A six minute trailer of the new Wachowski produced film and directed by Tom Tykwer. Starring Academy Award Winners Tom Hanks, Jim Broadbent, Halle Berry & Susan Sarandon. Gorgeous music, looks beautiful and I hate trailers that give everything away, but at six minutes, I still have no idea what's it's about.
it looks like a big budget fraufest, a conceited and artsy sparks adaptation, and unbearably twee. urgh.
The parralel levels of conscience are all around us - All the days of our lives.
The book is amazing...and definitely not for the fraus. I am wary of putting it on the screen, but if done right, it could be great.
Maybe the fact that you sound like a PR flack has discouraged people from going where you lead.
[quote]it looks like a big budget fraufest, a conceited and artsy sparks adaptation, and unbearably twee. urgh.
Was that your opinion of the novel as well?
R6, i haven't read the novel. and that does NOT matter cause we are talking about a movie. thank you.
I thought the book was overrated. I love Twyker, but Tom Hanks and Halle Berry are the culinary analog of Hamburger Helper.
I loved the book and thus will not see a stupid film with tom hanks in it.
I loved the book but can't imagine it will make a successful transition to film.
OP, will people be talking at watercoolers everywhere about its big mysteries? Will men like it because of its thrilling adventures, while women like the fabulous actresses like Halle Berry and Susan Sarandon? Is it a bonafide hit in the making?
Tom Hanks and Halle Berry don't bode well for any film.
I doubt these homos are interested in making a "fraufest".
Cue the "the book was better!" posturing of people everywhere, thinking they're Harold Bloom for a whole five minutes because it takes longer to read a book than it does to watch a film.
Is this the first big budget film directed by a trans person? Or was Vincente Minnelli just Judy in a suit?
[quote]Cue the "the book was better!" posturing of people everywhere, thinking they're Harold Bloom for a whole five minutes because it takes longer to read a book than it does to watch a film.
Honey, learn to update your references a little.
Harold Bloom went out with acid-washed jeans and Walter Mondale.
One of the directos, Tom Tyker, did Run Lola Run, one of my all-time favorites. I wish Franka Potente (Lola) had become a bigger star (she has done a lot, though).
If you've ever seen "The Host," the actor who played the archer, Bae Doona, will play Sonmi-451. I think this is perfect casting.
That was 20 years ago R16. His movies are shit, he's a one hit wonder. Tom hanks is a drunk piece of trash.
Tom Hanks = boring
r16, I agree.
She reminds me of Mila Jovovich, who is a great action star and a really fun interview.
I've always wondered why she was never given bigger roles. She would have made an interesting Catwoman.
[quote]it looks like a big budget fraufest,
What does that even really mean?
You call everything frau-this and frau-that, don't you?
I thought as much.
bump for premiere
Anyone seeing it in TO?
I can't see this working, but maybe I'm just prejudiced against book-to-movie adaptations.
I didn't read it, but all the reviewers said it was a complicated narrative, even for literature.
The fact that Lana and Andy are doing so much press for this (at least by their standards) makes me nervous.
I did like the NYer piece, though.
The book is brilliant. I couldn't put it down.
I have mixed feelings about the movie trailer simply because I don't understand how Tom Hanks can be playing Zachary who is supposed to be in his early 20's; and the blond wig Hanks wears as the Sach's character is beyond distracting -- again a character who is supposed to be half Tom Hank's age.
Tom Hanks IS Tom Hanks, but I really loved the book so i think I'll go see it. My favorite section was the Sonmi-451 one.
The book sucked. A silly creative writing exercise that average people of average intelligence think is great literature. It'll be completely forgotten in 20 years.
I'm with R27. I just read this pretentious shit-fest. I want the time I spent reading it back.
A more appropriate title:
I Try Too Hard: Six Rambling and Deliberately Esoteric Stories I Wrote So You Will Think I'm Super Smart
That's funny, PPSM, because that's exactly how I feel about your posts.
What killed this movie? It is not making a dime. It still looks pretty cool to me.
Weird, disoriented press. The book was a best seller, but Tom Hanks might have killed it.
A while ago, I listened to the audiobook, and I have a feeling this was the ideal format. The book is built around the gimmickry that seems to be required of a book of fiction. With the audiobook, it was engaging enough But the real feature was the experience of returning to places you had already been. Towards the end, the discussion was about the Maori and I had a memory of reading about the Maori not that ling ago, which, of course, was from listening to the book a few weeks earlier.
I'm going to see the movie this weekend. I'm not expecting much. Usually, if I'm not expecting much, it's either because the source material was really bad (it wasn't) or really fantastic (it wasn't).
I'm afraid the conceit of having the same actors play roles in each of the time frames couldn't work if the actors are, by necessity, Big Names. We'll see.
