Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2021, 10:35:22 AM
:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Other/Miscellaneous
| |-+  Off-Topic Discussion (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Rate The Last Movie You Saw
0 and 4 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
: 1 ... 1107 1108 [1109] 1110 1111 ... 1336
: Rate The Last Movie You Saw  ( 4170453 )
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9674

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #16620 : January 15, 2017, 12:47:37 PM »

Silence, Monster Trucks, Live by Night Flop at box office

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/hidden-figures-monster-trucks-live-by-night-ben-affleck-1201960810/

I have cut-and-pasted the full article below. If you want to skip to the paragraphs about Silence, they are in orange

Box Office: ‘Hidden Figures’ Prevails as ‘Monster Trucks,’ Ben Affleck’s ‘Live by Night’ Bomb

By Brent Lang

It’s bombs away at the multiplexes.


Family film “Monster Trucks” tanked when it debuted over the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, while Ben Affleck’s “Live by Night” and Martin Scorsese’s “Silence” suffered moribund national expansions. Their failures will lead to tens of millions of dollars in red ink for the studios that backed them. “Sleepless,” an action-thriller with Jamie Foxx, also suffered an underwhelming opening, getting lost in the onslaught of new releases.

“There’s almost an unprecedented number of films out there,” said Paul  Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at comScore. “It’s got to be somewhat daunting and overwhelming for moviegoers.”

Amidst the carnage, Fox and Chernin Entertainment’s”Hidden Figures” retained its box office crown in its second weekend of wide release, earning $20.5 million for the weekend and a projected $25.3 million for the long weekend. That will push its total to $59.7 million. The historical drama about African-American NASA workers during the early days of the space program has been one of the biggest breakouts of awards season.

“Hidden Figures” faced stiff competition from Lionsgate’s “La La Land,” riding high after sweeping the Golden Globe Awards, and STX’s “The Bye Bye Man,” which earned $14.5 million and $13.4 million, respectively. “La La Land” is widely expected to dominate the Oscar nominations. The musical about lovestruck Angelenos should finish the four-day weekend with another $17.5 million in domestic receipts, which would bring its stateside total to more than $77 million.

“The Bye Bye Man’s” strong reception is welcome news for STX, which had expected the film to open to roughly $10 million. The horror movie about college students grappling with a deadly supernatural figure cost less than $8 million to produce. It should make $15 million over the four-day holiday. Studio executives said they weren’t afraid of the crush of new releases heading into the weekend, because they felt they were the only film targeted to younger females. STX also wanted to release the picture on Friday the 13th, a marketing hook for scary movies.

“We knew we were going to be able to get that core audience of females,” said Kevin Grayson, STX’s domestic distribution president. “Not only did they go on Friday, they continued to go all weekend.”

Heading into the weekend, most analysts expected CBS Films and Lionsgate’s “Patriots Day” to put up more of a fight. The drama about the Boston Marathon Bombing earned $12 million after moving from seven theaters to 3,120 locations. It could make $14.3 million over the four-day stretch. That’s below projections — analysts expected the film to earn as much as $18 million. However, the studios believe that “Patriots Day” could benefit from enthusiastic word-of-mouth. Audiences gave the film a rare A+ CinemaScore.

“Monster Trucks'” failure seemed preordained. Last year, Paramount took a $115 million write-down on the film. “Monster Trucks'” reception justified that fiscal white-flag waving. It opened to a pallid $10.5 million and a projected $14.1 million over the holiday, a disastrous result given its $125 million budget.

“The movie works for the audience it’s intended to work for,” said Megan Colligan, Paramount’s marketing and distribution head. “It did really well in the midwest and south. It was over 50 percent kids. The balance was good between boys and girls…without a whole lot of competition, it will keep plugging along.”

Paramount has hit a rough patch. The studio was embroiled in a corporate power struggle that pitted the controlling Redstone family against Philippe Dauman, the former chairman of Paramount’s parent company Viacom. The Redstones ultimately prevailed, but the pressure is now on Paramount chief Brad Grey to prove he can deliver more hits. The studio scored with “Fences” and “Arrival,” but lost millions on the likes of “Allied,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows,” and “Ben-Hur.”

“Live by Night’s” troubles will hit Affleck hard. He directed, produced, and wrote the Dennis LeHane adaptation, and took a starring role as a charismatic rum runner. Warner Bros. is releasing the $65 million production. It earned a sallow $5.4 million and should end the four-day holiday with just over $6 million, which more or less leaves the gangster picture on the slab. Affleck should be on firmer commercial ground reprising his Dark Knight role in “Justice League” later this year.

