I'm sure "The Batman" will clean up, but I'm annoyed already. I have seen the previews on TV and I can't see a damn thing. It's like GoT's "The Longest Night" episode. I am tired of dark scenes and quick cut shots. If a movie costs hundreds of millions to make, let people see it.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
I'm sure "The Batman" will clean up, but I'm annoyed already. I have seen the previews on TV and I can't see a damn thing. It's like GoT's "The Longest Night" episode. I am tired of dark scenes and quick cut shots. If a movie costs hundreds of millions to make, let people see it.

But it's the DARK Knight!

The Batman does well at $128M domestic.
Uncharted rolls to $100M
Dog should hit 3X its budget by next week
Spider-Man doing what it does.
Death is a miss

Scream falls behind the first three films but is still in the box office ballpark.

Licorice Pizza, which was advertised hard on IFC is a box office bomb. Apparently it has critical acclaim and Oscar buzz. If it wins Best Picture I am sure we will see a re-release.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Licorice Pizza, which was advertised hard on IFC is a box office bomb. Apparently it has critical acclaim and Oscar buzz. If it wins Best Picture I am sure we will see a re-release.

It's something about the last name of Anderson. Both Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson, not related, direct movies every few years that are always acclaimed by the film industry. They also almost always lose money and, as far as I'm concerned, generally stink.

I have seen the ads for Licorice Pizza and I guess those are the best bits. Give that man a prize.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

It's something about the last name of Anderson. Both Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson, not related, direct movies every few years that are always acclaimed by the film industry. They also almost always lose money and, as far as I'm concerned, generally stink.

I have seen the ads for Licorice Pizza and I guess those are the best bits. Give that man a prize.

Invest YOUR movie dollars in the firm of Anderson, Anderson and Malick.

Never see your money again but imagine the trophy room you will have!

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Invest YOUR movie dollars in the firm of Anderson, Anderson and Malick.

Yeah, Malick's another genius who crawls out every 8 or so years to make an incomprehensible film that the elite rave about.

I haven't seen all the Wes Anderson movies but I've liked all the ones I've seen (Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, the Life Aquatic, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, and Isle of Dogs). They seem like new movies that are done like old movies with odd characters.

I have to admit I did fall asleep (twice) during "Isle of Dogs" but I saw it in a theater with the super-comfortable chairs - still liked what I saw.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Licorice Pizza, which was advertised hard on IFC is a box office bomb. Apparently it has critical acclaim and Oscar buzz. If it wins Best Picture I am sure we will see a re-release.

It's something about the last name of Anderson. Both Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson, not related, direct movies every few years that are always acclaimed by the film industry. They also almost always lose money and, as far as I'm concerned, generally stink.

I have seen the ads for Licorice Pizza and I guess those are the best bits. Give that man a prize.

That's why we all have different tastes. I did see Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums and Life Aquatic. It was enough to put me off all Wes Anderson movies going forward, although Life Aquatic had a few smiles in it.

He has a couple of movies that were marginally financially successful because production was cheap, none of those mentioned, but the only one that made good money was The Grand Budapest Hotel in 2014.

Wes Anderson has an independent style that you either like or hate and doesn't make a lot of money if he's up, but bombs when he's down. I fall on the hate side.

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:
I haven't seen all the Wes Anderson movies but I've liked all the ones I've seen (Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, the Life Aquatic, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, and Isle of Dogs). They seem like new movies that are done like old movies with odd characters.

No one is saying that there aren't some people who like these films it's just that they are not a good return for investors. One would think that most people know this so the money is being put up for other reasons.

It would make for an interesting documentary I think.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
One would think that most people know this so the money is being put up for other reasons.

There is a group of directors, we named three, that have a reputation for wonderful artistic failures. It's fine that their films make no money and nobody wants to see them outside of film festival audiences. A-List actors take pay cuts to be directed by them, even doing cameos just for the prestige of getting in their pictures.

And then this disjointed, rambling mess that doesn't even have a narrative because it's "nonlinear", a favorite word I love to hear them say, comes out and the critics call it another masterpiece.

It's a masterpiece of something alright. I don't know who keeps investing in these projects either, but if it's not money laundering , than it's just people with the vanity and ego to need to be associated with the "superior artistic intellect".

Back to 2022, how about "The Batman" cleaning up. I think Timothee Chalamet would make a fantastic next Superman.

Sounds about right, I was going to go with tax write off but laundering is just as good.

nonlinear is a fancy word for this ain't gonna make a bit of sense. Guess we could call them directors who don't know how movies work.

Timothee (talk about a Malick movie candidate!) would probably do ok. His Wonka project has me a bit curious.

