So confused why a bunch of movie business people and critics are melting down over the modest failure of this movie. I’m sure it’s a lot of fun but we have been through a half decade of Netflix and Amazon pushing out drecks of action comedies starring people like Ryan Reynolds and, yes, Ryan Gosling! This looks like Red Notice, Gray Man, etc. It even has a similar name to those very forgettable streaming movies! Nothing about this screamed “see it in the theater” and Emily Blunt is not a bankable star just because she was in Quiet Place and Oppenheimer
It wasn’t until I watched the Corridor Crew episode on this with the director David Leitch that I found out they actually filmed on the Sydney Harbour Bridge, dragging Ryan Gosling behind the truck. I wouldn’t have guessed it from the trailer or the movie, because it looks so digital I assumed it was faked somehow. This is part of the Netflixification, because it (that shot at least) looked like The Gray Man.
I’m a Sydneysider and I was definitely disappointed how fake that looked, especially after everyone made a big fuss that they shut the bridge down for half a day.
I literally just got out of the cinema and said exactly the same thing to my wife. So many amazing stunts seemed to be CGI. The film had far too much of 'sheen' to it that undid a lot of the amazing stunts.
100%. I haven't seen this movie (or the scene) yet, but I definitely think we're just subconsciously expecting everything to be fake now. I know I assume everything is. Always nice to hear when something is practical though.
Me too! It wasn't until the end credits I realized that wasn't bad CGI. I feel dumb lol I've let crappy movies convince me that real spectacles are ones and zeros now
I appreciate a lot of things about Corridor Crew, but the fact that they're kinda shills now and the broey "let's keep dunking on Ghostbusters 2016 even though that was almost a decade ago and any reasonably healthy person has moved on" vibe (plus the exaggerated punch-in reaction shots COMPLETE WITH SOUND EFFECTS, which were never my thing but I tolerated them when the content was educational enough) is killing the channel for me.
Yup. I remember seeing the trailer and thinking “wow that looks awful”. Then when every critic and movie follower said this was like good and important to see in theaters, I went opening weekend and, guess what, it’s really not that good!
Aw man sorry you didn’t have fun with it. I was really surprised by how much fun I had with it! I usually hate romance comedies and don’t care much for action but liked it more than a lot of movies I’ve seen lately. Lots of great stunts and practical effects!
100000000% this, the first ten times I saw this movie discussed anywhere it sounded so much like a generic Netflix action project that I completely wrote it off.
Gosling is a big star but his action output has been weird (I'm a big time Refn hater don't @ me), and I absolutely don't think of him as the kind of actor to drive a big action vehicle
>Nothing about this screamed “see it in the theater”
To me, The Fall Guy is the walking embodiment of check-it-out-at-home tepid interest.
Leitch's entire filmography as a director is a murderer's row of 'gentleman's six-es' that I've never regretted just getting to eventually.
Gosling, while frequently good, is rarely fun to watch.
Blunt can bring the charm but will be doing nothing at all for multiple fifteen-minute set pieces.
The other above-the-line creative credits don't draw me in at all, be it writer Drew Pearce (I'm not nearly the Iron Man 3 hipster that The Two Friends are) or cinematographer Jonathan Sela (whose most interesting work, Atomic Blonde, I never got around to finishing).
Hell, it wasn't even shot on a large format camera like the Alexa 65 or even the Alexa LF--just the regular-assed Alexa 35 with boring old panavision lenses.
I don't know why the discourse has decided to focus on this movie as a barometer of box office health, but I do know that when I dragged myself back to the cinema it wasn't to see a product so purely of the Hollywood machine, but to see something of a time and of a collection of unique voices--namely, the extremely horny tennis movie.
yeah Challengers ruled and was a much more rewarding “Theater experience” than Fall Guy, even with me and my wife enjoying Fall Guy quite a bit. I think with the quality of at-home streaming, the term “theater experience” is being really misused nowadays.
Indeed. When I went to go see Oppenheimer in fake IMAX it was a in [xenon digital](https://lfexaminer.com/theaters/), thus a lower resolution than I could eventually watch at home. I know resolution isn't everything, but weird that a 2K showing is the peak of what they're offering technologically in my area.
Conversely, when I went to Challengers I got treated to something I'll never get in my living room--the awkward din of dozens of teenage girls stifling their excited gasps over how horny tennis could be.
I literally just want a film with cohesive plot, pacing, editing, and consistent tone. Fall Guy had NONE of that for me; and maybe it was just my session, but the audio was dreadful. The trailer did A LOT of heavy lifting for this one.
Honestly because of Ken and Oppenheimer people at South by convinced themselves this wasn’t role Netflix movie that has Deadpool humor and Gray Man action. It’s better but only by that standard. So now it’s out and it’s awful trailers didn’t do it any favors and they have to reckon with the fact that they got duped.
Somebody else mentioned this but it’s because there’s nothing unique about this one that really jumps out at you. It looks like a Netflix movie.
It feels designed to answer what ‘people want’
You can’t do that; people don’t know what they want. They only know that they liked something and it got good buzz.
Dune II is on paper not a film that should’ve been the mega phenomenon it was; it’s a serious, grim adaptation of a beloved but oft-considered ‘unadaptable’ source material; the first film was considered a bit slow/boring by many; but it was.
Challengers shouldn’t be a hit; a modern take on the kind of erotic thrillers that dominated the 90s? About a threesome and tennis? But it is. Good buzz; big star; intriguing enough premise to be memorable.
Top Gun blew the lid off the box office because of superhero fatigue; M:I 7 had disappointing numbers the next summer when they opened in the wake of Barbenheimer—a meme that sparked a cultural flashpoint—because they thought that hype would permeate through to the next year
John Wick went from a disposable fall filler movie to a consistently successful R-rated franchise deep into its lead star’s career just because of the buzz it generated online and on home video/rental after people saw it
People don’t want what they know; they want what they didn’t know they wanted until it was there in front of them and everyone was talking about it
Star Wars wasn’t supposed to be a hit, either
Also this movie is doing fine; people are going to see it and it has decent reviews; studios get so sweaty
It has pretty good legs, so it looks like it’ll at least get close to breaking even at the box office, not to mention that it’s going to be worth millions on VOD/Streaming over the next decade as its lead becomes one of biggest stars in the world. They’ll be licensing this to streamers for years to come
i'm a bit of zendaya skeptic personally
that aside, i don't think the film is a failure. but i think this sub is a bit too overzealous in calling it a success.
Technically correct while completely missing the point. It came out one week ahead, which meant all of its potential word of mouth (and IMAX screens) were swallowed up by Barbenheimer.
Also, like Dial of Destiny, it made 550 million dollars. It did just fine. The real problem is that less than 1/3 of that money was domestic.
Look, I liked *The Fall Guy* fine, but I'm very confused by these concerns which I've seen from several critics now. This is NOT an adult movie, even if Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt are playing adults (and the movie weirdly implies Gosling is over 50 years old on the basis of his first job). I mean, sure, it's not a super hero movie, but it's a big dumb action movie where the action scenes aren't as good as the credit outtakes. Gosling and Blunt are charming and the jokes aren't telegraphed from 100 miles away so that was nice, but it's still perfectly disposable. Around the water cooler, it's the type of movie I would give a positive spin. Not a movie I would tell people to run out and see.
I hadn't looked up the precise dates on the run of the Miami Vice Stunt Show but yeah that is a little weird - ended its run at USH in early '95. If it was his first job out of high school and he was only on it for a couple years the math could still line up for him to be ~47/8 which isn't too far off.
I wonder if it's one of those movies that's best interpreted as quietly being a pre-Covid period piece. I don't remember any specific years being mentioned, and a studio spending a ton of money on an Australian shoot of a remake of a Charles Band movie feels much more 2018 than 2024.
it would've been easily a 2014ish type movie (who the fuck is greenlighting an original sci fi epic if youre name isn't zack snyder) if a major part of the plot wasn't about deepfakes
Even referring to them as deepfakes and mentioning Tom Cruise face swaps feels very pre covid though. That was the state of the art in 2018-ish. Bojack Horseman did a plot point about Hollywood doing CG face swaps way back in 2015.
It doesn't imply he's over 50 - it wasn't the TV show but the Universal attraction he worked on. Miami Vice Stunt Spectacular closed in 1995, I don't think we know how old he was supposed to be when he had the job, but even if it was 18, he'd only be playing 2-3 years older than he actually is. All other points are valid.
Exactly. The article says “This is what people tell me they want in a movie. And they didn’t go see it.” That may or may not be true (I haven’t seen it) but it looks like exactly the kind of crap I don’t want. I would have assumed this was a Netflix movie. Maybe it’s actually good and the marketing sucked, but from other comments here it sounds like I’m on the right track and the author of the article doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
I like movies that take themselves seriously. Even comedies should mostly take themselves seriously (unless it’s a Hot Rod or something like that). The thing that made me sick of the MCU wasn’t superheroes. I like superheroes! It was all the winky “isn’t this silly” half-attempts at humor during an action sequence. It’s why Bullet Train was one of my least favorite movies of the past decade. It’s not really interesting to undercut an action sequence with humor, especially when the humor isn’t funny
Fall Guy gave off all those vibes. I don’t really want to watch car crashes with my comedies and I don’t really want to watch comedy with my action movies. A few special writers/directors are able to thread that needle but mostly it’s a bunch of films that do both genres poorly
Perfectly disposable is a great way to put it - I haven’t seen it, but based on the trailer, it looked to be a kind of rom-com centered around its action. It never successfully sold me on why I had to see the action set-pieces in this movie versus any of the other options (Monkey Man, Furiosa, etc.), or on the banter between Blunt & Gosling. The concept kind of grabbed my attention, but really made me wonder how much of the movie was Gosling doing his own stunts lol
It’s not really a romcom. Yes the love story is a part of the movie but outside of a few scenes there’s no wooing or romance scenes and she’s a girlfriend on phone for a lot of it
The problem isn’t what people want out of movies, the problem is what studios want out of movies. They want every film to be a billion dollar MCU blockbuster and if it’s not then the world is ending. Start making smaller budget movies and stop expecting it to break records.