Open Road’s “Sleepless” didn’t fare too well either, although it cost significantly less than “Live by Night” and “Monster Trucks.” The $30 million production stars Foxx as a morally compromised cop whose extracurricular activities endanger his son. It kicked off with a meagre $8.5 million and should end the long weekend with $10.1 million in the till. The studio says that “Sleepless” will make its way into the black because Open Road covered its financial exposure by selling foreign distribution rights and through tax rebates.

“Given our economics, this $10 million opening on ‘Sleepless’ will certainly become profitable for Open Road,” said a spokeswoman.


Then there’s “Silence,” a decades-in-the-making religious drama. Scorsese struggled for years to cobble together the financing for this story about Jesuit priests who risk torture and death to spread the gospel in feudal Japan, but audiences seemed to have little appetite for his rumination on faith. “Silence” expanded from 51 theaters to 747 locations, earning just over $2 million for the long weekend. The $50 million film was financed independently. Paramount is distributing the picture.

“Marty Scorsese is one of the greatest living filmmakers,” said Colligan. “He’s earned the right to independently finance a movie and make the movie he wants to make. This is a complicated, beautiful film, one that movie critics have named the best of the year and one that will be taught in film schools for years. It needs to be judged on its merits.”


Holdovers “Sing” and “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” continued to show strength, with both films earning roughly $13.8 million. “Sing,” the latest collaboration between the “Despicable Me” team of Universal and Illumination, has earned $237.2 million stateside. “Rogue One” is now the top-grossing 2016 release with more than $500 million in receipts. It will cross the $1 billion mark at the global box office this week.

« : January 15, 2017, 12:52:22 PM drinkanddestroy »

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3411



« #16621 : January 15, 2017, 12:57:30 PM »

No. The two of you.

Of course, also, Drink was really talking (for Silence) about having virtually no interest in the characters and their repetitive actions, which deserves a bad rating... but would say that in that case, boredom is just a symptom, not an evidence. Of course if you're "miserable and tearing your hair out and screaming at the screen", it's probably a terrible movie. But I really don't mind being a little bored here and there as long as it's for good reasons (a pinch of ambiguity, a weird scene/subplot that a Marvel script doctor would have cut out but that actually flesh out the characters a lot and show you the real heart of the movie...).

Stanton, I think we've talked about this previously. I have no problem admitting that every single Kubrick film, many (good) Hitchcock ones and even most Leone ones get me bored at some point. I really don't mind as it's often the price to pay for greatness. Now, as a director/editor, I'll do my best to avoid anything boring in my films, but that's mostly a marketing issue to me: there are so much MORE things about movies that "is it entertaining?".


Of course, there is more, but being entertaining is the first step. I say if it is not entertaining for me, it is not good, or in other words it is not art (for me), being entertaining is the basic approach, and from that on it might get better and better, or in other words more and more fascinating.

And the real great ones like e.g. OUTW or The Wild Bunch or 2001 or Eight and a Half or Mulholland Drive are not for a nanosecond boring but instead extremely fascinating. Orgiastic stuff ...

No, if a film bores me in parts there's something wrong with it, it won't become a 10/10. Of course it can be fascinating in parts and boring in parts, but then I don't call it a masterpiece. A masterpiece can have a few flaws, it must not necessarily a perfect film (only few are), but it never is allowed to bore me.

I think it is wrong to say that something is great art even if I can't connect with it. It is more important to feel films, than to understand them, but the best films (songs, books, comics) speak mostly to both, body and mind.


noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6205


Lonesome Billy


« #16622 : January 15, 2017, 01:02:09 PM »

I don't see why "not being boring for a couple of minutes" is a cardinal virtue but I guess it's just personal taste.


stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3411



« #16623 : January 15, 2017, 01:16:29 PM »

I don't see why "not being boring for a couple of minutes" is a cardinal virtue but I guess it's just personal taste.

It is not a cardinal virtue or a rule, it simply don't happens in the absolute great ones. I was bored in parts the first time I watched 2001 or Irreversible, but later, when I got into the films, when I began to feel them, they did not bore me anymore, and it is now mostly mesmerizing to watch them.

There is a common ides of what is entertainment and what not. Most people would say that Star Wars is entertaining and 2001 is boring (but art), but for me 2001 is greast entertainment, sand the alst time I wathced the first Star Wars I was often bored.
I understand what people mean when they speak about things being entertainment, but individually that might not correspondent with ones personal taste.


noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6205


Lonesome Billy


« #16624 : January 15, 2017, 01:21:29 PM »

For the record, if you're watching a movie for the 10th time, the fact that you're not bored isn't very telling anymore. You're projecting a lot of stuff into what you're seeing. I'm talking about the first viewing only, maybe the second one too... In short, when you're still wondering what you're thinking about the movie.


