?

Log in

No account? Create an account
March 2018   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
NF-Lee's Gildor and Frodo

Three movies I'm glad I saw.

Posted on 2008.12.10 at 14:54

Comments:


Mechtild
mechtild at 2008-12-11 01:50 (UTC) (Link)
I saw Appaloosa a few weeks ago, and I loved it! I don't recall the reviews being bad for it.

They weren't *bad*, but they weren't raves, either. I mean, there were plenty of really favourable reviews, but many "eh" ones, too. And there seemed to be little word of mouth building for it, or maybe there wasn't time to build any. It came and went at theatres before you could blink. My guess is that the right audiences didn't know to see it. If they were like me, they mistook it for a horse story, for starters. Or they might not have gone because they thought it was going to be a shoot'em-up action-movie Western. If they *were* thinking it was going to be that sort of film, they'd have been disappointed and give it poor word-of-mouth.

It sounds like you wouldn't care for Australia that much. It's definitely got a WWII event, although it does not at all dominate the film. And it does have a strong element of "epic romance" to it, if with a wink and a sense of humour. It's really a mix of genres, which some viewers will love and others will find off-putting.
Prim
primula_baggins at 2008-12-11 01:55 (UTC) (Link)
Well, having lots of experience with "indie" films like Appaloosa, it doesn't surprise me it came and went that way. Very few indies get much audience, no matter how good they are. Heck, it was only in 3 theaters in all of the Los Angeles area, so unless it was over-the-top fantastic, it wasn't going to go into anymore theaters.

They attempt to start these movies in very few theaters (if that) and if they do catch on, then they further attempt to get them into more theaters. But that rarely happens. I know. I've been through this over and over with Elijah's movies! A lot of little gem movies hardly see the inside of a theater.
Mechtild
mechtild at 2008-12-11 02:06 (UTC) (Link)
I think the word-of-mouth *will* spread for this film, but on DVD. This has happened with a number of films that didn't get much exposure in theatres but went on to garner house-hold box office, whether as rentals or purchased films.

I often wonder if that's the path independent films should strive for, but the fact remains that only films that open in theatres get professional reviews, and that's what establishes the reputations of artists who make and appear in them.
Prim
primula_baggins at 2008-12-11 02:12 (UTC) (Link)
"but the fact remains that only films that open in theatres get professional reviews"

Mostly, but many DVD's get them, too nowadays. One reason they try to always get movies into at least one theater is because in order for it to be eligible for any type of Oscar, it has to run at least in one theater for one week (and in the US) prior to December 31. I read that in the Academy rules one time. Interesting.

Edited at 2008-12-11 02:12 am (UTC)
Mechtild
mechtild at 2008-12-11 02:22 (UTC) (Link)
many DVD's get them [professional reviews], too nowadays.

I'm so glad to know that, Primula, since so many good films never play in theatres anymore, or only for a week, and only in big cities. Yay!

One reason they try to always get movies into at least one theater is because in order for it to be eligible for any type of Oscar, it has to run at least in one theater for one week (and in the US) prior to December 31. I read that in the Academy rules one time. Interesting.

That *is* interesting. No wonder filmmakers try so hard to get their films shown, even for very limited engagements.
Previous Entry  Next Entry