It is currently Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:55 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA
MichaelB wrote:
Although those of us who last saw a Star Wars film in 1983 and have no interest in repeating the experience might welcome an alternative viewing choice. In three weeks or so, I can easily see my mother-in-law taking the kids to Star Wars Whatever The Fuck It's Called (genuinely don't know, absolutely don't care) while my wife and I pop in to see All the Money in the World, which is now an easy sell to her because she adores Christopher Plummer.

Yes, well, if you want to take bets on which one more people will see that weekend, let me know. Unless my math(s) is off, it sounds like even your family will go with the trend (given your use of the plural kids, and assuming you don't own goats). :)


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:59 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
McCrutchy wrote:
Yes, well, if you want to take bets on which one more people will see that weekend, let me know.

I don't, because I'm not an idiot. But my point is that there are nonetheless quite a few people who would dearly love to see anything halfway intelligent in the run-up to Christmas (which in Britain is traditionally an absolute dead zone for quality programming), and so if this is even vaguely up to the mark it'll be a welcome distraction.

See also the people who had the inspired idea of reviving The Third Man against a Star Wars film. It was the only other film opening that week, and they'd presumably guessed (entirely correctly) that critics would use the former as a club with which to beat the latter. Was it more successful at the box office? Clearly not - but £100,000 in just a tiny handful of cinemas is a phenomenal gross for a revival of a 50-year-old black-and-white film, and I doubt it would have done half as well if there hadn't been a demonstrable demand for something that didn't have George Lucas's name all over it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:34 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:22 pm
Location: Cornwall, U.K.
If you live in the UK at least, there would also be the option of seeing Paddington 2 (again).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
AidanKing wrote:
If you live in the UK at least, there would also be the option of seeing Paddington 2 (again).

Already scheduled. If the kids complain about seeing it again, fuck ‘em.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:22 pm
Location: Cornwall, U.K.
To be fair, I suspect that the chances of anyone complaining about seeing Paddington 2 again would range from extremely slim to completely non-existent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Interesting to me that the advertising is actually leaning into the re-shoots.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2017 11:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
To some criticism - I think it's a vastly different thing to say "wow, Ridley Scott reshot half of this in ten days and it's almost seamless!" vs. the tone the new marketing has taken of "people can't stop talking about Christopher Plummer in this movie" - one's taking advantage of the situation and the other isn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2017 11:53 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Even hinting at them at all is the surprise to me. Makes me wonder how this will be addressed in the special features on the Blu/DVD release.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:31 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA
flyonthewall2983 wrote:
Even hinting at them at all is the surprise to me. Makes me wonder how this will be addressed in the special features on the Blu/DVD release.


Having seen the film today, I feel pretty confident in saying that Spacey was replaced with good reason (beyond simply a PR move), and that the money was well-spent. There are significant scenes with Plummer that would have come off as absolutely cringe-worthy had Spacey remained in the film, and for this reason, I don't think we'll see the original version of the film, and we'll probably only see brief Spacey footage in a featurette on the re-shoots, if at all.

As it is, Plummer does a terrific job, and he and Romain Duris are probably the best actors in the film. Michelle Williams was slightly less impressive to me, but she seems to have impressed others more. Mark Wahlberg was as good as Williams, but again, nothing really stood out for me.

The thing that keeps the film from being totally satisfying is that it
[Reveal] Spoiler:
ends in a weird, and seemingly "inaccurate" way, where Abigail "takes over the family" in a sort of good-things-come-to-those-who-wait style of ending, and then the film ends, without revealing that Paul III subsequently became a drug addict, had a stroke and went blind, ended up in a wheelchair and died, aged 54. More frustratingly, the film never reveals how Paul III's father, Getty's son (the drug addict in the film) eventually cleaned up, got/stayed rich, and donated hundreds of millions to charity, while apparently refusing to pay to care for his son. And most frustratingly, we never learn what happened to Abigail, who seems to have retreated completely from public life, and may or may not be dead.


