Or in the words of Nikki Finke, "Dead on arrival."
Brad Pitt's Collapse is complete! 'Killing Them Softly" TANKS!
|by Anonymous||reply 114||05/05/2013|
I saw there was a big throng
And I heard he had a style
And so I came to see him
To listen for a while
And there he was Angelina's boy-toy
A cinematic danger to my eyes.
(So I walked out.)
|by Anonymous||reply 2||12/01/2012|
His paycheck cleared. He's not worried.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||12/01/2012|
It's an arthouse film.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||12/01/2012|
He's had some big movies. The Oceans 11 movies did well, as did Seven. More recently, Benjamin Button and Inglorious Basterds did pretty well.
I never understand why we proclaim a movie tanked when it's been in theaters for a day. Every once in a while doesn't a movie come around that gets great word-of-mouth, and builds at the box office? Like My Big Fat Greek Wedding?
|by Anonymous||reply 5||12/01/2012|
R5, that happens once every 20 years, as you can see based on your example.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||12/01/2012|
James Gandolfini is turning into the kiss of death for any movie he's in.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||12/01/2012|
That's not true R6. It happens every year or two. It's usually a smaller movie that cleans up at the awards.
More recent examples are The King's Speech and Slumdog Millionaire. Both earned well over $100M, but slowly, never earning more than $10M-$15M in a given week.
So it's possible this has been declared dead prematurely. But it might be a stretch; it's getting some good reviews, but overall they're mixed.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||12/01/2012|
He needs to clean himself up. There's nothing appealing about that scraggly beard and long string hair look that he's been sporting. I can't stand it. Same goes for Ashton. Cut that shit out boys and get back to your hot GQ clean cut look.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||12/01/2012|
Its an arthouse film but its also a dark subversive thriller not really awards fodder. Since the last film he made with this director also tanked but is considered a masterpiece I have a feeling the same will happen.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||12/01/2012|
Interesting quote from OP's link.
[quote]Wall Street called DreamWorks Animation’s Rise Of The Guardians “one of the most disappointing releases in the company’s history” – enough to hurt the public company’s share price. Analysts expected to see $55M-$58M for the toon over Thanksgiving – not $32.6M. But they join Hollywood in still struggling to understand why audiences rejected the film. No momentum even now.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||12/01/2012|
I think The Rise of The Guardians will do better overseas but perhaps not spectacularly. It opened in the UK on Friday to generally good reviews and I've heard film show presenters anticipating its release the last few weeks.
Does anyone know why it tanked so badly?
|by Anonymous||reply 12||12/01/2012|
R5 ~ statistics. The movie received an incredible F cinemascore from those who did see it. Even really crap movies get Bs from their target audiences. An F is very rare. It may not even make it to the projected 7.5 million with that score. The word of mouth will hurt it.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||12/01/2012|
For Your Consideration In All Categories, that looks like a spooky movie, weird title though.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||12/01/2012|
World War Z will put him back on top.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||12/01/2012|
What do you people call an arthouse film? This thing opened in 2,424 theaters, and according to the link, Lincoln is only in 2,018.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||12/01/2012|
I'm sure he'll cry over this "collapse" at one of his several homes.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||12/01/2012|
I didn't know this movie was even out.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||12/01/2012|
It's interesting on several levels - but not the cult film it so desperately (and conciously) wants to be...
Pitt is fine (very good, actually) - but there are long stretches when the film just coasts along, and is just...dull.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||12/01/2012|
79% on rotten tomatoes
Who is Nikki fink?
|by Anonymous||reply 20||12/01/2012|
Rise of the Guardians was terrible. Went with 5 yo niece. Who cares about Jack Frosts back story? The sand man? I was waiting for the Keebler Elves.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||12/01/2012|
"World War Z will put him back on top. "
I'd be a lot more interested in that film, if Brad Pitt wasn't in it.