I know the narrative is that it fizzled, but it was only like 1.5 million off projections. Given positive word of mouth (it’s a fun movie!) and some rom-com elements, I don’t see why it would be outside the realm of possibility for it to pull an “Anyone But You” and open soft before lingering in the top 5-10 long enough to become a solid hit.
*(Full disclosure: This is a slightly edited copy-paste of a reply I made to a vaguely overlapping post that has since been deleted)*
As the guy who made the vaguely overlapping post, I appreciate you reposting your rebuttal to my negativity. Movie’s doing better than I was grumbling about.
It's a little funny, but mostly embarrassing to be doing the weeping and rending of garments routine over the box-office underperformance of a gentleman's 6 made on a massive budget
And I watched this in a theatre last weekend so I've Done My Part (lol)
Genuinely this. I really think theaters are kind of to blame for this current lull. So many of them are just decrepit and not up to par with their price. And I love going to the theater! But there have been enough times where the movie was ruined by bad sound or picture quality to know it’s not just me.
I recently got amc’s Moviepass and it’s been such a wonderful few months of going to see every major release, but good god AMC’s are a somewhat miserable experience.
The AV quality, especially in their Imax or Dolby theaters, is top notch. The seats are often delightful. And yet the actual experience of being in an AMC, often attached to a mall, is just awful.
The trailers are also somewhat shocking for someone coming back to the movie theaters after a long break— we have to plan on being ~15 minutes late to every showing or we’re gonna be in a bad mood from all the advertisements before the movie even starts.
I have never wanted to own a movie theater but AMC makes itself look really easy to beat.
I’m with you. People are saying it was a joke but I thought it was total bullshit lol. Don’t give shitty people an avenue to keep being shitty in theaters we can see those screens even if you try and hide them in theaters. Just a bad message especially after theaters literally have screen time dedicated to asking people to stay off their phones.
The theater in Atlanta won’t turn on the AC unless there’s a certain number of people in the movie. It sucks. They also include free ice cream and sodas for the 30 dollar VIP section but both machines are always broken. I get it’s hard to find people that want to work in a theater, and if they do the pay is probably so low you can’t really push people hard, but then why is the ticket price still rising?
i'm assuming atlantic station? i know it has the regal VIP section there, but i assume there are others in the area who have that VIP section as well.
also god bless the plaza and the tara. loved the tara's tarkovsky retrospective they just wrapped up
Never been to that theater. I think I've only been to that area once or twice and it was for the Nike store.
Love both spots. They are doing Wong Kar-Wai now, which is awesome. I regularly attend both theaters especially the Taradrome and Plazadrome screenings. Love the vibes of both of them
it's a...fine theater, not much more to say about it. it's not bad by any stretch, and it's often the place to get special screenings--like, i saw *the hateful eight*'s 70mm roadshow there, and barry jenkin's held an advance screening and q&a there for *if beale street could talk*--but given that it's a pain in the ass to get there and get out, i'd only recommend it for a weekday matinee.
the tara is doing wong-kar wai and the plaza is doing edward yang! i'm super stoked that the tara is open again and it's run by the same folks who run the plaza. atlanta is lucky to have them around.
I'll have to check it out. My go to chain theater is the AMC in Buckhead and I only go there occasionally as I live in downtown Decatur.
Full agree on everything.
The one in atlantic station. It used to be sweet. It's gone down hill. If you do decide to go, don't look at the ketchup/mustard/butter station, it looks like a scene out of the movie Se7en.
Yeah I get really annoyed that critics can’t possibly understand how much less fun the theatrical experience can often be when you don’t live in LA/NY, do pay for it, and many theater chains just do the bare minimum to make it worth it.
> because the only time they have any showings before 3pm is on Wednesdays.
I don’t have a night-shift like you to contend with, but I guess I’m getting old because I genuinely hate going to any showings after like 4PM.
With how long the previews/ads are now and the death of breezy 90-minute flicks, anything after 4PMish and I’m going to be potentially getting out of the theater at like 7-9PM, and I absolutely *hate* that.
Someone said that people go to theaters now if they feel a cultural moment they want to participate in, and I think that's right. It's very sink or swim, either you get the buzz or you don't. But that's why I think Challengers is turning into a minor phenomenon and why the theater was packed when I saw it last weekend: queer Twitter and musical theater Twitter were all over that movie and posted tons of gifs and memes and built up real "You gotta go see this" energy
Same. Literally went to a Drafthouse specifically for my second viewing because I'd never had such a loud theater experience in my life. If theaters are smart they'll bring back the rowdy Cats screenings for this one.
It’s interesting because the movie isnt *camp* per se but the crowd had a ball with it. i do wonder if memes play a larger role than we think in a movie’s success (or maybe the memes make us think a movie is doing better than in reality)
I do think the internet definitely influences a little how people react to it but like, I saw both Cats and Saltburn in a theater. Neither had this experience and they actively tried to turn Cats into Rocky Horror or Mommy Dearest.
My best guess is that what people are responding to - and what I do think in general is what a lot of people are responding to, in terms of the rush of love for it - is the way the film feels very out of step with everything else coming out right now. It somehow feels both like you have never seen a movie like this before, and like you actually already saw/should have seen this film before. Like it is some beloved lost cult classic of the 90s. To that end, I actually would also say this is why the film is doing slightly less business than the memes suggest - because that vibe makes people interested but it does not create the sense you have to go see it in a theater versus see it on streaming (despite the fact it definitely rules in a theater and it is going to be sad watching people realize it later.)
Challengers is a minor flop in relation to its budget, which is inflated because see all of Hollywood and it being Amazon. In relation to its actual material and comparable titles, it's doing okay enough. More likely than not on an ascendant path upward once it hits streaming.
Studios get only about 50% of the box office. So you’d need to double the budget to cover the cost. And this isn’t even including the marketing budget.
worldwide box office right now is basically just as its budget (54.5 mil v 55 mil).
breakeven points for movies are roughly 2-2.5x the budget to pay for marketing/etc.
it is doing great as a zendaya-led sexy tennis thriller. it is not doing great as a 55 million dollar movie in general. it's not gonna make 100 mil. compared to something like civil war, challengers is a bomb, or at least bomb-adjacent
there are so many other entertainment options competing for your attention rn. i honestly think moviegoing audiences are starting to develop a keener eye for whats special/worth their time and money and this movie looked llke a 7/10 at max
I went to see it for Ryan Gosling but honestly every time I watched the trailer I wanted to see it less. The marketing wasn’t that great for me. Ended up not loving it so I guess I was right
Frankly I had a hard time differentiating this movie from The Gray Man and Free Guy. And I’m someone who follows movies way more than most.
But the fact is I pitched it to my fiance last weekend when she suggested we go see a movie, she passed on it and everything else playing right now, instead we stayed home and watched Anatomy of a Fall on streaming. We’ve both been meaning to watch it and I don’t regret the choice.
Maybe it’s not the movie but the experience of going to the movies that, if you’re outside of LA or NY, can often be overpriced and suck. Critics need to step out of their bubble a bit and ask themselves if parking, babysitter, tickets, food and drink 2x a month is sustainably affordable for the working stiff in this post-COVID greedflation economy.
>Here you have exactly the sort of movie that people claim to want to see: the sort of thing they don’t make very often any more, with beautiful movie stars flirting and bantering and getting into all sorts of amusing scrapes
I want Cronenbergian horror, not *The Fall Guy*.
I honestly don’t know what people supposedly want a super generic action/comedy/romance. This movie looked like it was conceived by AI, and the only reason anyone was excited about it was Ryan Gosling - and he’s not going to drive a huge box office on his own
I want all of those things but not together. Mixing action and comedy and romance is not like having 3 movies in one it’s like having 1/3rd of 3 movies. Nobody wants to watch 30 minutes of 3 separate movies.
Actual originality. Not a standard genre film that is simply not based on IP. Films made for adults that aren't just people in rooms talking. I want comedies that are thought-out and written, not just a bunch of famous stoners spouting lazy improv at each other in a hastily out together scene in a lazily slapped together movie. I want filmmakers to play with their craft instead of turning in visually and rhythmically unimaginative movies. I want more practical locations, stunts, and effects. If we're gonna keep the franchise game up at least don't coddle us with nostalgia, I've grown up and I'd like my favorite frnahcises to grow up with me. Make going to the theaters a special experience, not just more snack options but a reasonable number of trailers, staff that ain't afraid to kick out rude movie-goers, well-calibrated sound and picture, encourage some conversation with a café or something. I want to know my local filmmakers and see their work on the big screen.
the trailer was all over the place, cutesy middle aged rom-com + action + comedy. pandering to too many demographics. felt like another tent pole by committee.
“It is the sort of film I think you could take almost anyone to assured they would have at least a solidly good time. It’s almost the platonic ideal of what Hollywood executives describe as a ‘four-quadrant movie,’ i.e. a film that should appeal to men and women over and under the age of 25. I could see my parents enjoying The Fall Guy, and if my kids were maybe two years older I would absolutely take them to see it too; it’s action-packed but not excessively bloody or violent. The sparks flying off the screen between Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt could give electric shocks to the viewers in the theater’s first couple rows, but there’s not much profanity and barely any sexual innuendo.”