But as it is, the film is still very good, mostly because of Plummer and Duris. Charlie Plummer did a pretty excellent job as Paul III, too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:43 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
New interview with Scott in the Guardian

Some excerpts:

One word recurs when talking to Scott: business. Sir Ridley, knighted in 2003, is an artist – in addition to making films, the Royal College of Art alumnus paints. But questions about ethics, acting and storytelling are redirected to the realm of budgets, profit and loss and bums on seats. “When you’re in film, it’s a lot of money to lose if it’s not working. Business is always highly linked with the creative process.”

I tell Scott the decision reminded me of Stalin airbrushing purged comrades from group photos. He doesn’t take offence, but it is not clear he agrees with the comparison because he goes on to say it was, of course, just business. “Whatever you do in private is not my business. It only becomes my business if it infects the business that I’m in. Then it’s my duty to do something about it.” In cold print that may sound like Michael Corleone, but Scott’s breezy cheer is closer to Del Boy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:51 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
I had to Google that reference


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:39 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
domino harvey wrote:

I have to Google a lot of yours, so it’s only fair.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:09 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
The film itself is fairly middling with Plummer's performance being the best thing about it. The suspense/thriller aspects are competent enough and there is enough time spent showing how the value of money differs between the various characters to suggest a subtext hovering below the expected kidnap plotting.

I was surprised at the amount of screen-time that Plummer has; it feels like his scenes take up nearly half the running time, although I suspect that's because his scenes are well-placed throughout and hold the greatest interest. The biggest continuity problem posed by the re-shoot is Mark Wahlberg's weight change: it looks like he lost between 10 and 15 pounds before re-shooting began in November so his appearance visibly fluctuates from scene-to-scene and he doesn't even properly fit in his costume during his scenes with Plummer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:19 am 

Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:48 am
I hope they will at least preserve the original version with Spacey. I think given enough time, it could be a fascinating, and unprecedented opportunity to compare two different performances of the same role in the same film. Perhaps not something to be publicly disseminated, but curated, such as a special double feature at MOMA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:19 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Everyone seemingly agreed to do the reshoots for scale, only Wahlberg sneakily negotiated for $1.5 million. Williams wasn't told and was paid $80 a day. Unbelievably, both are repped by the same agency (or were...)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA
domino harvey wrote:
Everyone seemingly agreed to do the reshoots for scale, only Wahlberg sneakily negotiated for $1.5 million. Williams wasn't told and was paid $80 a day. Unbelievably, both are repped by the same agency (or were...)


That's pretty awful. I hope Wahlberg didn't know about it, and agrees to give the money back or donate it to charity. When you've made almost $70 million in one year, surely an extra $1.5 million isn't worth any kind of bad publicity, or worse, bad blood.

Unless, of course, Ridley is full of shit, and everyone got paid big except Williams, which is entirely possible, and in which case, she needs to dump William Morris post haste.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:03 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
$1.5 million is a pretty standard weight continuity fee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:15 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:48 pm
I wonder what Wahlberg was paid for the film to start with, given that it's a £50m film and he's in a supporting role. I can't imagine those costs are salary-driven. I'd have assumed Wahlberg would take this role for some acting cred, so would be working for less than his usual fee. Who knows what Scott knew, but his whole take on the film - "I always wanted to cast Plummer but the studio wouldn't let me" rings false with me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Not originally knowing the disparity I was going to make some defense about Wahlberg's box office draw vs. Williams' ...but that's fucking ridiculous


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
This made me laugh.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:59 pm
hearthesilence wrote:

At Nick's stupidity, I hope


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA
More info from TMZ does not look good for Mark Wahlberg. The way it's being reported, it could still be entirely the fault of WME, but the fact that Wahlberg hasn't spoken out already is pretty damning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:55 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
Fiery Angel wrote:
hearthesilence wrote:

At Nick's stupidity, I hope

At his careful choice and placement of words?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:59 pm
swo17 wrote:
Fiery Angel wrote:
hearthesilence wrote:

At Nick's stupidity, I hope

At his careful choice and placement of words?

if you say so


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
Fiery Angel wrote:
hearthesilence wrote:

At Nick's stupidity, I hope

I haven't seen this movie yet, but is it inaccurate to describe the re-shoots as mainly shot-reverse shot scenes of boring conversations in large rooms?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection