have been 15-20 years earlier.

[trifle]

2 hours ago, Incarnadine said:

I saw the trailer in front of Kingsman last night, not great or terrible, although JLaw looked really good in a couple of the outfits.

When I saw the trailer I had the feeling I had seen something very similar before, but I couldn't think of it until it came to me this morning. There was a TV movie in 1985 called "Secret Weapons" starring Linda Hamilton and also Geena Davis.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089983/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1

 

I also couldn't help but think of "The Americans", like how Keri Russell's character would have been 15-20 years earlier.

It is a spy story, and there are a lot of them, male protaganist mostly, but female also.  What is different about this one is it was written by an ex CIA operative and actually goes into spycraft - in the book, anyhow.  There are other differences, but they are spoilery. 

 

Still, I don't think having another spy story is more repetitive than having another science fiction movie or any other genre.  I'm hoping this will be a good one.  People who saw 20 minutes of it raved about it... I hope the whole movie is good.

[Valonqar]

After Mother!'s super floppage, I can't just blame controversy since the movie opened low before the buzz could spread. So I'd say that this and middling boxoffice for Passengers and Joy point at JLaw not being as bankable as believed or used to be (not all stars retain the same level of bankability through years). So I'm adjusting my BO expectations for this.

[filmlover]

12 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

After Mother!'s super floppage, I can't just blame controversy since the movie opened low before the buzz could spread. So I'd say that this and middling boxoffice for Passengers and Joy point at JLaw not being as bankable as believed or used to be (not all stars retain the same level of bankability through years). So I'm adjusting my BO expectations for this.

No one's gonna look at mother! as being any sort of testament to her drawing power.

[trifle]

I think she has box office draw at least as much as any actress, but I don't think that means a movie reported to be booed or as loved by the intellegencia, but hard to watch, will open wide across the nation based on one star - any star.

 

I'm glad Jen did mother! but not (obviously) for box office reasons.

 

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by trifle

[straggler]

48 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

After Mother!'s super floppage, I can't just blame controversy since the movie opened low before the buzz could spread. So I'd say that this and middling boxoffice for Passengers and Joy point at JLaw not being as bankable as believed or used to be (not all stars retain the same level of bankability through years). So I'm adjusting my BO expectations for this.

H'm. Passengers made $100 milion despite being an original sci fi with a 30 something RT rating.

 

Joy made $54 million despite midling reviews and a lot of DOR fatigue and all that buyer's regret about American Hustle.

 

Mother! is an arthouse movie. A really crazy arthouse film. 

 

If Red Sparow gets the reviews/wom it should do fine. That's the trick after all. 

[baumer]

Yea, the teaser is just that....a teaser.  But it at least sparks some interest.  JLAW is a bikini is good.  

[Jay Beezy]

On 9/17/2017 at 6:34 AM, Stutterng baumer Denbrough said:

 

I think that would cause severe heart palpitations for many of us male members here.  

 

I'd rather see that remake with Alexandra Daddario and Margot Robbie.

[Incarnadine]

It's hard to say much about the movie from a teaser, but I can say  that really is one hell of a swimsuit.

 

 

[Nova]

If youre the type of person who really believes that box office draws are a thing, then you can't apply that rule whenever you please. Chris Pratt had a role in Passengers being successful just like Jennifer. Blake Lively had a role in The Shallows being successful. You can't say well Jen was the reason why x and y film was successful but Chris Pratt added nothing to Passengers or The Magnificent Seven and The Shallows would have been just as successful without Lively. 

 

Now the people who have actually been paying attention to the box office will tell you that it's a combination of things that allows a movie to be successful. Is having bigger names a positive for box office potential? Absolutely. Is it the ONLY reason? No. Which is why you'll see even the biggest actors/actress star in box office flops. The concept matters. Pair the actor/actress with the right concept and you'll find success. 

 

Personally, I think this film will be really successful....if it's good. Why? Because it's a spy thriller starring Jennifer Lawrence. Jennifer is pretty good in these types of roles. People like these types of films. People also like Jennifer in these roles. So it should be a win-win. 

[Barnack]

3 minutes ago, Nova said:

Personally, I think this film will be really successful....if it's good. Why? Because it's a spy thriller

Will see it certainly has a chance, but when they go on the serious side spy thriller have an hard track record recently (comedy or more fantastic one like Bond/Bourne/Salt/Mission impossible/Atomic Blonde/etc...) tend to work better.

 

Even more establish franchise one, like Jack Ryan didn't do too well, Man from Uncle, etc... John le Carré Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was really well received (83% on RT + oscars nominations) and had a star heavy assemble cast and didn't reach 90m WW (still very good for it's budget).

 

In the 2010, Argo, Bridge of spies did extremelly so it is possible, but far from a given that people like thoses (we feel that they would, a bit like movies like The Nice Guys or a heist movie like Logan Lucky would be something audience want to see...., but the serious politically rooted spy/thriller in movies has a very so-so track record movie wise).