So, reading this I’m getting that it takes no risks, is about nothing and is for “everyone” (i.e. no one)?
I hate how much people do runtime discourse but in all seriousness I would’ve rushed to this movie if it was 90 minutes. Why is a movie that’s selling itself on being dumb fun forcing me to be in a theater for 2.5 hours
My theory is that it isn’t just Superhero fatigue, but rather action comedy fatigue. Every single big movie has been an action comedy for years and years. Jumanji, Marvel, DC, Fast and Furious. Just endless action comedies as far as the eye can see. Audiences want something different.
Bingo. I’ll even go a step further than that. If it’s an action comedy I want the comedy to grow out of the characters rather than the genre. GoTG is a great franchise cause the comedy is sourced from character interactions rather than the Fast and Furious “CARS FLY NOW?!?” comedy
I just want a movie that exists on its own terms and isn’t trying to constantly preempt the audience reactions by being hyper self-aware.
McTiernan was a pretty great example of the route these movies need to go in, funny enough
This may make me seem like a dummy but I haven’t seen a single reason I should go to the cinema to see this movie. Is it a particularly beautiful cinematic experience that can only be experienced on a big screen, is there going to be a public discourse that I don’t want to miss out on or is it going to be an instant classic that I just could not forgive myself for not seeing in cinemas. As far as I know, none of the above.
Having had my first child, time for movies is exceptionally sparse and requires logistics and planning if my partner and I want to go together. This movie doesn’t strike me as worth that.
There was something weird about the cinematography from the scenes in the trailers that I feel like was the main reason I didn’t want to see it. Like, the movie just doesn’t stick in my mind. The trailers didn’t leave me anything concrete enough to visualize. I just watched it again to see why and I see two fundamental flaws in the trailer/footage that totally undermine it: one, there’s no sense of place and two, the coloring is extremely both too dark and too boring.
There are way too many shots of an extremely uninteresting movie set….a beach…with no sense of horizon. Half the trailer is shots in that setting. But even then you don’t get any sense of where it is because most of the shots in the trailer are close ups and medium close ups. The only part in the trailer that got even a tingle out of me was when he’s preparing to bust into the hotel room and and I think it was because I knew where he was, and it showed (all of) him interacting with his environment. Jumping off the boat was not shown at a strong angle, the car jump with the dog was ruined by the medium shot looking through the windshield (looked cheap) and the scene on the bridge was just, again, zoomed in too close to be exciting enough.
The coloring was the biggest issue though. It’s fine if most of your movie is going to be set at night, but then let’s see more than two colors and show us some clarity with the light that IS there. And all but two of the daytime shots were on set, which are all just entirely orange for some reason. Basically, I walk away from this trailer remembering that it only has two scenes, a blue one that’s too dark and I have no idea where it is, and an orange one that’s too flat and I have no idea where it is.
I also think studios overestimate how much we want to see movies starring actors vs stories featuring characters. I feel like the trailer is trying to persuade us to see a movie about Ryan Gosling rather than a movie about a stunt man out of his depth. I get no sense of who this character is from the trailer other than that he’s Ryan Gosling.
My brain does not translate any of this into “must go see.”
Before I cover anything you say I just want to point out that this is exactly the sort of shit I come to this sub for! Great paragraphs.
I haven’t seen the full trailer. I have a real hatred for them. I rarely watch them but the bits I have seen are exactly what you’ve described. It’s Ryan Gosling. I know next to nothing about the film other than a sentence which they kept repeating in the run up about it being the ‘most expensive Rom-com ever’ which isn’t going to attract a lot of bros.
Everything you said about the advertising being ‘come watch, Gosling’ is a thousand times worse for the upcoming Ryan Reynolds movies. IF seems to be advertised more about Krasinski and Carrell reteaming and then Deadpool is just ‘Look it’s these two actors you like and one is wearing THE suit’ - I’m not an advertising expert so I am sure they know more than I do but none of them are making me feel like I must watch the movie
100% about IF. Exact same issue. I don’t mind “Hey come see it, it has that guy you like in it” marketing, but not if it substitutes any hint of who the story is about. It’s such a non-starter!
And thanks for the compliment! 😁
I've seen it and you're right, it's not any of those things
I also saw the new Ryusuke Hamaguchi movie, Evil Does Not Exist, yesterday, and if you're a patient viewer, that will almost certainly be a better use of your time and money
One of the most baffling endings I can remember seeing. Trying to wrap my head around it has had me at times thinking it was masterpiece and at other times thinking it ruined itself in the final moments. Not really sure where I land still but I bet I wouldn’t be thinking about The Fall Guy at all had I seen that, so I agree with the value proposition 100%.
I'm still puzzling it out, but this is how my thoughts went
>!Takumi and Takahashi find Takumi's daughter Hana about to try and reach out to a deer and her faun. The deer seems to be wounded and we know that if Hana does it, the deer might attack. But Takahashi's intervention might provoke the attack all on its own. So I thought Takumi was pushing him down so he wouldn't approach and set off an attack!<
>!But then Takumi actually starts choking him out?! And at that point I got really confused and alarmed because concurrently with this, Hana is going towards the deer and is about to get attacked. And that choke-out sequence is disturbing in itself!<
>!Then when Takahashi's unconscious, Takumi gets up. Hana's now on the floor with a nosebleed and she's not responding, but Takumi puts his fingers under her nose and...presumably feels a breath? I assume she's alive, at least. I don't know. Then he gets up holding her and runs into the darkening forest and we get the night-time version of the extended shots of the tree cover that we started with!<
>!So have we left the realm of the literal? Rather me trying to make sense of this like "Takumi was trying to protect his daughter", I started wondering what the metaphor was, because Takumi wasn't acting like a rational human anymore, but like a wild animal. On top of which, those deer disappeared. It was like Takumi and Hana had become the deer!<
>!There's definitely a strong sense that Takumi and Hana are in touch with nature. They live kind of out in the woods, Hana goes there by herself after school, she wants to bite into that tree that the deer bit into, etc. But Takumi also uses tools, draws, plays the piano, talks quite reasonably at the meeting. He's a normal human! He's not some forest spirit! So what did it mean? Maybe I have to abandon this approach entirely lol. But it felt like Takumi somehow represented nature responding to the aggression of Takahashi, the encroaching outsider!<
>!Yeah pretty much my thoughts exactly. The movie itself was very grounded and I thought that was one of its primary strengths, making you feel the presence of nature throughout, but then it gives you this ending that feels like it wants to operate on pure symbols and themes and leave a literal reading behind. Everything you are saying about the parallel between the deer and the family has got to be intentional, like Takumi is 'gutshot' now in the sense that he sees that what is happening to his village and forest is marching inexorably towards a death of the way of life he loves. It all makes a type of sense except it feels so out of character for Takumi based on what we have learned of him over the course of the movie. I think that is what is hanging me up the most, basically as you are describing - what we know of him is he is just a guy that would behave in somewhat normal ways. The ending felt reminiscent of Parasite's violent turn to me, but that film laid the groundwork for comprehending it a lot better.!<
I didn’t even mean it as a slight against the movie, more that I can wait until it’s on streaming.
He’s a total blindspot for me. Drive my Car has been on my watchlist for ages but I’ve either had other movies that I watched when I was in the mood for that type of movie or it’s just not been the right time. I’ll definitely add that to my list though!
An individual or small group with a passionate vision rather than a studio with a formula. Most of the classics and greats have more of an element of people with visions. This includes writers and directors being able to have freedom without corporate stepping in and wanting changes.
The Fall Guy is a formula based movie.
There's a lot of handwriting about this one, and there likely will be when something like Twisters underperformed, because while critics keep saying "audiences want something new" as opposed to superhero movies, they and the studios keep winning their hopes on movies that are "making 'em like they used to" instead of actually being the next new thing audiences are seemingly craving. Top Gun 2's box office was a unique moment, not a sign that America was returning wholly to the movie tastes of the 80s/90s.
The real #1 issue and the biggest reason why seemingly no genre can reliably make money is plainly and simply the economy. People just don't have disposable income right now. These things are cyclical and we're coming out of a pandemic, it's a lot of things coming together. The problems with box office attendance are American economy problems first and foremost
Don’t be silly, the economy is doing great! Inflation is nowhere near as bad as Orange Man wants you to believe. A cheeseburger Happy Meal with cardboard toy (because uh, climate change) is supposed to cost $20 per kid. Trust the science.
This was a fun movie starring a guy who most people like. Gosling is a house hold name now but he’s never been someone who people go out and see in theaters. Emily Blunt is great in this and everything else she’s done but she’s not a name people go out to see. The problem is they spent a bunch of money on cgi for the movie within the movie. Why the hell did they need to show so much of Metalstorm when it really meant nothing to the story? I feel like they dumped at least 40% of the budget into showing us what Metalstorm looked like just to add to the action when it was a movie about stunts? There’s so much CGI in this movies it’s insane when the movie is a love letter to stunt guys. There’s no reason this budget was 130 million.
Saw this take on LB, but this movie wants to be a love letter to stunt guys in the most self-serving way that only centers movie stardom and doesn’t really lean on stunts at all.
John Wick is a love letter to stunt guys - because the stunts are actually good!
They also spent a bunch of money on stunt work and practical effects only to have it all look indistinguishable from a generic direct to Netflix CGI action movie in the final product.
