Babylon - Damien Chazelle; Margot Robbie; Brad Pitt | Paramount | December 23, 2022 nationwide

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

2 hours ago, interiorgatordecorator said:

 

way of water - babylon double features?

that a good lol or a bad lol?

RIP your bladder but this is a great double feature in ways you will soon understand

[snarkmachine]

I could be way off, but I don't think has a strong enough visual or narrative hook to pull people in. The La La Land trailer told you exactly what you were getting and so did the WOWS trailer. These trailers don't have the same pop.

[Eric Duncan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5muQK7CuFtY

 

New trailer. For some reason this isn't embedding, so...

[interiorgatordecorator]

Better trailer than the first one, but thats not too hard considering how unberable the first one was

I still cant get excited for any of the childish "PARTY!", but this trailer had a 6 second or so segment where they hinted at an idea, degenerates being crushed by the moral expectations of the coming era, that I think could be very interesting if developed correctly

 

The comedy doesnt land

[ThePrinceIsOnFire]

A messy flop through and through.

 

This will fare better than Amsterdam because 1) It's coming on christmas time 2) It has Brad Pitt who is a bigger draw than Bale 3) Chazelle has more of a fanbase (the ever so messy twitter film nerds/ dudebros) than D. O Russell.  

 

But just how much better?  Anything under 100 M dom and 200 M WW will make this a bomb, given its bloated budget... I can see it somehow grossing anyhting from 40 to 100 OS based on the reviews and word of mouth, but I feel like the ceiling is lower in USA where Brad Pitt is not as strong of a selling point, and also controversial due to the domestic abuse stuff. 

There is no way it will recoup its budget theatrically, as it is not grossing 300 + M WW,

[ZeeSoh]

Interesting trailer, looks like a fun time but that runtime is way to long for a movie like this imo. This will be lucky to do half of La La Land. 

[thedast]

Looks overindulgent and also like a OUATIH rehash but in the... 20s? Probably doesn't help that Pitt is in both. But some people might be drawn to the chaotic nature of it.

[excel1]

I can't help but think "who thought this was a good idea"?

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

The movie is literally a Boogie Nights remake.. with a splash of Baz Luhrmann and Wolf of Wall Street

 

But the final sequence is so galaxy brained ridiculous and asinine, I still don't believe it

[Saul Goodman]

12 hours ago, thedast said:

Looks overindulgent and also like a OUATIH rehash but in the... 20s? Probably doesn't help that Pitt is in both. But some people might be drawn to the chaotic nature of it.

As much as I loved OUATIH, I felt something was missing from it. It surely needed that 3 hours run time, lot of cameos and scenes were cut. I'm glad this movie is going all out though!

[Lucas]

Out of nowhere it turns out I'm seeing this on wednesday.

[wboxoffice]

56 minutes ago, Lucas said:

Out of nowhere it turns out I'm seeing this on wednesday.

 

Make sure to go to the bathroom before the movie and don't drink too much water... 😏

[Nikostar]

1 hour ago, Lucas said:

Out of nowhere it turns out I'm seeing this on wednesday.

Sorry to hear that.

[Lucas]

Seems like we've gotten a number from Evangelista. No idea if he's doing the SlashFilm review but it's fairly likely.

[dudalb]

On 11/28/2022 at 8:02 PM, BestPicturePlutoNash said:

The movie is literally a Boogie Nights remake.. with a splash of Baz Luhrmann and Wolf of Wall Street

 

But the final sequence is so galaxy brained ridiculous and asinine, I still don't believe it

My big concern is that in this trailer the chareceters are acting like people from the 2000's not the 1920's and 30's, even more then in the first.

If you are going to give a period film a period feel. why even bother?

Edited December 6, 2022 by dudalb

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

2 hours ago, dudalb said:

My big concern is that in this trailer the chareceters are acting like people from the 2000's not the 1920's and 30's, even more then in the first.

If you are going to give a period film a period feel. why even bother?

Not once does the movie ever believably represent the 20s. Even worse, it isn't even anarchronistic about the misstep either

[ThomasNicole]

Fwiw, reviews on 16th

[Verrows]

9 hours ago, dudalb said:

My big concern is that in this trailer the chareceters are acting like people from the 2000's not the 1920's and 30's, even more then in the first.

If you are going to give a period film a period feel. why even bother?

This is a trend I've seen in several period films lately. Characters talking about issues of today and not their time, and acting like people of today and not their time.

[Lucas]

This is pretty definitively a middlefinger to the entire Hollywood industry, but a love-letter to what ends up on the screen (very curious if audiences will come away from it thinking "so it's all worth it"). On a technical level it's spectacular, but once the surface-level raucuous energy loses steam (partly on purpose), everything hangs on the characters and they're not strong enough.

 

Partly baby's first Boogie Nights, (which is weird to say since Boogie Nights was baby-PTA's first Boogie Nights), and partly many other things, but it's a good, entertaining, and really well made movie. The screenplay, though not without a lot of merit, is a miss.

[Eric Duncan]