Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2019 17:53:49 GMT
From Back to the Future and Forrest Gump to this.
At least The Walk made 50 million overseas.
Marven will be lucky to do 5 million overseas.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 8, 2019 18:10:26 GMT
Calling it. He'll do a superhero movie gig to get back on his feet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2019 18:51:10 GMT
Calling it. He'll do a superhero movie gig to get back on his feet. Or he will become hired help like Ron Howard on Solo.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 8, 2019 19:47:47 GMT
I can't understand how they thought this was a good idea for a movie. Everyone who saw the trailer new from the get-go it would bomb.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 9, 2019 1:31:34 GMT
I still want to see it. I like schmaltzy movies. I have a feeling it's a lot better than the reviews say. yes its better than the reviews say but it does not do justice to the source material. after thinking about it for a few days i think they failed to make the main character likeable or more sympathetic. they made him look shallow and somewhat too selfinvolved more than anything else and i think thats the biggest problem.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 9, 2019 1:32:25 GMT
I can't understand how they thought this was a good idea for a movie. Everyone who saw the trailer new from the get-go it would bomb. I’m a fan of the real Mark Hogancamp...who is not the creepy perve Carell plays in the film...so, big disappointment. The 2010 documentary is very good, but I agree, I’ve no clue how Zemeckis thought he was improving on the real story. Though, from what I read, Hogancamp loves the movie. he Is creepy right? yeah thats it. thats what the problem is. the real mark seems so much more likeable....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2019 1:40:36 GMT
wow that's Zemeckis? that movie looks terrible.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 9, 2019 8:21:57 GMT
I can't understand how they thought this was a good idea for a movie. Everyone who saw the trailer new from the get-go it would bomb. The film is much better than the trailer; I saw it because the director was Robert Zemeckis, not because of the trailer itself.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 9, 2019 8:23:10 GMT
I still want to see it. I like schmaltzy movies. I have a feeling it's a lot better than the reviews say. yes its better than the reviews say but it does not do justice to the source material. after thinking about it for a few days i think they failed to make the main character likeable or more sympathetic. they made him look shallow and somewhat too selfinvolved more than anything else and i think thats the biggest problem. But is that not a sign of worthwhile, or at least uncompromising, filmmaking?
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 9, 2019 8:25:21 GMT
I’m a fan of the real Mark Hogancamp...who is not the creepy perve Carell plays in the film...so, big disappointment. The 2010 documentary is very good, but I agree, I’ve no clue how Zemeckis thought he was improving on the real story. Though, from what I read, Hogancamp loves the movie. Out of curiosity, why do you consider him a "creepy pervert" in the film? That is what Nichol's former boyfriend essentially says about him, but the movie suggests that eccentricity should not be confused with perversion. Yes, the movie version of Hogancamp quickly becomes (kindly) infatuated with Nichol and confuses fantasy for reality, but that development serves as an allegory for romantic obsessions and life. In short, there is plenty of many people's experiences in the Carell character.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 9, 2019 8:28:41 GMT
I still want to see it. I like schmaltzy movies. I have a feeling it's a lot better than the reviews say. yes its better than the reviews say but it does not do justice to the source material. after thinking about it for a few days i think they failed to make the main character likeable or more sympathetic. they made him look shallow and somewhat too selfinvolved more than anything else and i think thats the biggest problem. Nora, why do you not consider Hogancamp sympathetic in the film? He is complex and (thankfully) not some Disney-type of easily embraceable figure, but he is suffering and struggling to make his way through his plight, to come to grips with his new life.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 9, 2019 8:41:07 GMT
I still want to see it. I like schmaltzy movies. I have a feeling it's a lot better than the reviews say. Here is what I wrote about Welcome to Marwen (and its reception) in late December:
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 9, 2019 13:25:33 GMT
yes its better than the reviews say but it does not do justice to the source material. after thinking about it for a few days i think they failed to make the main character likeable or more sympathetic. they made him look shallow and somewhat too selfinvolved more than anything else and i think thats the biggest problem. But is that not a sign of worthwhile, or at least uncompromising, filmmaking? i dont mean that he is not a good guy. that wouldnt be a problem. people can enjoy watching a movie with a main character being a bad or even evil guy. but they have to enjoy watching him. to me that was the problem - i didnt enjoy watching carells mark. and i love steve carell. he was unlikeable in the bad way - he was unenjoyable. examples of unlikeable characters that the audiances still enjoy watching: 1. Sterling Archer 2. Godfather 3. Nicholson in As goot as it gets or Somethinn sgotta give. 4. Gordon Gecco 5. or Carell in Dinner for schmucks (very similar role when I think about it bur whereas in Dinner my heart was breaking for Carell here - Nothing) or 40 yo Virgin. i dont think its a sign of a good/ bold/ uncompromizng movie to make the main character unsympathetic to this point. u just give people no reason to connect. I also think it was not intentional. They Wanted us (especially since its Zemeckis the master of connecting with the audiance) to feel for him and connect with him emotionally on some level. but failed. I think the info about his memory loss coming so late in the movie and him mistreating roberta so much when she was so nice to him were big parts of why it failed for me. he was a shallow and self centered dick. abused and creative? yes. but still very shallow seeming and self centered dick. and the real mark from what i researched and seen was not like that at all.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 9, 2019 15:24:44 GMT
I can't understand how they thought this was a good idea for a movie. Everyone who saw the trailer new from the get-go it would bomb. I’m a fan of the real Mark Hogancamp...who is not the creepy perve Carell plays in the film...so, big disappointment. The 2010 documentary is very good, but I agree, I’ve no clue how Zemeckis thought he was improving on the real story. Though, from what I read, Hogancamp loves the movie. I saw parts of the documentary on YouTube.It was very interesting and his artwork was awesome. I don't think the whole animated aspect of the movie helped and Steve Carell's performance did not look very good.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 9, 2019 20:13:47 GMT
yes its better than the reviews say but it does not do justice to the source material. after thinking about it for a few days i think they failed to make the main character likeable or more sympathetic. they made him look shallow and somewhat too selfinvolved more than anything else and i think thats the biggest problem. But is that not a sign of worthwhile, or at least uncompromising, filmmaking? … What?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2019 6:53:08 GMT
I still want to see it. I like schmaltzy movies. I have a feeling it's a lot better than the reviews say. Zemeckis is my favorite director, so I thought the same thing, but it was awful. Rather than telling a moving story, Zemeckis wanted to show off his CGI toys. It ruined, ruined, a great story to tell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2019 6:54:39 GMT
I can't understand how they thought this was a good idea for a movie. Everyone who saw the trailer new from the get-go it would bomb. The film is much better than the trailer; I saw it because the director was Robert Zemeckis, not because of the trailer itself. Zemeckis ruined a great story, by having his CGI toys do most of the story telling. It was terrible.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 10, 2019 7:14:56 GMT
The film is much better than the trailer; I saw it because the director was Robert Zemeckis, not because of the trailer itself. Zemeckis ruined a great story, by having his CGI toys do most of the story telling. It was terrible. ... true, he could have gone for a simply realistic style, but Zemeckis is not necessarily that kind of filmmaker. He operates more in the realm of cinematic wonder, and for me, his visual integration proved effective, almost seamless. At times early in the movie, I could not tell for certain whether or not he was utilizing a technological effect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2019 7:18:28 GMT
Zemeckis ruined a great story, by having his CGI toys do most of the story telling. It was terrible. ... true, he could have gone for a simply realistic style, but Zemeckis is not necessarily that kind of filmmaker. He operates more in the realm of cinematic wonder, and for me, his visual integration proved effective, almost seamless. At times early in the movie, I could not tell for certain whether or not he was utilizing a technological effect. The Polar Express is what really hurt Zemeckis. After that he did Beowulf and he fell too much in love with his CGI bs. He loves showing that off more than making great films like he use to.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 10, 2019 7:27:03 GMT
But is that not a sign of worthwhile, or at least uncompromising, filmmaking? … What? ... in the sense that if you do not necessarily make the character "likable" or "sympathetic," you are not pandering to the audience and to commercial convention.
|
|