He's such a weak actor, and so fucking overexposed!
|by Anonymous||reply 22||12/01/2012|
It looks like all those shitty ripoffs of Pulp Fiction that happened in the mid '90s.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||12/01/2012|
Did you watch the trailer for World War Z? It looks like the same movie we have seen a million times with the end of the world. All the zombie fans I know and have talked to are going to pass. They messed up the novel. It will bomb.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||12/01/2012|
Just goes to show the concept of 'The Movie Star' is long dead.
Brad Pitt may be A list, but if a movie doesn't appeal, it doesn't matter who is starring in it.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||12/01/2012|
World War Z has gone way over budget. And they needed to do a bunch of reshoots to rescue it. And the trailer looks like crap. It could actually damage his career (unlike this film which was made for $15million).
|by Anonymous||reply 26||12/01/2012|
He's a damn good actor and he's hot as hell. That you dig neither him nor his latest movie is totally irrelevant but not at all surprising. The actors you typically lust after are all interchangeable white bread twinks. I can't decide if you're all fat never-get-out-of-the-house types or little skinny ocd hipster wannabes. Which is it?
|by Anonymous||reply 27||12/01/2012|
[quote] Brad Pitt may be A list, but if a movie doesn't appeal, it doesn't matter who is starring in it.
He's A list to the press. He has A list name/fame recognition. But, he's infamous. A lot of people don't give a shit about him or his whole circus atmosphere. No one is saying, "oh my god, Brad Pitt has a new movie out. I have to see it"
|by Anonymous||reply 28||12/01/2012|
Plus he just looks so greasy and shabby and old in the ads. What's the appeal?
|by Anonymous||reply 29||12/02/2012|
[quote] He's A list to the press. He has A list name/fame recognition. But, he's infamous. A lot of people don't give a shit about him or his whole circus atmosphere. No one is saying, "oh my god, Brad Pitt has a new movie out. I have to see it"
Exactly. He can be decent when part of an ensemble but him carrying more serious fare is a tougher proposition and exposes all his limitations as an actor.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||12/02/2012|
[qoute]No one is saying, "oh my god, Brad Pitt has a new movie out. I have to see it"
Well, count me as one. I love the guy no matter what his hair looks like and I'm looking forward to seeing Killing Them Softly, as I have every other Brad Pitt movie. It did get an A in Entertainment Weekly.
That said, the "lone shooter" theme is becoming a cliche this season. First there was Joe Killer(?) with Matthew M., then this, and coming soon Jack Reacher with Tom Cruise. Which I will also see.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||12/02/2012|
Bigger news, tmz is reporting that he fucked Robin Givens and Mike Tyson walked in on it all.
Mike Tyson has revealed how he caught Brad Pitt having sex with his then-wife, actress Robin Givens!
Speaking on the In Depth With Graham Bensinger show on Yahoo! Sports, Tyson told the interviewer about a surprise encounter he had with Pitt while he was in the process of splitting from Head of the Class star Givens in the late '80s.
"I was doing a divorce but I—we—every day, before I would go to my lawyer's office to say she's a pig and stealing, I would go to…her house to have sex with her. This particular day, someone beat me to the punch. And I guess Brad got there earlier than I did."
Can you say cum dumpster? I knew you could.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||12/02/2012|
He looks like shit. That long, dirty-looking hair is ridiculous, especially at his age. I'll give him props for picking some interesting projects, but I would never say he is a damn good actor. Not sure he's ever been better than he was in Thelma & Louise.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||12/02/2012|
[quote] Not sure he's ever been better than he was in Thelma & Louise.
Which is really saying he never got better than being a pretty-boy mediocre actor, and now he's losing his looks.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||12/02/2012|
[quote] He needs to clean himself up. There's nothing appealing about that scraggly beard and long string hair look that he's been sporting
He's being chased by zombies right now. Not sure you'll have time to stop by a barber once the zombies are on the hunt.
This movie has received some stellar reviews - bunch of 5 stars especially in the UK and a number of 100s on Meta Critic. There is no way this deserves an F - what audiences did they poll? Matinees in Ft Lauderdale next to the 4 pm cafeteria?
|by Anonymous||reply 35||12/02/2012|
I went to see Killing Them Softly this afternoon. It is fucking boring. The acting and dialogue is atrocious. I was sitting there wondering if it was going to get any better when I saw a couple get up and walk out. I decided to follow. Somebody else followed us.
There are very few movies I can't sit through. This was one of them.
If EW gave it an A, the reviewer is an idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||12/02/2012|
Hopefully that's the end of him and the leg. Can't stand them and their blatent publicity stunts
|by Anonymous||reply 37||12/02/2012|
Saw the movie last night. Pitt is more than decent in the role but the movie is kind of a mess. On the one hand it's an intermittently very bloody gangster movie (Pitt is not a lone gunman--he's a hired assassin who sometimes has subcontractors in fact). The dialog is occasionally quite witty but the violence is very stagey and show-offy with lots and lots of blood. On the other hand, the director makes an explicit analogy between gangster crime and the banksters who were taking over the country in the 2008 election. There are indeed long draggy sections where characters have what appear to be acting showcases. I would say this comes close to being an in-action movie, to coin a phrase. Pitt does not look great with his longish greasy hair, but he's not supposed to in this movie; he's supposed to look like a redneck gangster. I didn't hate the movie but ultimately didn't like it much either.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||12/02/2012|
He's a vapid, dead-eyed bore, who thinks he's Paul Newman. As someone else rightly pointed out, he's A-list only in tabloid name recognition.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||12/02/2012|
I felt as if he knew me in all my dark despair.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||12/02/2012|
40, Pitt is A+ List period. And he very likely will be until the day he dies. Accept it.
The acting - particularly Pitt's - has been pretty much praised all around even by those not liking the film all that much. The dialogue is pretty faithful to the dialogue in the book by the great George Higgins. Cogan's Trade is considered Higgins' best book.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||12/02/2012|
Poor guy all he has left is his beautiful wife, handsome face and adorable kids.
I guess he'll just have to spend the next 30 or 40 years sitting on a pile of his money.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||12/02/2012|
It's kind of sad that he thinks if he looks like shit he'll be taken seriously as an actor, when all it does is prove that he reached the level of success that he has because of the way he looks.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||12/02/2012|
Agree with most others: the movie was a mess, had TONS of potential, but Brad Pitt was actually pretty damn good (surprisingly).
And why would anyone argue that Brad isn't A-list? Six men are A-list: Brad, Will, Leo, Johnny, George and Tammy. I can't stand most of them, but it is what it is.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||12/02/2012|
Yep, he made a big splash in Thelma & Louise, and it made him a star. Why? Because most people hadn't seen his pretty face before. There was nothing remarkable about the work he did in it, people just thought he was sexy. That's what it's always been about, same with Angelina.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||12/02/2012|
Gandolfini almost always gets praised in movies, but I don't think he's ever been in a hit.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||12/02/2012|
MPC keeps clearing his cookies.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||12/02/2012|
R45 is a douchebag, who knows nothing about the A List!
|by Anonymous||reply 50||12/02/2012|
He looks like the poor man's Billy Ray Cyrus.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||12/02/2012|
It bugs me the way he is so sorta bohemian with his kids, but in such a see through contrived, I bet they'll be fuck ups.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||12/02/2012|
R45, you forgot Matt Damon, Denzel, and DDL.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||12/02/2012|
[quote]He looks like the poor man's Billy Ray Cyrus.
Billy Ray Cyrus is the poor man's Billy Ray Cyrus.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||12/02/2012|
Robert Taylor in "Waterloo Bridge"- breathtakingly handsome.
Clark Gable in "Gone With the Wind"- facially, not as handsome as Taylor, but charismatically, he leaves Taylor in the dust.
Brad Pitt is today's Robert Taylor. He's a good actor and the most handsome face out there, but Pitt does not excite.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||12/02/2012|
Tinymeat? Hardly, as the world knows. MPC is, once again, a dumbass. And it needs a new nickname; fake suburban housewive's names are so 70's.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||12/02/2012|
He tells he kids Santa doesn't exist because he wants them to live in the !real world" the hire out restaurants for family dinners so the the little brats can have a food fight, the have no rules according to former nannies, yeah this real world for ya.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||12/02/2012|
Are you knew here? R58, the "collapse" threads are a longtime DL tradition.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||12/02/2012|
[quote]ix men are A-list: Brad, Will, Leo, Johnny, George and Tammy.
I'm not so sure Clooney still deserves A-List status as you define it. He's aging rapidly and he hasn't been in a blockbuster hit in years.
He still has the name recognition, but is he someone the studio will trust to carry a major film or a franchise?
|by Anonymous||reply 60||12/02/2012|
[quote]Did you watch the trailer for World War Z? It looks like the same movie we have seen a million times with the end of the world. All the zombie fans I know and have talked to are going to pass. They messed up the novel. It will bomb.
It's clearly not based on the book. It's supposed to be a trilogy. The book begins with the survivor's point of view AFTER the world has been taken over by zombies. The movie is clearly about the beginning of the zombie invasion. I would assume that movie three is going to be about the book.
People who have read the book might be disappointed but most Americans don't read books and prefer movies anyway.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||12/02/2012|
Honestly the f cinemascore is likely because people were misled about the kind of film they were seeing. I saw an ad on tv last week and honestly they way itwas ciut it looked like a crime comedy. It was weird.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||12/02/2012|
I wouldn't hold my breath for a wwz trilogy. With the budget that's been spent plus the marketing it won't work out.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||12/02/2012|
[R59 "Knew" here you say. Your response does not tell me WHY there is such enthusiasm for someone to fail. It might be a tradition but I don't understand that tradition. Brad and Angie are very very generous with their money. When you achieve their desired collapse and are cheering they will have less money to give to good causes.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||12/02/2012|
[quote] It's clearly not based on the book.
Not so sure about that. I am a big fan of the book but I realize that some changes had to be made to turn the book from a collection of time switching vignettes into a cohesive film.
Rather than telling the story as a retrospective with a narrator/investigator trying to uncover what happened in the past after the war is over, they seem to be using the narrator as an investigator trying to find out what is going on as it occurs. I'm okay with that. That doesn't really change the thrust of the overarching story. There are over 40 separate short stories in the book and they can incorporate those incidents and characters throughout the movie as part of a flowing story.
The book is basically about a world wide plague, how it started and how the various governments on earth handled the stages of the plague and how their politics and cultures made it worse and allowed it to get out of hand or helped to contain it and fight it. All those themes & stories can be told in a present time narrative without straying from the book.
It isn't so much that they are reshooting but that they never had an ending written when they started shooting - maybe as a result of indecision over the trilogy plan. It's the ending that has been rewritten a few times and that's what I believe they're filming. There is also a lot of CGI left to do.
Clooney is A list in name only and because of the Oscars - he can't get big films greenlit at all. Similarly, Denzel, DDL and Matt Damon. Though if Damon wanted to revisit Bourne he'd get that greenlit in a second.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||12/02/2012|
George was probably the lowest A lister on my list. But I still feel he's on that list. Damon, to me, is a small step below. DDL is an Actor more than a movie star. Denzel is like Tom Hanks. A bit long in the tooth, was once a sure fire A Lister, but is on the wan now. He has momentum after Flight, however.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||12/02/2012|
I think World War Z is going to be 2013's John Carter. Toxic buzz on that one...
|by Anonymous||reply 67||12/02/2012|
This thread made me curious, so I looked at Clooney's Imdb listings, and when you get right down to it, it's not all that impressive a body of work.
Take out Perfect Storm and Oh Brother, and there's not much there. Some interesting movies, I'll give him credit for that, but total box office can't put him in the top 10 for actors:
|by Anonymous||reply 68||12/02/2012|
I hated O Brother with a passion. But I really liked Good Night and Good Luck. I enjoyed Michael Clayton and Syriana - not so much Up In the Air. I even sort of enjoyed The Good German. I am looking forward to The Monuments Men.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||12/02/2012|
The public is fickle.
Who didn't know this was going to tank? Did any of you *ever* see any ads for it? Trailer??
World War Z should be a big hit.
But, you're right. Who can explain why Life of Pi isn't doing huge business here? Or Cloud Atlas, globally?
|by Anonymous||reply 70||12/02/2012|
The real problem is the mess that Hollywood screenwriting is in now.
I know this sounds all 'get off my lawn', but people at Pitt's level benefitted from good screenwriting back in the day.
High quality scripts would be tailored to the actor. The pool of script doctors too, was much better. A lot of iconic 'auteur' movies were saved by script doctors.
Steve McQueen was no hell as an actor, but he was saved by writers who tailored formulaic scripts to suit his screen charisma.
WTF is Brad Pitt doing in a zombie movie? I assume he is producing/developing it and needed to put himself in it to get it made. Otherwise, why?
|by Anonymous||reply 71||12/02/2012|
"When you achieve their desired collapse and are cheering they will have less money to give to good causes"
When their careers fade they'll still have more money than they could spend in twenty lifetimes, but yes, their charitable giving will slow considerably.
When they can no longer get fawning press from announcing donations, they won't see the point.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||12/03/2012|
R73 here. R72 aka R75, I'm a woman so you can take your insults toward the gay men here and shove them up your ass.
Considering you once had a real job your rather lame attempts at pretending to be some kind of gossip maven are just coming across as sad. The only gossip I think you had was what you were told in confidence as a friend by Thomas Roberts and you sold him out to get yourself attention.
Back in the game means back trying to date again now that your husband left you.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||12/03/2012|
It needs Paul Rudd or Michael Cera in it. These days if a movie is going to be a hit, it has to have Paul Rudd or Michael Cera.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||12/03/2012|
I just saw him on the cover of a magazine at the checkout (People?) and he is starting to look like a joke with his aging face and that long hair.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||12/03/2012|
Box Office Poison! Hollywood Royalty!
ZAHARA!!! FETCH ME... THE AXE!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 79||12/03/2012|
I'm sorry, but nobody who has seen Seven, 12 Monkeys, Kalifornia, and Fight Club can possibly say that Brad Pitt is a weak actor.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||12/03/2012|
Bunch of overrated crap.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||12/03/2012|
Don't you think Edward Norton elevated "Fight Club" along with Helena Bonham Carter despite the presence of Brad Pitt?
I enjoyed the ending with that subtle imagery.
Also Rupert Murdoch hated it which does add more zing.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||12/03/2012|
I was at the NY premiere of "Killing Them Softly", and Harvey was there to introduce the cast, almost all of whom were in attendance, including Brad.
And the audience was full of strivers and talent, ranging from Kanye West to Patrick Stewart to Patrick Wilson to Russell Simmons to Catherine Keener to a bevy of Victoria's Secret "Angel" models... We were all pumped up, and excited.
And then the film began.
Slowly and surely, the energy in the theater dissipated, probably inhaled and digested by the hungry models.
The polite and quietly respectful applause at the end said it all.
Pitt is fine. Not his fault. But it's a dull, lifeless mess, this film. Word-of-mouth is going to be poisonous. This one will be forgotten in weeks. I'm mainly curious as to why Pitt got involved with this one, not only as the lead actor but also one of the film's producers.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||12/04/2012|
Pitt and Dominick became friends making The Assassination of Jesse James fighting the studio together when they wanted to change it into god knows what which resulted in the studio essentially dumping what many have come to consider a masterpiece. Personally I loved Jesse James particularly Brad's performance (for some reason Casey annoyed me to no end) and am glad they fought so hard for the finished product.
But that cost them - Dominick a long dry spell between jobs and Brad a lot of his own money. Battles fought together like that make trench buddies and Brad has stayed loyal to Dominick who he seems to consider very talented as have others such as Sam Sheppard. His production company is scheduled to produce Dominick's next film, Blonde, about Marilyn Monroe.
