Featured Post

Brad Pitt and Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds and Aldo Ray

Continuing at Huff Po is another small minded review of Inglourious Basterds http://tinyurl.com/nyeqfc (please bear with me until I learn...

Popular Posts

Showing posts with label Review Water for Elephants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Review Water for Elephants. Show all posts

Monday, June 20, 2011

Box Office: Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and Water For Elephants

Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
Domestic:  $10,095,170    9.7%
+ Foreign:  $94,289,245    90.3%

= Worldwide:  $104,384,415
 
Domestic Summary
Opening Weekend: $335,502
(#23 rank, 34 theaters, $9,868 average)
% of Total Gross: 3.3%
> View All 44 Weekends
Widest Release:  202 theaters
Close Date:  February 24, 2011
Release Date: March 19, 2010Genre: ThrillerRuntime: 2 hrs. 32 min.MPAA Rating: RProduction Budget: $13 million
Water For Elephants
Domestic:  $57,192,169    50.3%
+ Foreign:  $56,430,306    49.7%

= Worldwide:  $113,622,475
Domestic Summary
Opening Weekend: $16,842,353
(#3 rank, 2,817 theaters, $5,979 average)
% of Total Gross: 29.4%
> View All 9 Weekends
Widest Release:  2,820 theaters
In Release:  59 days / 8.4 weeks
Release Date: April 22, 2011Genre: DramaRuntime: 2 hrs. 0 min.MPAA Rating: PG-13Production Budget: $38 million









 I put these stats here for comparison. Allowing for the fact that GWTDT has been out 1 year longer than WFE the difference of 25 million in the production budget is significant. We do not know what the promotion costs were for WFE but when you trot trick ponies all around the world for promotion they are considerable. Add that in for all the TV time and trailers for months. Gulp!

GWTDT had none of that and opened at $335,502 and never had more than a total of 202 theaters at any given time, this is impressive. The US Domestic total at 10 mil is low but consider that the film is Swedish, with English subtitles and you have the answer. The American masses are not known for their literacy chops.

So a small limited release art house film is giving the Hollywood WFE a run for its money.

Without getting into an interpretive swamp here, I see an interesting trend emerging. Am I the only one? If you were an actor which way might you decide to go for both esthetic reasons and financial ones, and considering your time and energy selling as a large part of the equation?

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Water For Elephants: Reese Witherspoon is Electrifying!

Water for Elephants



Just this past Saturday night I saw the film. There were about five of us getting a private screening in the multiplex.  Reese Witherspoon gave one of the finest performances I've ever seen. I have not been complimentary of her in the past and I apologize for my stupidity in writing about her "new tricks" for this performance before I saw her. The trailers create a different impression but what else is new.

Her Marlena is so finely nuanced that she is a wonder to watch. Face to face with Pattinson her expressions screw up, her mouth tightens into a hard, harsh line, and we can glimpse the embittered woman that is emerging in her present life with August. How brave she is to do this! Not a seductive gaze to be seen as she talks to him across the table before August comes to join them. This is a woman from the working class or lower middle class with no illusions. Aware of the illusion she creates in her performances she thinks she is nothing in real life. She sees into this woman as Sarah Gruen could never have had the creative expertise to write her, as Lawrence the obtuse director could never have guided her, as the clueless screenplay skimmed over. (You're a beautiful woman, you deserve a beautiful life. So if you're ugly you deserve an ugly life? Gimme a break.) Marlena is not only tough, but she sees herself in the present and where she is heading down the line. Jacob's comment about the dry skin of Rosie does not escape her notice. She is not old but no longer young.

"Where were you when I was seventeen?" she says to Jacob. Well Jacob was somewhere in school. But she means that there were no young men around like him then just as there are no young men like Rob Pattinson around now.

The complaints about the sex scene and the lack of high powered chemistry between the two have been moaned over.

Get this straight. Marlena finally loves Jacob, but she does not fall in love with him. And there is the difference. He is fascinated with her, not in love, just absolutely fascinated and accepts the responsibility for this and what has occurred because of it. Inexperienced and innocent his feelings have been the catalyst for the crazed jealousy of August. (Go to Freud's explanation of paranoia for this if you are curious.) The sex scene in the hotel has been criticized for the lack of chemistry also. Lawrence has received not a little of it in that he has had no experience in directing romantic scenes. But Marlena is not a romantic, although she has been seducing him.  Jacob is attractive, educated, wants her, and he is responsible. And she loves him. Who wouldn't. It seems everyone learns to love him so why would she be any different. But so passionate that it has to be a steamy sex scene? No. It's a first time between two people who have not really committed themselves to each other. And one of them is fairly innocent. That the old Jacob has romanticized their relationship is true. But he is old and alone and his children are not very devoted. Jacob tells her he will get his degree, they will go to Ringling, all practical words to convince her of his intentions. When she is dragged away and he is beaten he plods after her. But knife in hand he cannot even kill August for her. Marlena looks at him with her bruised eye with the sleeping August's arms around her  and her look says it all. It's up to you if you want to kill for me. I won't urge you nor will I object. And in the book and film Jacob calls to Rosie in panic as he sees what she is going to do. Fortunately he cannot stop her and Rosie does it for him.