PowerRR
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3330



« #16625 : January 15, 2017, 08:10:51 PM »


If it was half as long, it wouldn't be "terrible, terrible." But being 2:41, it's pretty unbearable. A boring 161-minute film angers me more than a boring 61-minute film.

The atheism thing shouldn't bother you: You can think about it  not as about religion, but about people having the right to practice their beliefs without government interference - it's a libertarian argument
Eh, true that there's more ways to look at it than strictly religion ... but regardless, I find the whole religious thing silly enough where i find it personally difficult to connect with how important faith is for the characters. That's not a flaw in the movie at all of course, just not something I necessarily care about.

Quote
didn't connect personally as much as others did with TAXI DRIVER- though it is very memorable - but I loved or liked very much RAGING BULL, GOODFELLAS, THE AVIATOR, MEAN STREETS, ALICE DOESN't LIVE HERE ANYMORE, THE COLOR OF MONEY, MEAN STREETS, and THE DEPARTED. (I even loved WHO's THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR until I saw MEAN STREETS, which is a far better version ofbthe same material.)
I did not like NEW YORK, NEW YORK; THE KING OF COMEDY; or BRINGING OUT THE DEAD. And I hated SILENCE.
Hmm, odd. I thought I remember reading that you even hated raging bull, goodfellas, departed, etc.... fine I take that back!

Quote
anyway, rr, how can you give a 6/10 to a movie that in your own words is "so fucking boring" and "far too long"? That means you were not enjoying yourself for much of the time. If you are not enjoying yourself, the movie is no good. Period. I don't want to hear any shit about deference to Marty and artistry and all that crap. If a movie is not enjoyable to watch, then it is a failure. 6/10 is not a good rating, but a failure deserves lower than that. This piece of crap gets no higher than a 2/10 in my book

as a whole it is "so fucking boring", but I never mentioned that I was ripping my hair out frustrated at how boring it was. It's a very very long movie, but quite often it was able to regain my attention. There are sequences that I did enjoy watching. But when it was all over? Yeah, for sure, I would definitely classify it as boring overall - but not 2/10 boring. There's a lot in Silence to appreciate and be fascinated by as I outlined, and it's certainly not a movie that had any intent to be 'entertaining'.  

That being said, Schindler's List isn't meant to be entertaining, but it certainly doesn't get boring. The lack of enjoyment is a big reason why Silence loses so many points in my book, but I can't just ignore the aspects I liked about it. I'd consider it much less a bad movie and much more just not my cup of tea. It's good enough for me to recognize that there are some people out there who must really love it. I didn't feel the movie was a waste of my time in the slightest bit, it's just something I likely won't be returning to again.

La La Land (2016) - 10/10
Had to see it again. Now this is a movie that is 100% entertaining and enjoyable the whole way through. And beautiful to look at. Yea, its filled with flaws and cliches, but they're all handled so unashamedly that it doesn't matter. It's a movie that's so fun to watch and look at that only a true curmudgeon could go out of their way to nitpick. If Chazelle keeps it up, I expect he'll be the next modern director that has the general movie community appeal of PTA, Tarantino, Nolan, etc. Not that those guys should be respected or noted around these parts of town.

« : January 15, 2017, 08:13:08 PM PowerRR »
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9674

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #16626 : January 15, 2017, 09:02:05 PM »

Re: your paragraph about SCHINDLER'S LIST:

I was actually specifically thinking about that movie when I mentioned previously that "Entertaining" does not have to mean laughs, thrills, sex, funny lines, etc. Great artistry is entertaining. You can watch a great movie about a very serious topic, like SHOAH or SCHINDLER'S LIST, and you would not call it "entertaining" but you would say you enjoyed watching it. A well-made movie can be enjoyed even when its subject matter is tragic. Nobody would call those movies "entertaining," but you would not call it "boring" either. Without trying to get too semantic, bottom line is that if I am not happy watching the movie - if I wish I was anywhere else but in front of that damn screen - then the movie is a failure.

Normally i would have left halfway through. But I stayed in this case A) out of deference to Marty and B) cuz I knew this would be much-discussed, and I had to see it just to be involved in the discussion. I was miserable from beginning to end.



There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9674

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #16627 : January 15, 2017, 09:03:45 PM »

The discussion of art/entertainment is interesting in general, but as far as specific discussions of the movie, perhaps we should stick to that movie's thread  :)


There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3411



« #16628 : January 16, 2017, 02:08:22 AM »

Schindler's List is indeed entertaining. No light entertainment, but entertainment though. No doubt about that from my side.