Obviously KTS is not for everyone - LOL! or for most people. But it certain has its fans among serious film lovers and interestingly the UK critics overwhelmingly loved it and appreciated it. Most of the US critics who didn't like it complained about the "vulgar sex talk," the boring dialogue (poor George V. Higgins) and how they interpreted or misinterpreted the politics of it.
A sidelight - the film was financed cheaply for $15 million by Megan Ellison's Annapurna Pictures which rightly or wrongly gives the creatives great freedom in making their movies. She of the billionaire Ellison clan. She also financed Zero Dark Thirty.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||12/04/2012|
[quote]James Gandolfini is turning into the kiss of death for any movie he's in
He's a demanding actor, no wonder the film is tanking. I never liked him and his BIG ego.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||12/04/2012|
[quote]And the audience was full of strivers and talent, ranging from Kanye West
In what planet?
|by Anonymous||reply 87||12/04/2012|
[quote]I'm sorry, but nobody who has seen Seven, 12 Monkeys, Kalifornia, and Fight Club can possibly say that Brad Pitt is a weak actor.
He is a weak actor who does well when paired with good directors (Fincher, Gilliam) who know how to use him limited talent. The films you listed are all very good films.
Also, I agree with R71: a well written film is a good film. It will do well regardless who is in it, but it will do even better, box office-wise, with a movie star like Pitt.
Brad Pitt could never elevate a lousy script with his acting.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||12/04/2012|
Peter Travers called Pitt's performance in 12 Monkeys one of the worst of that year. The New Yorker once said that he doesn't act, he vamps.
He's just completely lacking in any kind of depth or interest.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||12/04/2012|
[quote] Google stats indicate that over 50,000 page views take place weekly in my obscure blog of no interest.
LOL! That would be her vainglorious self checking her site 49,995 times.
[Quote] Are you a certain STD laden ever hopeful schemer now living in Utah? No spec of pride in you, former Anita Sly, just sloppy seconds. As you used that exact wording "you once had a real job" in emails sent to me directly.
Told you all she was nuts. Now she imagines that her real life has followed her onto DL.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||12/04/2012|
[quote]The real problem is the mess that Hollywood screenwriting is in now.
Uh no. The real problem is the mess that are the major studios which are almost all owned by major corporations and they only care about "event" movies with a potential for grossing a billion dollars.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||12/04/2012|
Well, R89, since you put so much stock in Peter Travers. Here's his recent review of Killing Them Softly.
"Brad Pitt is on a roll – Moneyball, The Tree of Life, Inglourious Basterds, Burn After Reading. He’s a movie star with real acting chops, on full display in Killing Them Softly.
Pitt plays Cogan, a hit man brought in to clean up the mess when two idiots, Frankie (Scoot McNairy) and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn), rob a card game run by mobster Markie (Ray Liotta). Cogan is hired to exact gory punishment, which he negotiates with his Mob contact (a wryly funny Richard Jenkins) like a bloodless business deal.
Writer-director Andrew Dominik, who collaborated richly with Pitt on 2007’s The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, updates George V. Higgins’ Boston-based 1974 novel, Cogan’s Trade, by setting it in Louisiana right before the 2008 presidential election. Murder is just another day at the office for corporate America, and the film hammers that theme home with diminishing returns.
But the acting is aces, especially Pitt mixing it up with the superb James Gandolfini, as an assassin losing his game to hooch and hookers. Hang on. They make this movie a potently nasty provocation."