I find it interesting how in the public eye good and bad superhero's all come down to the actor choice. With better concept, writing and direction I think Clooney could have been a great Batman.

Anderson continues to get money to make movies. Maybe enough comes in from rentals and sales to fund the next one. There are also wealthy people who want to be involved in art even if they're not artists themselves. They might put up some money to be part of a Wes Anderson movie. It's like the actors who will work for free or at a reduced amount to be in his movies. People see him as a great artist and they want to encourage him to keep making more movies. They want to see what else he comes up with. I know it's crazy but it's not always about the money.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:
I haven't seen all the Wes Anderson movies but I've liked all the ones I've seen (Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, the Life Aquatic, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, and Isle of Dogs). They seem like new movies that are done like old movies with odd characters.

No one is saying that there aren't some people who like these films it's just that they are not a good return for investors. One would think that most people know this so the money is being put up for other reasons.

It would make for an interesting documentary I think.

Just to see, I checked the budget/box office gross of "Isle of Dogs." It cost $35 million to make and made $64.2 million. It didn't double its money but then his movies don't get the promotional push of big budget movies. It might have made a modest profit.

"The Grand Budapest Hotel" cost $25 million to make but raked in $172.9 million with 92% on Rotten Tomatoes. That's a great return and nearly everybody who saw it liked it.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:
I haven't seen all the Wes Anderson movies but I've liked all the ones I've seen (Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, the Life Aquatic, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, and Isle of Dogs). They seem like new movies that are done like old movies with odd characters.

No one is saying that there aren't some people who like these films it's just that they are not a good return for investors. One would think that most people know this so the money is being put up for other reasons.

It would make for an interesting documentary I think.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
I find it interesting how in the public eye good and bad superhero's all come down to the actor choice. With better concept, writing and direction I think Clooney could have been a great Batman.

A great Batman might be overselling it , but that was one terrible movie. Nobody could have saved it.

"The Batman" sounds like a vigilante crime drama more than anything else. There is no humor in it at all, which is why a brooding Pattinson probably is an excellent choice.

I'm not sure when or if I'll see it. I'm getting bummed out on vigilante justice just trying to ride the subway. Where's The Batman when you need him?

Went to go see The Batman last night. Thought Zoe and Robert did well but Serkis didn't convince me as Alfred. Also felt that Jeffrey White was kind of just there.

I liked many of the new set and character designs although Batman's duds seemed more reminiscent of Daredevil to me. The movie really doesn't explain how things work, you just have to go with it.

The Riddler's motives sort of begin like Punisher but then end up like Bane or Tyler Durden. It's a little confusing.

The movie is 3 hrs and after 2 you start to feel it. Several scenes drag out in emo dialogue plus the ending was giving me some Return of the King flashbacks! I didn't even care if there was an end credit scene (there isn't) I was ready to go. I would love to have an Editors reduction cut.

Still!

I did like the movie overall and it does give the franchise a fresh perspective. Lets hope the sequel doesn't get wasted like Wonder Woman was.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
"The Batman" sounds like a vigilante crime drama more than anything else. There is no humor in it at all.......

That is exactly what it is and the audience is gathering information as the movie goes along. As a story direction I liked it.

There were places where I laughed but I'm a tad bit morbid so I might have been the only one.

A 2021 movie, but a contender in the upcoming Oscars, I'm really enjoying "The Power of the Dog" people getting all hot and bothered over Sam Elliot's criticism of the film. Not taking a stance on the issue, I just think it's funny when Hollywood personalities don't all fall lockstep with the party line and what happens when someone dares to say it out loud.

Plus I have always liked watching Sam Elliot in almost anything, cowboy or not.

My favorite line was from Rotten Tomatoes

"The Power of the Dog reaffirms writer-director Jane Campion as one of her generation's finest filmmakers."

Which made me laugh a little as most of her generation has never even seen any of her films.

Maybe a little controversy might draw a bigger audience.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Maybe a little controversy might draw a bigger audience.

Campion is another one who belongs on that list, except she's hardly done enough to even qualify for that much.

Not much came out to shake things up at the box office this weekend. The Batman rolls on to being a solid hit while Uncharted, Dog and Spider-Man are allowed to ride in its wake. Uncharted released in China. Should see those numbers populate sometime this week.

The rest of March is a bit weak in new releases. The biggest threat to the current top 5 are a couple of Horror flicks (A24's X and Sam Raimi's Umma) and The Lost City until Morbius hits theaters April 1st.

Of the three Umma looks the most interesting but currently I have no plans to see any of them in the theater.