« : January 16, 2017, 02:10:37 AM stanton »

noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6205


Lonesome Billy


« #16629 : January 16, 2017, 02:48:13 AM »

Schindler's List is indeed entertaining. No doubt about that.

It's entertaining in the very first meaning of the word. Spielberg took care of that, and he was right. It's a great example of Hollywood successfully tackling a serious topic. You can put it on pretty much in any context and be hooked. The screenplay is built on this idea, and by nature, Spielberg's direction (mainly his ultra-rigorously motivated camera placement based on characters' emotions FIRST). But I rest my case on 2001 or Paris, Texas. Those films are more demanding and you need to be utterly receptive and willing to work with them instead of expecting them to work for you.

So my whole point is simply that the fact that an audience member (whether he is brilliant like many board members or just your regular Titoli) who doesn't always connect with a movie during the FIRST screening doesn't say much about the quality of the movie. Yes, it shows some kind of flaw, but it may (or may not) be an incredibly minor one. I'm mainly reacting to the whole "If I'm bored for 2 minutes then the filmmakers failed" consensus that I've been reading/hearing my whole life: it's just wrong.

Once again, I'm sure Silence is really boring, mainly because its topic isn't interesting to most people (including me) while the film was made for people who can connect with the premise.

« : January 16, 2017, 02:51:35 AM noodles_leone »

cigar joe
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13882


easy come easy go


« #16630 : January 16, 2017, 03:56:08 AM »

Jackie (2016) another background noise film while working on the PC, looked up every once in awhile, nothing interesting or impressive. meh/10


"When you feel that rope tighten on your neck you can feel the devil bite your ass"!
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9674

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #16631 : January 16, 2017, 05:15:18 AM »

It's entertaining in the very first meaning of the word. Spielberg took care of that, and he was right. It's a great example of Hollywood successfully tackling a serious topic. You can put it on pretty much in any context and be hooked. The screenplay is built on this idea, and by nature, Spielberg's direction (mainly his ultra-rigorously motivated camera placement based on characters' emotions FIRST). But I rest my case on 2001 or Paris, Texas. Those films are more demanding and you need to be utterly receptive and willing to work with them instead of expecting them to work for you.

So my whole point is simply that the fact that an audience member (whether he is brilliant like many board members or just your regular Titoli) who doesn't always connect with a movie during the FIRST screening doesn't say much about the quality of the movie. Yes, it shows some kind of flaw, but it may (or may not) be an incredibly minor one. I'm mainly reacting to the whole "If I'm bored for 2 minutes then the filmmakers failed" consensus that I've been reading/hearing my whole life: it's just wrong.

Once again, I'm sure Silence is really boring, mainly because its topic isn't interesting to most people (including me) while the film was made for people who can connect with the premise.

It's not about the subject matter, and it's not about being bored for two minutes. It's simply a terrible movie. Watch it and you will see what we mean, rather than defending a film you have not even seen  ;)


There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3411



« #16632 : January 16, 2017, 05:22:52 AM »

It's not about the subject matter, and it's not about being bored for two minutes. It's simply a terrible movie. Watch it and you will see what we mean, rather than defending a film you have not even seen  ;)

But people react differently to a film. I'm sure there will be others who enjoy the film. You can't expect that everybody views the film as you do.

OUTW is also a film which a lot of people called very boring.


dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15633

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


« #16633 : January 16, 2017, 12:33:37 PM »

7 Psychopaths (2012) 7/10. That's right, seven. There were only 3 in In Bruges, so this film must be WAY better. Actually, if I remember right, one of the psychos this time gets counted twice, but even so, this new one still has twice the psychos as the first. So it's gotta be twice the fun, right?  I can't wait for Martin McDonagh to put 12 psychos in his next picture, the perfect end to his Psychopaths Trilogy. What a vision that man has!
Saw a remounting of Martin McDonagh's first play yesterday at BAM ("The Beauty Queen of Leenane") and that inspired me to go home and re-watch the blu of 7P. TBQoL only had one psychopath in it . . .

Looking forward to Martin's new film Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017). Harrelson and Rockwell are back, but Frances McDormand is being added to the mix. I guess Martin is going for more of a Coens' vibe this time.



"McFilms are commodities and, as such, must be QA'd according to industry standards."
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9674

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #16634 : January 16, 2017, 03:09:00 PM »

But people react differently to a film. I'm sure there will be others who enjoy the film. You can't expect that everybody views the film as you do.

That is absolutely correct. But I can expect that someone should see the movie before they defend or criticize it  :)


There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
: 1 ... 1107 1108 [1109] 1110 1111 ... 1336  
« previous next »
:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
0.053159