|by Anonymous||reply 92||12/04/2012|
Filling me softly with his dong, filling me softly with his doooooooong.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||12/04/2012|
Maybe 12 Monkeys was too early in his career for the overpraise to be mandatory. Critics used to hate Madonna and said she was talentless, until it was clear she wasn't going away, then the same people all started declaring her a genius. She still can't sing, but now they pretend it doesn't matter.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||12/04/2012|
Brad Pitt looks old and unattractive.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||12/04/2012|
LOL, R95, if that's old and unattractive I'll take it any day. Here's a photo from earlier this year. He still looks great and sexy to me for a 48 year old guy. But then I was never into twinks.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||12/04/2012|
Oh boy, R90, don't take your frau games here. The blog owner called you out by name (Anita S) because you send nasty emails to her and follow her blog. We're not interested in your spats that probably started out in middle-aged mental heaven otherwise known as the Brangie threads at Female First. Keep it there, okay, Twatstain?
|by Anonymous||reply 98||12/04/2012|
Um, R98, the woman is insane. But her paranoia is catching I see. Go check out her blog and you can see for yourself. I'm not quite sure what she fancies herself as but she thinks some chick was trying to steal her hubby and everyone has STDs. Twasn't me. LOL!
|by Anonymous||reply 99||12/04/2012|
I've never been able to find him attractive after hearing he doesn't always warsh hisself.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||12/04/2012|
At best, Brad is an adequate actor, never good, and sometimes laughably, horribly bad (Meet Joe Black, Legends of the Fall, Interview with a Vampire, Inglourious Basterds). He's had more laugh out loud, badly acted scenes than Keanu Reeves.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||12/04/2012|
[quote] He's had more laugh out loud, badly acted scenes than Keanu Reeves.
Now, that's just cruel.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||12/04/2012|
r91, I agree with you to a point, but even blockbusters are suffering from lack of quality writing. It's the poor execution of the concepts through the scripts.
The sad thing is they are often based on existing properties--half the work is already done.
Look at all the tentpole underperformances and the fan criticisms.
Not all of it is arcane geek griping. There are a lot of people who object to plot holes and uneven action/narrative balance, not to mention transitions.
Christopher Nolan, Michael Bay, Zach Snyder, etc. have all been called out for horrible scripts.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||12/04/2012|
Brad Pitt has enough money to raise a slew of kids, rebuild half of New Orleans, rebuild Joplin, Missouri, and fund the effort to pass gay marriage.
I doubt that he gives a fuck about the success or non-success of a single silly film.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||12/04/2012|
Thanks for that information. The whole project now makes much more sense. It was clear that BP had great affection for the director.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||12/05/2012|
Watching this now on pay per view. The soundtrack and tv/rado clips have all the subtlety of an eighth grader discovering irony. It's a dumb movie tricked out to look smart.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||05/04/2013|
I just saw it on t.v. too and I liked it and thought BP's character was cool. I liked his look, but then I'm not a BP/AJ hater like so many here.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||05/04/2013|
This film is overrated by some. There's a 5 star review of the DVD in the over zealous Uncut. Wtf, it's just a generic crime drama. I did not care for the direction or pace much but it was alright.
I liked the performances. I love that all the Animal Kingdom cast have been doing so well, that film is everything Killing Me Softly should've been.
Ben Mendelsohn who I had a major crush on back in the day is great to see a later career renaissance, even being in The Dark Knight Rises - very minor role or not, a great thing to be in. He was also good in The Place Beyond The Pines.
But this film was all about Scoot McNairy, I couldn't take my eyes off him. Swoon.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||05/05/2013|
And World War Z will tank too. That'll be his fault because he wanted all those changes to the original story. Idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||05/05/2013|
I have never understood Brad Pitt's appeal.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||05/05/2013|
"And World War Z will tank too. That'll be his fault because he wanted all those changes to the original story. Idiot"
If Pitt hadn't demanded changes, someone else would, don't blame him. The book is an interesting series of "what if" scenarios fleshed out, the only way to film it without changes would be as a fake documentary and that wouldn't have much popular appeal.
Of course, the end result probably isn't going to have much popular appeal anyway, if the rumors are true. But at least the author of a fun book got some Hollywood money.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||05/05/2013|
Weird, but Brad Pitt has never really been a box office star. He's never opened or carried movies like, say, Tom Cruise. The few that didn't flop were hits because of other factors. "Fight Club" would have been a hit regardless.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||05/05/2013|