Review
This is not a passion-love/death scenario. These are two people planning a future in the hotel room and as they go off to Ringling. As we see Jacob in his nineties, it is obvious that he has needed mollifying from time to time like August and Marlena knew this. He also maybe drinks just a little bit too much. Their children are not exactly adoring and attentive to him in his old age, and Marlena, while she is affectionate, is not sentimental with her horses, nor probably with her children. Caring yes, but also expecting certain types of behavior from them. Is all this in the book? In the screenplay? Hell no. Gruen could never have imagined it all nor does she have the ability to put it into words.

But Reese does exactly all that. We get a Marlena not on paper between covers, not in the screenplay nor in the flat footed direction. We get it from the experience and courage and intuitive imagination of Reese Witherspoon.

Waltz is very good but his is a watered down Landa from Inglourious Basterds. That he gave up the role of Jung with Cronenberg for this film makes me wonder about his real sanity.

As for Rob Pattinson, Lawrence has used him 99% of the time as eye-candy. And he has been there many times before (The Haunted Airman, Harry Potter). He is completely aware of this. He has the uncanny ability to send his feelings out in vibrations that have nothing to do with the character he is playing. I was anxious halfway through the film, feeling his discomfort. He is in every single scene. His face is very up close and personal in almost every shot. Baudrillard's analysis of the face as pornography says it all. Jacob/Pattinson is beaten up a lot, his face bruised, swollen and bloody. Hollywood used to do this to women a lot until the feminists protested this model for men. Now they use it as a femme sign for Rob Pattinson and since he is a male it is OK. It is NOT OK to use gratuitous sadism/masochism vented on a face to induce sexual stimulation, whether that actor is male or female. It is gratuitous period, like soft porn for no other reason than to sell tickets. And Lawrence has done the same with Rosie only that has backfired on him with real allegations. Reese and Christoph are constantly in the background, and it is as if Lawrence is saying he expects Rob Pattinson to be his ticket to success in the big time world of Hollywood directors. So he has planned all along in seducing Rob with Tai and jumping on the Pattinson bandwagon. Then he trots him out all over the world to make sure the foreign sales are up.

Simply, he is pimping Rob's face. Rob knows this and has no way of objecting. Lawrence does not dare interfere with Reese's interpretation of her role, nor Waltz's, but he controls the way Rob is seen with his camera. And his editing. Emile Hirsch would have been a better choice for the integrity of the film as he would have been expected and allowed to interpret his character instead of be a face. So any criticism of Rob Pattinson is NOT deserved.

I guess I could go on but who wants me to. I don't even want to.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Review: Water For Elephants








A Great Review from Total Film Magazine and Funny Too! The last 2 pages are the ones to read. Click on the pics and then click again in photobucket to enlarge.



http://www.robsessedpattinson.com/2011/04/robert-pattinson-water-for-elephants_09.html





IMO I think this review is exceptionally intelligent and a very accurate assessment. It is also hilariously funny, witty and snarky.  What a pleasure after reading mainstream media boring garbage and all those professional smilers interviewing Rob Pattinson along with Reese to show how great they look together. Fox is following Scummit in their pimping of Rob to sell the tickets. Cronenberg has swiped at Francis Lawrence when he criticizes Waltz for leaving his Freud and Jung cast to do WFE, the big budget Hollywood mass pleaser entertainment. Long after WFE is being sold at yard sales, Cronenberg's Freud and Jung film will still be a collector's item and a classic after we are all dead. The reviewer's assessment of a watered down Landa, a still smouldering Rob and Reese with a brand new set of tricks and skills. Wow!

Of course the real star will be Tai the elephant.

Gruen's book is an inch above the young adult shelf, but that's probably where most readers fit anyway. At least for the best sellers that will be in the bin in a possible future in the thrift stores, along with all the rest of those mass best sellers:Edna Ferber, Taylor Caldwell, Frank Yerby, Uris et al.  Go to Amazon and read reviews if you want to know more. Her strength is her research on 1930's circuses and the grainy photos included. This part pimps the book just fine.

And now for Baudrillard's assessment of this kind of film. The elaborate set for shooting was composed of 150% of authentic objects of 1930's vintage. Nothing was modern. All was more real than real. In fact the recreated circus set was a simulacrum.

A simulacrum is defined as a copy having no original. Baudrillard writes and says that this historical perfectness in being more historically real than historically real, read hyperreal, is just another piece of reality being stolen from us in homeopathic doses. For those left living who remember what those times were like, their memories will be effaced, wiped out by the overlay of this simulacrum set for the film.

So folks, this is nostalgia being fed to us by Hollywood presents. And the ticket buyers are going to eat it up. Can't you just hear the ooohs and ahhhs now.