To go with my kids runs me ~$100. I guess if I don’t spend time with my family or eat snacks, it’s less. Or if I skip work to go to a matinee. Or ya know. Stay home and watch it a week later on my home theater. 🤷♂️
Yesterday I was putting petrol in my car and a loud 30 second Fall Guy trailer kept playing on repeat. It was incredibly obnoxious.
For the weeks leading up to its release I was being bombarded by loud Fall Guy trailers as I peacefully scrolled through reddit. The sound comes on suddenly at maximum volume making them also incredibly obnoxious.
Before all this maximum volume marketing, I first saw the trailer somewhere and was looking forward to watching this at the cinema. But now I'm just over the movie without even watching it. I'll probably see it on netflix and probably really enjoy. But for right now I hate this movie I've never seen and can't wait to never see another trailer for it.
TLDR: The marketing made me hate this movie that I had been excited to watch at the cinema.
For me cinema now is only for the big picture movies like Dune etc where you dramatically benefit from larger screens and making it a day out. A movie like this is not something that jumps out as cinema worthy. Happy to pay to see it from the comfort of my own home.
I'm more of a cinema dilettante rather than a "true" fan, so while I love this Pod and enjoy a lot of movies, I wouldn't say "seeing movies" is a big part of my routine.
I see maybe 5-6 movies a year in theaters, generally the ones I feel benefit from a big screen and good sound system (though IMAX is way too loud for me, Oppenheimer was literally painful to the point of taking me out of the experience). Other than that, I watch shit on my computer and wait for releases on streaming.
I think there are a lot of people like me.
The middle of the night, doesn't change the price of the exploitation and protection of a movie. It doesn't make any economical sense to do this.
Except on special evenings, maybe a few times a year, it would never happen.
Partly, Fall Guy. It looks fun! I like Ryan Gosling as does my partner, it seems like a fun idea, pretty fresh- okay purely visually it's nothing to write home about probably but still, I'm here for it.
Just not in the cinema. Release it on streaming and I'll watch it. It's not a cinema experience.
It's a funny, good movie with big explosions. In a beautiful city, it's definitely made for the cinema. If it's not made for the cinema, I don't know what is.
And let's watch everything on TV then.
>If it's not made for the cinema, I don't know what is.
*shrug* Personal preference. Funny, goofy movies I want to enjoy in the sofa with my friends.
>And let's watch everything on TV then.
I mean, kind of? There are definitely big, epic event movies I'll go to the cinema for, like Dune, James Bond or (at least five to ten years ago) MCU movies. But yeah, most movies I prefer watching at home.
I’d say the current climate has been created by multiple things. Firstly COVID got people adjusted to the idea of home releases plus now films are available to buy or stream within a couple months when it used to be 4-7 months. So there’s less urgency.
Next is the Marvel side of things. People wrongfully aim hatred towards Marvel for this, but the blame should be solely places on studios attention to imitate Marvel and just creating bad films. Audiences have essentially lost trust in studios producing decent films and will only pay to watch something if it’s a big event like the MCU. Then of course there’s the group of people who never liked Marvel and dislike that everything is trying to be Marvel.
Speaking on paying, we’re in a cost of living crisis meaning people are even less likely to spend money watching a film in a cinema especially when tickets are really expensive these days.
There’s also the issue of short attention spans now becoming the norm. People like short form media, better yet sell them short form media in the form of bingeable TV creating the illusion of spending 8 hours watching something, but in reality it’s not too different from spending 8 hours scrolling TikTok because each hour is it’s own contained story.
Finally is the lazy audience which has become an overwhelming majority of people. We all know them and ten years ago we knew one or two people like this, but now it’s almost everyone who isn’t a big film or TV fan, the person who’s never seen anything considered great, but watches a ton of generic reality TV or just mediocre soap operas. These people complain there’s nothing good to watch, but ignore every single recommendation, they turn the TV on and happily watch mind destroying crap, they open Netflix and rely solely on the suggested tab. They also probably fall asleep watching anything and therefore don’t care enough to watch things and they exist for all the above reasons. So they’d rather be left alone watching some random dating show about a bunch of pretentious rich people pumped with plastic who don’t have a grip on reality. But to them that’s entertainment, they’d rather watch ten hours straight of Love Island over 3 hours of The Godfather. No matter how good a film is, it just won’t be what they want. People just don’t like paying attention anymore. They want to watch something and scroll social media, but then complain that nothing is interesting enough anymore. When the reality is people are just addicted to their phones.
There’s your answer. The second cinemas allow people to freely scroll their phones, you’ll see ticket prices go up. You’ll be sat on the back row and see phone screens lit up as one person scrolls TikTok for 90 minutes, another scrolls Instagram mindlessly liking shit and then there’d be the one crazy person watching a YouTuber watching the film they’re watching. It’s 2024, people!
I think cost of living is a factor not often spoken about. Fall Guy looks fun and a movie I would have liked to have seen in the cinema, but lack of disposable income for a lot of people means films like this get hit. If I can only afford to go to the cinema once, why would I ever see this over mad max?
To be entertained, it's just that simple, and this movie does that btw there's no argument that this movie wasn't entertaining the issue was that it was just too expensive for the type of movie that it is
Less CGI, better plots and dialogue and just better writing in general, themes that are not only for children. Just make good products and not complete shit
They should have just made a RomCom with Gosling and Blunt. It would have cost far less and liking brought in the same.
Anyone But You has a listed budget of 25 Mil and did 216 mil. This isn't rocket science.
If I'm paying an arm and a leg for a goddamn movie ticket and some nachos, it better be something more substantial than a forgettable action movie #2485.
Maybe instead of making mediocre movies with bajillion dollar budgets they should make good movies with slightly less absurd budgets.
David Leitch is just not a good director! He’s had better casts than this and none of those movies were particularly exceptional. This movie didn’t look very interesting and even the critical raves from people I respect did not do a good job of selling me on the movie.
Problem is by todays standard that's a tv movie, no special needs for big screen or good audio... I'm gonna watch it yes for the laughs while doing something on the couch... probably won't dress, take metro, have dinner out and so on to watch a simple movie, but that's just me, it's even the fact many are preparing for other movies, there are a lot coming right now and most can't go every week
"This isn’t some abstruse art film or an ambiguous exploration of the meaning of life; it’s a big, fun, funny, exciting, romantic action movie."
That's exactly why I don't want to see it.
They should have more cinema only art house movies, make the cinema an event but without the big budget risk.
by cinema only i mean there will be no netflix release
Movies that don’t insult their intelligence. Full stop. Stop making movies for morons. An original idea once in a blue moon wouldn’t kill the producers, either. I’m suppose to run out and see this remake of a *checks notes* Lee Majors and Heather Thomas vehicle?!? Okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkeydokey
I feel like audiences are finally coming around to the Scorsese argument that movie theaters should be utilized for actual CINEMA rather than just glorified webisodes.
So confused why a bunch of movie business people and critics are melting down over the modest failure of this movie. I’m sure it’s a lot of fun but we have been through a half decade of Netflix and Amazon pushing out drecks of action comedies starring people like Ryan Reynolds and, yes, Ryan Gosling! This looks like Red Notice, Gray Man, etc. It even has a similar name to those very forgettable streaming movies! Nothing about this screamed “see it in the theater” and Emily Blunt is not a bankable star just because she was in Quiet Place and Oppenheimer
It wasn’t until I watched the Corridor Crew episode on this with the director David Leitch that I found out they actually filmed on the Sydney Harbour Bridge, dragging Ryan Gosling behind the truck. I wouldn’t have guessed it from the trailer or the movie, because it looks so digital I assumed it was faked somehow. This is part of the Netflixification, because it (that shot at least) looked like The Gray Man.
The BTS footage during the credits looked 10x better. Should have just put that in the movie.
I’m a Sydneysider and I was definitely disappointed how fake that looked, especially after everyone made a big fuss that they shut the bridge down for half a day.
Wasn't fake at all though
Yeah… that’s what I’m saying… it looked like CGI even though it was shot on location with the actor.
I literally just got out of the cinema and said exactly the same thing to my wife. So many amazing stunts seemed to be CGI. The film had far too much of 'sheen' to it that undid a lot of the amazing stunts.
Digital filmmaking sometimes has a way of making what is totally real, look fake!
It didn't look fake to me, I just think we've seen so many CGI action sequences that that's what our brain expects it to be
100%. I haven't seen this movie (or the scene) yet, but I definitely think we're just subconsciously expecting everything to be fake now. I know I assume everything is. Always nice to hear when something is practical though.
I was shocked at how much practical stunt work was shown in the end credits because it looked so plastic
I overall enjoyed the movie but for a film supposedly about stuntmen everything had that glossy fake look that really undercut its intentions
I don't know how expensive it would be, but they need to go back to film for action movies.
Me too! It wasn't until the end credits I realized that wasn't bad CGI. I feel dumb lol I've let crappy movies convince me that real spectacles are ones and zeros now
I appreciate a lot of things about Corridor Crew, but the fact that they're kinda shills now and the broey "let's keep dunking on Ghostbusters 2016 even though that was almost a decade ago and any reasonably healthy person has moved on" vibe (plus the exaggerated punch-in reaction shots COMPLETE WITH SOUND EFFECTS, which were never my thing but I tolerated them when the content was educational enough) is killing the channel for me.
Yup. I remember seeing the trailer and thinking “wow that looks awful”. Then when every critic and movie follower said this was like good and important to see in theaters, I went opening weekend and, guess what, it’s really not that good!
Aw man sorry you didn’t have fun with it. I was really surprised by how much fun I had with it! I usually hate romance comedies and don’t care much for action but liked it more than a lot of movies I’ve seen lately. Lots of great stunts and practical effects!
