|
Post by sgev1977 on Jun 12, 2017 23:27:26 GMT
I did go to look at the Awardswatch board to see what was being said about the script after it was mentioned here, but I somehow missed the comment quoted that it couldn't be worse than "Downsizing". It is the same guy from AW who posts on another proboards forum where some people from Movie Awards Imdb board migrated. movie-awards-redux.freeforums.net/post/39883/threadThey are just awful, doesn't? Too cool for school even when they talk about awards! They don't care about movies just about who or what will win awards! That's pretty uncool!
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Jun 12, 2017 23:31:11 GMT
Thank you very much, @sgev.
I'm going to read it this weekend, I guess.
I'm glad you liked it.
I hope they gave Tesla a better part.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jun 12, 2017 23:57:13 GMT
I would like to know yours and dreamisincolor opinions!
Thinking about people predicting based on scripts reminds me to Richard Brody article saying great scripts doesn't make really great movies. Of course that's not always truth but there are a lot of acclaimed scripts that just didn't work on screen: Passengers, Transcendence are just two recent examples! Even TIG which was very well-received had a very acclaimed script and the adaptation was faithful but somehow something was missing: the script just was very smart in a short story kind of way that it was very difficult if not impossible to present on screen. Maybe because the author is a novelist. That's the advantage I see with this script: it feels like a movie. Maybe because the author is a play writer.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Jun 13, 2017 2:13:19 GMT
Funny you should mention Brody because it was his review that swayed me towards the negative side of The Founder even more than I had been after seeing the previews. www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/the-founder-a-fast-food-visionary-on-shaky-moral-groundWhen I read that column my ears pricked up especially since he mentioned right off the bat the other films that the director Hancock had been responsible for before making The Founder (Saving Mr. Banks and The Blind Side). Saving Mr. Banks was sort of entertaining but ultimately I found the overall arc of the movie disappointing and when I really started to consider all the deeper implications of it, that disappointment turned into a sourness. And The Blind Side was so shallow and at its core an adulation of exploitativeness that it just drains away any moral centre it supposedly has. I really disliked that movie. It was a purposely manipulative movie that almost made me angry. So I guess the combination of not finding anything positive in the trailer and then reading Brody's review, which just confirmed all my suspicions (and gave me even more reasons not to like it - seeing how I felt about the previous works of the director). Perhaps some day I will see it - who knows, sometimes I have been completely blown away by movies I had considered unwatchable or completely disinterested in prior to seeing them (The Social Network is one of those). Minds can be changed. :-))
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jun 13, 2017 2:31:13 GMT
I just read it. I think the review is more mixed than bad.
From that director I have only watched the Walt Disney movie. I agreed with the definition of it as "entertaining". Nothing less or more. Emma Thompson, Ruth Wilson and Colin Farrell were great!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Jun 13, 2017 13:05:27 GMT
He said that he thinks TCW will be liked especially BC and Waterston but it is not going to be sufficient for awards. I still think that doing that kind of predictions based only in the script is very silly but that wouldn't be a bad result at all! If the movie is good, receive positive feedback by critics and it's not send to die with an early next year release at last minute by the Weinsteins, it could actually work in the box office without big awards. Period movies aren't the most obvious box office hits but people forget that there is a section of the audience that is hungry for adult themed movies. That's why The Butler, Bridge of Spies or Sully were very solid hits even when they were almost ignored by the Academy. Now I know BC is not Tom Hanks but even his own TIG was a huge hit with that segment of the public (its strongest demographic wasn't the cliched crazy fan girls from Tumblr but mature people from big cities). People always forget or ignore how powerful that movie was in the box office ($227 M with a $14 M budget) and IMHO that was beyond awards. The Theory of Everything was considered a hit but it did "only" $122M around the world and just one third of what TIG did in North America! Both were British movies about mathematicians. It needs to be a good movie first, of course!
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Jun 14, 2017 3:21:32 GMT
Where did people find the TCW script? I'd love to read it.
|
|
|
Post by kreizimam on Jun 14, 2017 5:48:32 GMT
Soo those on aw who seen it are back.. link
|
|
|
Post by kreizimam on Jun 14, 2017 5:51:08 GMT
I really really wish Im gonna like this movie. I want to see BC in a good movie. I mean, TIG was considered good, but I don't like it so..
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Jun 14, 2017 8:53:00 GMT
After reading the thread on AW I'm going to keep calm and not assume anything because:
First, AW people mostly dislike BC.
Second, they mostly hate biopics.
Third, only two people watched the movie, one liked it, the other didn't.
Fourth, it is the first screening and I imagine they can still change some things if the audience answer is not good.
Fifth, the guy who liked Shannon said "the alien lizard" was the same as always and I don't think BC acts the same way in every movie.
Apparently the music is not ready.
I didn't love TIG but I didn't hate it either. It was more a disappointement.
Were they commenting about Shannon as possible lead?
|
|