Posted by Dot on 5/18/2007, 7:20 pm, in reply to "Jesse James" I've read several advance-screening reviews that have said JJ is terrific, that both Casey Affleck and Brad are wonderful in it and that the mood and look of it are mesmerizing. But they do say the cut they saw was 3 hours long, yet it shouldn't be cut. That it's slow-developing and poetic and is not a rollicking shoot-em-up. That's usually a problem for a studio, because audiences today have a short attention span, and because three hours means they can make less money through fewer showings per day. But I say that if you have to sacrifice what makes a film good, what's the sense in shoehorning it into a cookie-cutter timeframe? Heck, the film's production cost was only $30 million (I know, that's an obscene amount of money, LOL, but it's very low in comparison to the usual Hollywood film these days). They were still expecting to make half a billion dollars on it? The latest I've heard is that JJ is coming out in September -- the beginning of the "more serious" film release season, though not an ideal spot in the schedule for sure. If Warners Brothers is looking at it as an art house film, so what? Brad Pitt is well known and a celebrity, but does that mean every movie he's in has to be a blockbuster? Please. For many years everyone has known that he mixes it up and makes small films as well as bigger audience-pleaser fare. Even this writer mentions how his production company has a slate of 20 independent films in the works at some stage or other. That's right, INDEPENDENT films. Independent films don't tend to be BIG mothers. They tend to be arthouse films more than anything. Read your own article, Mr./Ms. Writer. I'm all for them staying with an arthouse approach if that's what the film calls for. I've always admired and enjoyed Brad for his willingness to go for what's different, something that could advance the art of filmmaking, rather than what the studio or the audience expects. Those kinds of projects don't always work, but taking chances can bring wonderfully unexpected results. Kudos to him. By the way, Brad Grey heads Paramount Studios, not Warner Brothers. So he shouldn't have any say in what WB does with the film. I'm not directing this diatribe at you, Gina. Just the dumb writer. LOL
141.156.14.41
Thanks for bringing the article here, Gina. But you know, these writers are full of BS. "First cinematic flop"? Many of his movies have been said to be flops, whether they actually were or not. And it's all speculation beforehand anyway. Yawn.
| 117 |
|
Responses:
|
Please be sure you click "post"
button after previewing your
post!. If you don't want to
preview your post please click on
the "post" (left) button.
and