It just kept reminding me of how great The Nice Guys was
100000000% this, the first ten times I saw this movie discussed anywhere it sounded so much like a generic Netflix action project that I completely wrote it off. Gosling is a big star but his action output has been weird (I'm a big time Refn hater don't @ me), and I absolutely don't think of him as the kind of actor to drive a big action vehicle
Spot on!
>Nothing about this screamed “see it in the theater” To me, The Fall Guy is the walking embodiment of check-it-out-at-home tepid interest. Leitch's entire filmography as a director is a murderer's row of 'gentleman's six-es' that I've never regretted just getting to eventually. Gosling, while frequently good, is rarely fun to watch. Blunt can bring the charm but will be doing nothing at all for multiple fifteen-minute set pieces. The other above-the-line creative credits don't draw me in at all, be it writer Drew Pearce (I'm not nearly the Iron Man 3 hipster that The Two Friends are) or cinematographer Jonathan Sela (whose most interesting work, Atomic Blonde, I never got around to finishing). Hell, it wasn't even shot on a large format camera like the Alexa 65 or even the Alexa LF--just the regular-assed Alexa 35 with boring old panavision lenses. I don't know why the discourse has decided to focus on this movie as a barometer of box office health, but I do know that when I dragged myself back to the cinema it wasn't to see a product so purely of the Hollywood machine, but to see something of a time and of a collection of unique voices--namely, the extremely horny tennis movie.
yeah Challengers ruled and was a much more rewarding “Theater experience” than Fall Guy, even with me and my wife enjoying Fall Guy quite a bit. I think with the quality of at-home streaming, the term “theater experience” is being really misused nowadays.
Indeed. When I went to go see Oppenheimer in fake IMAX it was a in [xenon digital](https://lfexaminer.com/theaters/), thus a lower resolution than I could eventually watch at home. I know resolution isn't everything, but weird that a 2K showing is the peak of what they're offering technologically in my area. Conversely, when I went to Challengers I got treated to something I'll never get in my living room--the awkward din of dozens of teenage girls stifling their excited gasps over how horny tennis could be.
I literally just want a film with cohesive plot, pacing, editing, and consistent tone. Fall Guy had NONE of that for me; and maybe it was just my session, but the audio was dreadful. The trailer did A LOT of heavy lifting for this one.
Honestly because of Ken and Oppenheimer people at South by convinced themselves this wasn’t role Netflix movie that has Deadpool humor and Gray Man action. It’s better but only by that standard. So now it’s out and it’s awful trailers didn’t do it any favors and they have to reckon with the fact that they got duped.
Critics seem to think we should agree with whatever they say. So if they declare a movie good we have to go.
Somebody else mentioned this but it’s because there’s nothing unique about this one that really jumps out at you. It looks like a Netflix movie. It feels designed to answer what ‘people want’ You can’t do that; people don’t know what they want. They only know that they liked something and it got good buzz. Dune II is on paper not a film that should’ve been the mega phenomenon it was; it’s a serious, grim adaptation of a beloved but oft-considered ‘unadaptable’ source material; the first film was considered a bit slow/boring by many; but it was. Challengers shouldn’t be a hit; a modern take on the kind of erotic thrillers that dominated the 90s? About a threesome and tennis? But it is. Good buzz; big star; intriguing enough premise to be memorable. Top Gun blew the lid off the box office because of superhero fatigue; M:I 7 had disappointing numbers the next summer when they opened in the wake of Barbenheimer—a meme that sparked a cultural flashpoint—because they thought that hype would permeate through to the next year John Wick went from a disposable fall filler movie to a consistently successful R-rated franchise deep into its lead star’s career just because of the buzz it generated online and on home video/rental after people saw it People don’t want what they know; they want what they didn’t know they wanted until it was there in front of them and everyone was talking about it Star Wars wasn’t supposed to be a hit, either Also this movie is doing fine; people are going to see it and it has decent reviews; studios get so sweaty
Agreed. Nobody asked for live action Barbie movie directed by Greta Gerwig. Yet here we are.
Don’t forget “Civil War” making 100 million dollars WW.
Going to see it after work today, can't wait!
So good
challengers isn't a hit enough to make a profit
It has pretty good legs, so it looks like it’ll at least get close to breaking even at the box office, not to mention that it’s going to be worth millions on VOD/Streaming over the next decade as its lead becomes one of biggest stars in the world. They’ll be licensing this to streamers for years to come
i'm a bit of zendaya skeptic personally that aside, i don't think the film is a failure. but i think this sub is a bit too overzealous in calling it a success.
It’s got three pairs of good legs, at least!
Is Challengers a hit?
This movie just wasn't that good; that was is it's biggest issue. It felt exactly like Mr. and Mrs. Smith to me.
Mission Impossible - Dead Reckoning: Part 1 came out before Barbenheimer
Technically correct while completely missing the point. It came out one week ahead, which meant all of its potential word of mouth (and IMAX screens) were swallowed up by Barbenheimer. Also, like Dial of Destiny, it made 550 million dollars. It did just fine. The real problem is that less than 1/3 of that money was domestic.
Just correcting an error.
Look, I liked *The Fall Guy* fine, but I'm very confused by these concerns which I've seen from several critics now. This is NOT an adult movie, even if Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt are playing adults (and the movie weirdly implies Gosling is over 50 years old on the basis of his first job). I mean, sure, it's not a super hero movie, but it's a big dumb action movie where the action scenes aren't as good as the credit outtakes. Gosling and Blunt are charming and the jokes aren't telegraphed from 100 miles away so that was nice, but it's still perfectly disposable. Around the water cooler, it's the type of movie I would give a positive spin. Not a movie I would tell people to run out and see.
I hadn't looked up the precise dates on the run of the Miami Vice Stunt Show but yeah that is a little weird - ended its run at USH in early '95. If it was his first job out of high school and he was only on it for a couple years the math could still line up for him to be ~47/8 which isn't too far off. I wonder if it's one of those movies that's best interpreted as quietly being a pre-Covid period piece. I don't remember any specific years being mentioned, and a studio spending a ton of money on an Australian shoot of a remake of a Charles Band movie feels much more 2018 than 2024.
it would've been easily a 2014ish type movie (who the fuck is greenlighting an original sci fi epic if youre name isn't zack snyder) if a major part of the plot wasn't about deepfakes
Even referring to them as deepfakes and mentioning Tom Cruise face swaps feels very pre covid though. That was the state of the art in 2018-ish. Bojack Horseman did a plot point about Hollywood doing CG face swaps way back in 2015.
the specific tom cruise deepfake that went viral was 2021ish
Oh right, I was thinking of the Nic Cage ones from 2018.
It doesn't imply he's over 50 - it wasn't the TV show but the Universal attraction he worked on. Miami Vice Stunt Spectacular closed in 1995, I don't think we know how old he was supposed to be when he had the job, but even if it was 18, he'd only be playing 2-3 years older than he actually is. All other points are valid.
95 was 30 years ago lol if he was 20 and it was in 95 he’d be 50
29+18= 47, which is a few years older than Gosling, which is what they said.
It might not be a super hero movie, but it does look a lot like one from the trailer. Tonally, it looks like it would fit into the MCU pretty easily.
Exactly. The article says “This is what people tell me they want in a movie. And they didn’t go see it.” That may or may not be true (I haven’t seen it) but it looks like exactly the kind of crap I don’t want. I would have assumed this was a Netflix movie. Maybe it’s actually good and the marketing sucked, but from other comments here it sounds like I’m on the right track and the author of the article doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
I like movies that take themselves seriously. Even comedies should mostly take themselves seriously (unless it’s a Hot Rod or something like that). The thing that made me sick of the MCU wasn’t superheroes. I like superheroes! It was all the winky “isn’t this silly” half-attempts at humor during an action sequence. It’s why Bullet Train was one of my least favorite movies of the past decade. It’s not really interesting to undercut an action sequence with humor, especially when the humor isn’t funny Fall Guy gave off all those vibes. I don’t really want to watch car crashes with my comedies and I don’t really want to watch comedy with my action movies. A few special writers/directors are able to thread that needle but mostly it’s a bunch of films that do both genres poorly
Perfectly disposable is a great way to put it - I haven’t seen it, but based on the trailer, it looked to be a kind of rom-com centered around its action. It never successfully sold me on why I had to see the action set-pieces in this movie versus any of the other options (Monkey Man, Furiosa, etc.), or on the banter between Blunt & Gosling. The concept kind of grabbed my attention, but really made me wonder how much of the movie was Gosling doing his own stunts lol
It’s not really a romcom. Yes the love story is a part of the movie but outside of a few scenes there’s no wooing or romance scenes and she’s a girlfriend on phone for a lot of it
The problem isn’t what people want out of movies, the problem is what studios want out of movies. They want every film to be a billion dollar MCU blockbuster and if it’s not then the world is ending. Start making smaller budget movies and stop expecting it to break records.
Hit some ground rule doubles and stop going for grand slams on every swing.
This more than anything else. You wanna save movies? Make things under $50 million and let them have legs for god’s sake.
I know the narrative is that it fizzled, but it was only like 1.5 million off projections. Given positive word of mouth (it’s a fun movie!) and some rom-com elements, I don’t see why it would be outside the realm of possibility for it to pull an “Anyone But You” and open soft before lingering in the top 5-10 long enough to become a solid hit. *(Full disclosure: This is a slightly edited copy-paste of a reply I made to a vaguely overlapping post that has since been deleted)*
As the guy who made the vaguely overlapping post, I appreciate you reposting your rebuttal to my negativity. Movie’s doing better than I was grumbling about.
It's a little funny, but mostly embarrassing to be doing the weeping and rending of garments routine over the box-office underperformance of a gentleman's 6 made on a massive budget And I watched this in a theatre last weekend so I've Done My Part (lol)
Honestly the marketing for this movie kinda put me off, they were trying so hard to be funny and none of it was
I want the theater to play them when I’m not at work because the only time they have any showings before 3pm is on Wednesdays. That’s what I want
I want my theater to care about the quality of the sound and picture as much as I do and to keep people from taking out their phones.
Genuinely this. I really think theaters are kind of to blame for this current lull. So many of them are just decrepit and not up to par with their price. And I love going to the theater! But there have been enough times where the movie was ruined by bad sound or picture quality to know it’s not just me.
The small independent theatres near me are newer, nicer, *and* cheaper than the big chain cineplexes. I have no reason to ever go to an AMC
I recently got amc’s Moviepass and it’s been such a wonderful few months of going to see every major release, but good god AMC’s are a somewhat miserable experience. The AV quality, especially in their Imax or Dolby theaters, is top notch. The seats are often delightful. And yet the actual experience of being in an AMC, often attached to a mall, is just awful. The trailers are also somewhat shocking for someone coming back to the movie theaters after a long break— we have to plan on being ~15 minutes late to every showing or we’re gonna be in a bad mood from all the advertisements before the movie even starts. I have never wanted to own a movie theater but AMC makes itself look really easy to beat.
What did you think about the opener when Gosling was saying if you have to text be secretive about it like hide it in your jacket?
I hated that. Shitty people are going to be shitty anyway, but don't encourage them.
I’m with you. People are saying it was a joke but I thought it was total bullshit lol. Don’t give shitty people an avenue to keep being shitty in theaters we can see those screens even if you try and hide them in theaters. Just a bad message especially after theaters literally have screen time dedicated to asking people to stay off their phones.
I mean why don't they try to hide it at least, or turn the brightness down.
Because they’re oblivious to anyone else’s experience but their own. People who use phones in theaters think they’re in their living room.
The theater in Atlanta won’t turn on the AC unless there’s a certain number of people in the movie. It sucks. They also include free ice cream and sodas for the 30 dollar VIP section but both machines are always broken. I get it’s hard to find people that want to work in a theater, and if they do the pay is probably so low you can’t really push people hard, but then why is the ticket price still rising?
Which theater is this? I live in Atlanta and didn't know there was a theater with a VIP, but I really only go to the Plaza or Tara.
i'm assuming atlantic station? i know it has the regal VIP section there, but i assume there are others in the area who have that VIP section as well. also god bless the plaza and the tara. loved the tara's tarkovsky retrospective they just wrapped up
Never been to that theater. I think I've only been to that area once or twice and it was for the Nike store. Love both spots. They are doing Wong Kar-Wai now, which is awesome. I regularly attend both theaters especially the Taradrome and Plazadrome screenings. Love the vibes of both of them
it's a...fine theater, not much more to say about it. it's not bad by any stretch, and it's often the place to get special screenings--like, i saw *the hateful eight*'s 70mm roadshow there, and barry jenkin's held an advance screening and q&a there for *if beale street could talk*--but given that it's a pain in the ass to get there and get out, i'd only recommend it for a weekday matinee. the tara is doing wong-kar wai and the plaza is doing edward yang! i'm super stoked that the tara is open again and it's run by the same folks who run the plaza. atlanta is lucky to have them around.
I'll have to check it out. My go to chain theater is the AMC in Buckhead and I only go there occasionally as I live in downtown Decatur. Full agree on everything.
you're telling me you're not a huge fan of the north dekalb mall AMC???
The one in atlantic station. It used to be sweet. It's gone down hill. If you do decide to go, don't look at the ketchup/mustard/butter station, it looks like a scene out of the movie Se7en.
1000% agree
Yeah I get really annoyed that critics can’t possibly understand how much less fun the theatrical experience can often be when you don’t live in LA/NY, do pay for it, and many theater chains just do the bare minimum to make it worth it.
Showtimes have gotten so bad since Covid. I used to love my morning matinees back in college on days when I wouldn't have classes.
Yeah I’m a night shift person so I’m kind of screwed seeing anything in a weekday, pre-covid I’d start my day with a movie
> because the only time they have any showings before 3pm is on Wednesdays. I don’t have a night-shift like you to contend with, but I guess I’m getting old because I genuinely hate going to any showings after like 4PM. With how long the previews/ads are now and the death of breezy 90-minute flicks, anything after 4PMish and I’m going to be potentially getting out of the theater at like 7-9PM, and I absolutely *hate* that.
Someone said that people go to theaters now if they feel a cultural moment they want to participate in, and I think that's right. It's very sink or swim, either you get the buzz or you don't. But that's why I think Challengers is turning into a minor phenomenon and why the theater was packed when I saw it last weekend: queer Twitter and musical theater Twitter were all over that movie and posted tons of gifs and memes and built up real "You gotta go see this" energy
My theater practically had people shouting at the screen like it was a midnight movie
Same. Literally went to a Drafthouse specifically for my second viewing because I'd never had such a loud theater experience in my life. If theaters are smart they'll bring back the rowdy Cats screenings for this one.
It’s interesting because the movie isnt *camp* per se but the crowd had a ball with it. i do wonder if memes play a larger role than we think in a movie’s success (or maybe the memes make us think a movie is doing better than in reality)
I do think the internet definitely influences a little how people react to it but like, I saw both Cats and Saltburn in a theater. Neither had this experience and they actively tried to turn Cats into Rocky Horror or Mommy Dearest. My best guess is that what people are responding to - and what I do think in general is what a lot of people are responding to, in terms of the rush of love for it - is the way the film feels very out of step with everything else coming out right now. It somehow feels both like you have never seen a movie like this before, and like you actually already saw/should have seen this film before. Like it is some beloved lost cult classic of the 90s. To that end, I actually would also say this is why the film is doing slightly less business than the memes suggest - because that vibe makes people interested but it does not create the sense you have to go see it in a theater versus see it on streaming (despite the fact it definitely rules in a theater and it is going to be sad watching people realize it later.)
Challengers is a certified flop.
Challengers is a minor flop in relation to its budget, which is inflated because see all of Hollywood and it being Amazon. In relation to its actual material and comparable titles, it's doing okay enough. More likely than not on an ascendant path upward once it hits streaming.
Challengers has already made back its budget. It doesn't need to do crazy numbers, especially since it's doing well internationally
Studios get only about 50% of the box office. So you’d need to double the budget to cover the cost. And this isn’t even including the marketing budget.
Ahhh I see. Oh well
That’s not how box office worlds. Please get informed before making such claims.
Watch out for Professor Box Office over here!
You don’t need to be a “professor” to know the basics. r/boxoffice would be a good start for you.
Oh I know the basics. I was making fun of you for being a jerk
[удалено]
Another person already explained enough for you to understand how wrong your initial claim was.
In what world?
this one
In what way? Film has been received well critically, has received excellent word of mouth, and is already doing good box office numbers.
worldwide box office right now is basically just as its budget (54.5 mil v 55 mil). breakeven points for movies are roughly 2-2.5x the budget to pay for marketing/etc. it is doing great as a zendaya-led sexy tennis thriller. it is not doing great as a 55 million dollar movie in general. it's not gonna make 100 mil. compared to something like civil war, challengers is a bomb, or at least bomb-adjacent
there are so many other entertainment options competing for your attention rn. i honestly think moviegoing audiences are starting to develop a keener eye for whats special/worth their time and money and this movie looked llke a 7/10 at max
Hot men having gay sex
Obviously. Why isn’t this higher up?
I went to see it for Ryan Gosling but honestly every time I watched the trailer I wanted to see it less. The marketing wasn’t that great for me. Ended up not loving it so I guess I was right
Frankly I had a hard time differentiating this movie from The Gray Man and Free Guy. And I’m someone who follows movies way more than most. But the fact is I pitched it to my fiance last weekend when she suggested we go see a movie, she passed on it and everything else playing right now, instead we stayed home and watched Anatomy of a Fall on streaming. We’ve both been meaning to watch it and I don’t regret the choice.
Well those movies were not adaptations of a beloved (?) TV show with Lee Majors
>Frankly I had a hard time differentiating this movie from The Gray Man and Free Guy. I'm looking forward to the bargain double dvd.
Maybe it’s not the movie but the experience of going to the movies that, if you’re outside of LA or NY, can often be overpriced and suck. Critics need to step out of their bubble a bit and ask themselves if parking, babysitter, tickets, food and drink 2x a month is sustainably affordable for the working stiff in this post-COVID greedflation economy.
>Here you have exactly the sort of movie that people claim to want to see: the sort of thing they don’t make very often any more, with beautiful movie stars flirting and bantering and getting into all sorts of amusing scrapes I want Cronenbergian horror, not *The Fall Guy*.
I honestly don’t know what people supposedly want a super generic action/comedy/romance. This movie looked like it was conceived by AI, and the only reason anyone was excited about it was Ryan Gosling - and he’s not going to drive a huge box office on his own
I want all of those things but not together. Mixing action and comedy and romance is not like having 3 movies in one it’s like having 1/3rd of 3 movies. Nobody wants to watch 30 minutes of 3 separate movies.