[quote]I'm going to see the movie this weekend. I'm not expecting much
for one, the time structure (sorry to spoil it) of the book is not maintained. SOmeone who loved the book and viewed the film called it "A beautiful, wonderful failure"
I saw the movie last Saturday. Much of it is truly beautiful, and the complex sequence of six episodes was not all that hard to follow. The overall theme was, however, not profound. Still, I was glad for the experience: an unusual movie, with a good deal more intellectual structure than most.
[quote]The overall theme was, however, not profound.
in the book, it is fairly basic but profound. I'm sorry to hear of that loss. the "orison" section looks brilliant though
R27 is dead on. Do you have any good book suggestions?
Given the names and dollars involved, it is shocking what a non-event this movie is.
I think we can officially agree: BOMB.
Too bad, I just saw it and liked it very much.
Tom hanks was often the weakest part because he is so much Tom hanks.
But overall good stuff.
R27... What do you consider a good movie?
The only blockbuster movie I can think of Halle Berry was in was James Bond. Other than that all her movies have bombed or were not made to be blockbusters.
Tom Hanks' star power has diminished greatly in last 8 years. He's not the draw he was in the 90s.
or the 80's
The sibs shoulda hired Keanu.
I think this is a good example of the bind directors get in trying to finance a movie like this.
As r39 implied, casting stars in pictures like that can take you out of the movie; however, they need to have stars attached to secure financing.
I wish they would have been able to find an eccentric Wachowski fan with scads of money, a reclusive internet billionaire or something.
Someone who would have let them really find good, unknown actors for it. Actors could have helped it immensely.
I agree that the casting is a liability, not a plus.
A question for someone who has read the book.
Why was that particular replicant the one that everybody focused on?
Was she engineered to make her revelations?
She wasn't, R46. It was, in my opinion, a way to show that the fabricants were not just mindless automatons who worked at Papa Songs i.e., McDonalds but were capable of thought though not feelings, apparently.
brilliant movie. one of the best I've seen this year. Breathtakingly beautiful. Funny, adventurous. I, too, don't understand how this flopped so badly.
R48, probably because it's about three hours long.
The costumes and age differences, make-up, overdone accents, etc. that people react so negatively to I believe were part of the brilliant story telling showing the demarcations we use to judge one another are baseless and a complete waste of time - packaging is simply that - the whole point of the movie I think. Brilliantly done, captivating - I loved every minute of it.
It was long, but I didn't notice. We went to a 4:30 showing so it felt like a lazy afternoon. Good cold weather activity.
I liked it a lot. I hate to bring up 2 movies it most resembles are THE FOUNTAIN and TREE OF LIFE.
And the gay part is nice.
[quote]Why was that particular replicant the one that everybody focused on?
Was she engineered to make her revelations?
yes, she and that other one WERE, it is mentioned a science project that the ne'er-do-college student bought the rights to that started experimenting with the formula of their "soap" waiting to see whether they would "degenerate" after "ascending". Of course this could all have been a part of their plan laid out at the end of that chapter.
Every section except one had a group of people being marginalized, the slaves, the gays, the elderly, the replicants and then ultimately the humans. The only section that was left out was the SF section. Or did I miss that?
so is it worth seeing?
In the SF section, I would argue everybody in the nuclear plants explosion area was marginalized.
[quote]The only section that was left out was the SF section.
conceivably the rich reactor directors were subjugating the rest of the world for their own profits.
So is this a "must see on the big screen" or OK to just rent?
Beautifully shot...I think it benefits from the big screen.
I second seeing it in a theater; it heightens the immersive experience of being in the different time periods. There is an IMAX version as well.
Awful. Friend would nudge me awake. After awhile, I started punching him back
See on the big screen. At home, you may feel the urge to do something else while watching, and this movie needs complete attention.
And it's beautiful to look at. Except for Jim Sturgess's Asian features. Oy!
If you look at the credits on IMDB it sort of tells the story this picture was in. Since when do the Wachowskis use anyone else to write or direct? Right? Well in THIS movie they had "help" from Tom Twyker of Run Lola Run fame. Help as in directing and writing.
IOW, the studio didn't like the first cut of this, Twyker was hired to clean up this shit of a movie.
And let us not forget where "Lana" told the studio that they were NOT going to do any interviews for one of their movies or else they just "would never direct again". Get her! Sheesh. They are lucky not to be cleaning up garbage.
Actually it sounds like Twyker was hired to clean up their garbage. And garbage it is. It is doing absolutely shit at the BO.
They are pretentious twits and the emporer has no clothes.
Actually, Tykver was the first name attached to both screenplay and directorial credits of this German production in 2009; the Wachowskis, who were already collaborating on the screenplay, came onboard as co-directors two years later. Tykver and the Wachowskis filmed their segments in parallel with separate crews. Tykver is also co-composer of the score.
Saw it a second time on screener, and while I loved it on the big screen, on the little screen, it's a bit harder to love these characters.
While many people have said the 70s reporter story was the most extraneous, I would have to say it was the present day one at the retirement home storyline that could have been dropped. It was just a funny trifle of a story.