Complete Idiot said:
This appears to be one of those rare movies that doesn't appeal to everyone equally.
Complete Idiot said:
This appears to be one of those rare movies that doesn't appeal to everyone equally.
Like Schmendeler, we went and saw it at 5p yesterday and the theater was completely full minus the first few rows. That might be due to the fact it was a 35mm showing, but still. It was packed. And everyone was talking about how great it was as we were walking out.Urban Ag said:
<non Hollywood industry guy>
Sorry, it's been out for two weeks and the buzz seems to have died out a week ago. I compared the gross to his lasts 5-6 films and it seemed to be underperforming, but I didn't realize those sums were domestic + international. Regardless, the wiki says Django did $425M and Basturds did $322M so I guess they are expecting big enthusiasm overseas. Which, again, I wasn't aware it was projected to be that significant.
<non Hollywood industry guy>
that's great, I am certainly not rooting against it.investorAg83 said:Like Schmendeler, we went and saw it at 5p yesterday and the theater was completely full minus the first few rows. That might be due to the fact it was a 35mm showing, but still. It was packed. And everyone was talking about how great it was as we were walking out.Urban Ag said:
<non Hollywood industry guy>
Sorry, it's been out for two weeks and the buzz seems to have died out a week ago. I compared the gross to his lasts 5-6 films and it seemed to be underperforming, but I didn't realize those sums were domestic + international. Regardless, the wiki says Django did $425M and Basturds did $322M so I guess they are expecting big enthusiasm overseas. Which, again, I wasn't aware it was projected to be that significant.
<non Hollywood industry guy>
QT movies have always been pretty polar...you either get it and love it, or you don't get it and hate it. Very little in the middle.
This is such a confusing post.Urban Ag said:
so with a budget in the mid $90M range, is this considered a flop, or at best, financially disappointing?
I honestly thought this movie was going to do much, much, better.
I didn't think Bruce Dern was that funny.A_Gang_Ag_06 said:
2:45 minutes long.
2:30 minutes of wasted time and a crap movie.
15 minutes of "roll on the ground" hilarity.
A_Gang_Ag_06 said:
2:45 minutes long.
2:30 minutes of wasted time and a crap movie.
15 minutes of "roll on the ground" hilarity.
Bruce Almighty said:Cromagnum said:
Sad state of the movie industry if this is picture of the year material. I'm normally a Tarantino Homer, but I'll never watch this a 2nd time. My wife wishes she never saw it the first time.
Is this the first "my opinion is more important than anybody else's" post of the thread.
You may not have meant it, but that is how its coming across. The movie has universal acclaim, most everyone on here loved hit and thought it was one of Tarantino's best, yet its a sad state of the movie industry if this movie gets nominated because you personally didn't like it.Cromagnum said:Bruce Almighty said:Cromagnum said:
Sad state of the movie industry if this is picture of the year material. I'm normally a Tarantino Homer, but I'll never watch this a 2nd time. My wife wishes she never saw it the first time.
Is this the first "my opinion is more important than anybody else's" post of the thread.
Never said my opinion was more important than anyone's. I personally think this was a weak movie, and absolutely weak by Tarantino standards. Based on this thread one might think my opinion is less than everyone else's since my view is in the minority though.
Bruce Almighty said:You may not have meant it, but that is how its coming across. The movie has universal acclaim, most everyone on here loved hit and thought it was one of Tarantino's best, yet its a sad state of the movie industry if this movie gets nominated because you personally didn't like it.Cromagnum said:Bruce Almighty said:Cromagnum said:
Sad state of the movie industry if this is picture of the year material. I'm normally a Tarantino Homer, but I'll never watch this a 2nd time. My wife wishes she never saw it the first time.
Is this the first "my opinion is more important than anybody else's" post of the thread.
Never said my opinion was more important than anyone's. I personally think this was a weak movie, and absolutely weak by Tarantino standards. Based on this thread one might think my opinion is less than everyone else's since my view is in the minority though.
maybe some nice bonus material for the bluray? Quentin, I know you must read texags because we are quite influential in the industry, so don't play dumb on us!schmendeler said:
I feel like there was a bit of a missed opportunity by Tarantino not to have a trailer or two before the movie started of Rick Dalton movies.
Are you up to 6, 7 viewings now?ATM1876 said:List is incomplete since it leaves off Jigsaw Jane, Comanche Uprising and Hellfire, Texas, all easily identified by their posters in Rick's house. I'd also put Nebraska Jim higher since it's directed by Sergio Corbucci, the second best director of spaghetti westerns, and costars Daphna Ben-Cobo (played by Daniella Pick, Tarantino's new wife IRL), who the paparazzi made a big deal about much to Rick's amusement.TCTTS said:
I would have been fine with putting them after the movie, too.ATM1876 said:This would've been cool but wouldn't have made a lot of sense given the state of Rick's career in February 1969. That's why they started the movie off with the commercial for Bounty Law and the interview with Alan Kinkaid, which took place sometime around 1958-1961 when Rick's career was at its peak. It also provides a nice setup to his conversation with Marvin Schwarz where they discuss his recent work and career trajectory.schmendeler said:
I feel like there was a bit of a missed opportunity by Tarantino not to have a trailer or two before the movie started of Rick Dalton movies.
No need to justify it to me - but you are totally living in that universe now. You got all the movie details down pat. it is a bit intoxicating in Rick and Cliff's world.ATM1876 said:- Wow, man. That's the first time anybody's asked that in a long time.Complete Idiot said:
Are you up to 6, 7 viewings now?
- What's the answer?
- Ok. We gonna play kiddie games? Eighteen. Feel better?
- You got some proof, you know, like some ticket stubs or something?
- Are you joking?
- No, I'm not. I need to see something official that verifies that you've seen it eighteen times, which you don't have, because you haven't.
- Talk about a breakdown bummer, dude. That's you.
I've obviously seen it enough that I've got large parts of it memorized. I do love this one, but I normally see 1-2 movies a week anyway and there's just not a lot of other movies out there right now that I'm interested in compared to this one. The local water company is also replacing the 100+ year old main on my block right now which goes from 7:00 am to as late as 10:00 pm each night, so I'd much rather sit in a theater than listen to that. AMC A-List also makes it easy to justify, although I'll probably see it one more time in 35mm at my local film society since that helps support future 35mm screenings over there.