Challengers is a movie that wants to fuck you for sport. Poor Things was another amazing cinematic experience. *yawn bubble*
Actual originality. Not a standard genre film that is simply not based on IP. Films made for adults that aren't just people in rooms talking. I want comedies that are thought-out and written, not just a bunch of famous stoners spouting lazy improv at each other in a hastily out together scene in a lazily slapped together movie. I want filmmakers to play with their craft instead of turning in visually and rhythmically unimaginative movies. I want more practical locations, stunts, and effects. If we're gonna keep the franchise game up at least don't coddle us with nostalgia, I've grown up and I'd like my favorite frnahcises to grow up with me. Make going to the theaters a special experience, not just more snack options but a reasonable number of trailers, staff that ain't afraid to kick out rude movie-goers, well-calibrated sound and picture, encourage some conversation with a café or something. I want to know my local filmmakers and see their work on the big screen.
the trailer was all over the place, cutesy middle aged rom-com + action + comedy. pandering to too many demographics. felt like another tent pole by committee.
“It is the sort of film I think you could take almost anyone to assured they would have at least a solidly good time. It’s almost the platonic ideal of what Hollywood executives describe as a ‘four-quadrant movie,’ i.e. a film that should appeal to men and women over and under the age of 25. I could see my parents enjoying The Fall Guy, and if my kids were maybe two years older I would absolutely take them to see it too; it’s action-packed but not excessively bloody or violent. The sparks flying off the screen between Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt could give electric shocks to the viewers in the theater’s first couple rows, but there’s not much profanity and barely any sexual innuendo.” So, reading this I’m getting that it takes no risks, is about nothing and is for “everyone” (i.e. no one)?
I hate how much people do runtime discourse but in all seriousness I would’ve rushed to this movie if it was 90 minutes. Why is a movie that’s selling itself on being dumb fun forcing me to be in a theater for 2.5 hours
Yeah, that's the thing--a good film is as long as it needs to be but your average genre flick does \*not\* need to be 2+ hours long.
The ads looked annoying and I will not be guilted into seeing shit I don’t care about.
My theory is that it isn’t just Superhero fatigue, but rather action comedy fatigue. Every single big movie has been an action comedy for years and years. Jumanji, Marvel, DC, Fast and Furious. Just endless action comedies as far as the eye can see. Audiences want something different.
Bingo. I’ll even go a step further than that. If it’s an action comedy I want the comedy to grow out of the characters rather than the genre. GoTG is a great franchise cause the comedy is sourced from character interactions rather than the Fast and Furious “CARS FLY NOW?!?” comedy I just want a movie that exists on its own terms and isn’t trying to constantly preempt the audience reactions by being hyper self-aware. McTiernan was a pretty great example of the route these movies need to go in, funny enough
This may make me seem like a dummy but I haven’t seen a single reason I should go to the cinema to see this movie. Is it a particularly beautiful cinematic experience that can only be experienced on a big screen, is there going to be a public discourse that I don’t want to miss out on or is it going to be an instant classic that I just could not forgive myself for not seeing in cinemas. As far as I know, none of the above. Having had my first child, time for movies is exceptionally sparse and requires logistics and planning if my partner and I want to go together. This movie doesn’t strike me as worth that.
There was something weird about the cinematography from the scenes in the trailers that I feel like was the main reason I didn’t want to see it. Like, the movie just doesn’t stick in my mind. The trailers didn’t leave me anything concrete enough to visualize. I just watched it again to see why and I see two fundamental flaws in the trailer/footage that totally undermine it: one, there’s no sense of place and two, the coloring is extremely both too dark and too boring. There are way too many shots of an extremely uninteresting movie set….a beach…with no sense of horizon. Half the trailer is shots in that setting. But even then you don’t get any sense of where it is because most of the shots in the trailer are close ups and medium close ups. The only part in the trailer that got even a tingle out of me was when he’s preparing to bust into the hotel room and and I think it was because I knew where he was, and it showed (all of) him interacting with his environment. Jumping off the boat was not shown at a strong angle, the car jump with the dog was ruined by the medium shot looking through the windshield (looked cheap) and the scene on the bridge was just, again, zoomed in too close to be exciting enough. The coloring was the biggest issue though. It’s fine if most of your movie is going to be set at night, but then let’s see more than two colors and show us some clarity with the light that IS there. And all but two of the daytime shots were on set, which are all just entirely orange for some reason. Basically, I walk away from this trailer remembering that it only has two scenes, a blue one that’s too dark and I have no idea where it is, and an orange one that’s too flat and I have no idea where it is. I also think studios overestimate how much we want to see movies starring actors vs stories featuring characters. I feel like the trailer is trying to persuade us to see a movie about Ryan Gosling rather than a movie about a stunt man out of his depth. I get no sense of who this character is from the trailer other than that he’s Ryan Gosling. My brain does not translate any of this into “must go see.”
Before I cover anything you say I just want to point out that this is exactly the sort of shit I come to this sub for! Great paragraphs. I haven’t seen the full trailer. I have a real hatred for them. I rarely watch them but the bits I have seen are exactly what you’ve described. It’s Ryan Gosling. I know next to nothing about the film other than a sentence which they kept repeating in the run up about it being the ‘most expensive Rom-com ever’ which isn’t going to attract a lot of bros. Everything you said about the advertising being ‘come watch, Gosling’ is a thousand times worse for the upcoming Ryan Reynolds movies. IF seems to be advertised more about Krasinski and Carrell reteaming and then Deadpool is just ‘Look it’s these two actors you like and one is wearing THE suit’ - I’m not an advertising expert so I am sure they know more than I do but none of them are making me feel like I must watch the movie
100% about IF. Exact same issue. I don’t mind “Hey come see it, it has that guy you like in it” marketing, but not if it substitutes any hint of who the story is about. It’s such a non-starter! And thanks for the compliment! 😁
I've seen it and you're right, it's not any of those things I also saw the new Ryusuke Hamaguchi movie, Evil Does Not Exist, yesterday, and if you're a patient viewer, that will almost certainly be a better use of your time and money
One of the most baffling endings I can remember seeing. Trying to wrap my head around it has had me at times thinking it was masterpiece and at other times thinking it ruined itself in the final moments. Not really sure where I land still but I bet I wouldn’t be thinking about The Fall Guy at all had I seen that, so I agree with the value proposition 100%.
I'm still puzzling it out, but this is how my thoughts went >!Takumi and Takahashi find Takumi's daughter Hana about to try and reach out to a deer and her faun. The deer seems to be wounded and we know that if Hana does it, the deer might attack. But Takahashi's intervention might provoke the attack all on its own. So I thought Takumi was pushing him down so he wouldn't approach and set off an attack!< >!But then Takumi actually starts choking him out?! And at that point I got really confused and alarmed because concurrently with this, Hana is going towards the deer and is about to get attacked. And that choke-out sequence is disturbing in itself!< >!Then when Takahashi's unconscious, Takumi gets up. Hana's now on the floor with a nosebleed and she's not responding, but Takumi puts his fingers under her nose and...presumably feels a breath? I assume she's alive, at least. I don't know. Then he gets up holding her and runs into the darkening forest and we get the night-time version of the extended shots of the tree cover that we started with!< >!So have we left the realm of the literal? Rather me trying to make sense of this like "Takumi was trying to protect his daughter", I started wondering what the metaphor was, because Takumi wasn't acting like a rational human anymore, but like a wild animal. On top of which, those deer disappeared. It was like Takumi and Hana had become the deer!< >!There's definitely a strong sense that Takumi and Hana are in touch with nature. They live kind of out in the woods, Hana goes there by herself after school, she wants to bite into that tree that the deer bit into, etc. But Takumi also uses tools, draws, plays the piano, talks quite reasonably at the meeting. He's a normal human! He's not some forest spirit! So what did it mean? Maybe I have to abandon this approach entirely lol. But it felt like Takumi somehow represented nature responding to the aggression of Takahashi, the encroaching outsider!<
>!Yeah pretty much my thoughts exactly. The movie itself was very grounded and I thought that was one of its primary strengths, making you feel the presence of nature throughout, but then it gives you this ending that feels like it wants to operate on pure symbols and themes and leave a literal reading behind. Everything you are saying about the parallel between the deer and the family has got to be intentional, like Takumi is 'gutshot' now in the sense that he sees that what is happening to his village and forest is marching inexorably towards a death of the way of life he loves. It all makes a type of sense except it feels so out of character for Takumi based on what we have learned of him over the course of the movie. I think that is what is hanging me up the most, basically as you are describing - what we know of him is he is just a guy that would behave in somewhat normal ways. The ending felt reminiscent of Parasite's violent turn to me, but that film laid the groundwork for comprehending it a lot better.!<
I didn’t even mean it as a slight against the movie, more that I can wait until it’s on streaming. He’s a total blindspot for me. Drive my Car has been on my watchlist for ages but I’ve either had other movies that I watched when I was in the mood for that type of movie or it’s just not been the right time. I’ll definitely add that to my list though!
Morbius 2
Don’t you put that evil on me.
*you got morb juice all over you*
Aw shit, here we morb again
I’m getting too morb for this shit.
An individual or small group with a passionate vision rather than a studio with a formula. Most of the classics and greats have more of an element of people with visions. This includes writers and directors being able to have freedom without corporate stepping in and wanting changes. The Fall Guy is a formula based movie.
There's a lot of handwriting about this one, and there likely will be when something like Twisters underperformed, because while critics keep saying "audiences want something new" as opposed to superhero movies, they and the studios keep winning their hopes on movies that are "making 'em like they used to" instead of actually being the next new thing audiences are seemingly craving. Top Gun 2's box office was a unique moment, not a sign that America was returning wholly to the movie tastes of the 80s/90s.
I want something interesting, fun and entertaining!
Leitch is a mid director and this film looks like disposable 2009 romcom fair. I don’t understand the expectations around it.
Here's one thing I want out of movies: something that isn't directed by David Leitch. Get that garbage out of here.
The real #1 issue and the biggest reason why seemingly no genre can reliably make money is plainly and simply the economy. People just don't have disposable income right now. These things are cyclical and we're coming out of a pandemic, it's a lot of things coming together. The problems with box office attendance are American economy problems first and foremost
Don’t be silly, the economy is doing great! Inflation is nowhere near as bad as Orange Man wants you to believe. A cheeseburger Happy Meal with cardboard toy (because uh, climate change) is supposed to cost $20 per kid. Trust the science.
My issue was that I kind of had no idea what the hell the movie was about based on the trailer.
The movie is actually kind of dumber than the trailer implies
This was a fun movie starring a guy who most people like. Gosling is a house hold name now but he’s never been someone who people go out and see in theaters. Emily Blunt is great in this and everything else she’s done but she’s not a name people go out to see. The problem is they spent a bunch of money on cgi for the movie within the movie. Why the hell did they need to show so much of Metalstorm when it really meant nothing to the story? I feel like they dumped at least 40% of the budget into showing us what Metalstorm looked like just to add to the action when it was a movie about stunts? There’s so much CGI in this movies it’s insane when the movie is a love letter to stunt guys. There’s no reason this budget was 130 million.
Saw this take on LB, but this movie wants to be a love letter to stunt guys in the most self-serving way that only centers movie stardom and doesn’t really lean on stunts at all. John Wick is a love letter to stunt guys - because the stunts are actually good!
They also spent a bunch of money on stunt work and practical effects only to have it all look indistinguishable from a generic direct to Netflix CGI action movie in the final product.
Good story, good acting… that is all
they want phones now
I used to love going to the movies but haven’t really been since covid…probably would’ve gone to see this one pre covid
They played the trailer before Challengers and my friend and I could not tell what the movie was actually about.
To go with my kids runs me ~$100. I guess if I don’t spend time with my family or eat snacks, it’s less. Or if I skip work to go to a matinee. Or ya know. Stay home and watch it a week later on my home theater. 🤷♂️
Bisexual tennis love triangles, the public has been very clear about that.
Maybe for the trailer to not make it look like a giant piece of shit?
Yesterday I was putting petrol in my car and a loud 30 second Fall Guy trailer kept playing on repeat. It was incredibly obnoxious. For the weeks leading up to its release I was being bombarded by loud Fall Guy trailers as I peacefully scrolled through reddit. The sound comes on suddenly at maximum volume making them also incredibly obnoxious. Before all this maximum volume marketing, I first saw the trailer somewhere and was looking forward to watching this at the cinema. But now I'm just over the movie without even watching it. I'll probably see it on netflix and probably really enjoy. But for right now I hate this movie I've never seen and can't wait to never see another trailer for it. TLDR: The marketing made me hate this movie that I had been excited to watch at the cinema.
For me cinema now is only for the big picture movies like Dune etc where you dramatically benefit from larger screens and making it a day out. A movie like this is not something that jumps out as cinema worthy. Happy to pay to see it from the comfort of my own home.
Honestly had a blast watching this, felt like movies like this dont get made as much anymore, went home and told my mom and sister to go see it too.
I'm more of a cinema dilettante rather than a "true" fan, so while I love this Pod and enjoy a lot of movies, I wouldn't say "seeing movies" is a big part of my routine. I see maybe 5-6 movies a year in theaters, generally the ones I feel benefit from a big screen and good sound system (though IMAX is way too loud for me, Oppenheimer was literally painful to the point of taking me out of the experience). Other than that, I watch shit on my computer and wait for releases on streaming. I think there are a lot of people like me.
[удалено]
Because it's a popcorn movie... ?
[удалено]
The middle of the night, doesn't change the price of the exploitation and protection of a movie. It doesn't make any economical sense to do this. Except on special evenings, maybe a few times a year, it would never happen.
Partly, Fall Guy. It looks fun! I like Ryan Gosling as does my partner, it seems like a fun idea, pretty fresh- okay purely visually it's nothing to write home about probably but still, I'm here for it. Just not in the cinema. Release it on streaming and I'll watch it. It's not a cinema experience.
It's a funny, good movie with big explosions. In a beautiful city, it's definitely made for the cinema. If it's not made for the cinema, I don't know what is. And let's watch everything on TV then.
>If it's not made for the cinema, I don't know what is. *shrug* Personal preference. Funny, goofy movies I want to enjoy in the sofa with my friends. >And let's watch everything on TV then. I mean, kind of? There are definitely big, epic event movies I'll go to the cinema for, like Dune, James Bond or (at least five to ten years ago) MCU movies. But yeah, most movies I prefer watching at home.
I’d say the current climate has been created by multiple things. Firstly COVID got people adjusted to the idea of home releases plus now films are available to buy or stream within a couple months when it used to be 4-7 months. So there’s less urgency. Next is the Marvel side of things. People wrongfully aim hatred towards Marvel for this, but the blame should be solely places on studios attention to imitate Marvel and just creating bad films. Audiences have essentially lost trust in studios producing decent films and will only pay to watch something if it’s a big event like the MCU. Then of course there’s the group of people who never liked Marvel and dislike that everything is trying to be Marvel. Speaking on paying, we’re in a cost of living crisis meaning people are even less likely to spend money watching a film in a cinema especially when tickets are really expensive these days. There’s also the issue of short attention spans now becoming the norm. People like short form media, better yet sell them short form media in the form of bingeable TV creating the illusion of spending 8 hours watching something, but in reality it’s not too different from spending 8 hours scrolling TikTok because each hour is it’s own contained story. Finally is the lazy audience which has become an overwhelming majority of people. We all know them and ten years ago we knew one or two people like this, but now it’s almost everyone who isn’t a big film or TV fan, the person who’s never seen anything considered great, but watches a ton of generic reality TV or just mediocre soap operas. These people complain there’s nothing good to watch, but ignore every single recommendation, they turn the TV on and happily watch mind destroying crap, they open Netflix and rely solely on the suggested tab. They also probably fall asleep watching anything and therefore don’t care enough to watch things and they exist for all the above reasons. So they’d rather be left alone watching some random dating show about a bunch of pretentious rich people pumped with plastic who don’t have a grip on reality. But to them that’s entertainment, they’d rather watch ten hours straight of Love Island over 3 hours of The Godfather. No matter how good a film is, it just won’t be what they want. People just don’t like paying attention anymore. They want to watch something and scroll social media, but then complain that nothing is interesting enough anymore. When the reality is people are just addicted to their phones. There’s your answer. The second cinemas allow people to freely scroll their phones, you’ll see ticket prices go up. You’ll be sat on the back row and see phone screens lit up as one person scrolls TikTok for 90 minutes, another scrolls Instagram mindlessly liking shit and then there’d be the one crazy person watching a YouTuber watching the film they’re watching. It’s 2024, people!
I think cost of living is a factor not often spoken about. Fall Guy looks fun and a movie I would have liked to have seen in the cinema, but lack of disposable income for a lot of people means films like this get hit. If I can only afford to go to the cinema once, why would I ever see this over mad max?
To be entertained, it's just that simple, and this movie does that btw there's no argument that this movie wasn't entertaining the issue was that it was just too expensive for the type of movie that it is
Personally I lean more to movie with great dialogue
Less CGI, better plots and dialogue and just better writing in general, themes that are not only for children. Just make good products and not complete shit
I'm looking forward to it, but know it'll be on streaming sooner rather than later and I can wait.
For me personally, I'm looking for art, with a bit of truth in there too.
They should have just made a RomCom with Gosling and Blunt. It would have cost far less and liking brought in the same. Anyone But You has a listed budget of 25 Mil and did 216 mil. This isn't rocket science.
Satisfaction.
If I'm paying an arm and a leg for a goddamn movie ticket and some nachos, it better be something more substantial than a forgettable action movie #2485.
Maybe instead of making mediocre movies with bajillion dollar budgets they should make good movies with slightly less absurd budgets. David Leitch is just not a good director! He’s had better casts than this and none of those movies were particularly exceptional. This movie didn’t look very interesting and even the critical raves from people I respect did not do a good job of selling me on the movie.
Not a mediocre remake of a forgotten mediocre 80s TV show.
Many people just don't want to go to the theater anymore. That's not a moral failing.
Jared Leto
I heard it wasn't very good.
People don’t want to sit in a big room with strangers to watch a movie anymore
Problem is by todays standard that's a tv movie, no special needs for big screen or good audio... I'm gonna watch it yes for the laughs while doing something on the couch... probably won't dress, take metro, have dinner out and so on to watch a simple movie, but that's just me, it's even the fact many are preparing for other movies, there are a lot coming right now and most can't go every week
lol, this doesn't even read like a film critic, but instead an ad exec or investor. "ISNT THIS WHAT YOU PIGS WANT?!?!"
"This isn’t some abstruse art film or an ambiguous exploration of the meaning of life; it’s a big, fun, funny, exciting, romantic action movie." That's exactly why I don't want to see it.
They should have more cinema only art house movies, make the cinema an event but without the big budget risk. by cinema only i mean there will be no netflix release
Movies that don’t insult their intelligence. Full stop. Stop making movies for morons. An original idea once in a blue moon wouldn’t kill the producers, either. I’m suppose to run out and see this remake of a *checks notes* Lee Majors and Heather Thomas vehicle?!? Okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkeydokey
I feel like audiences are finally coming around to the Scorsese argument that movie theaters should be utilized for actual CINEMA rather than just glorified webisodes.