Margot Robbie Panned for “Babylon”

Robbie, in a film-ruining performance, is more attuned to Chazelle’s sensibilities but nevertheless manages to tank Babylon with her artless, emotionless insensitivity. Sandwiched between Pitt, who is stuck in a side subplot, and Calva, who is too green to front a big film like this, Robbie should have assumed center stage and carried the film on her shoulders. In this mélange of helter-skelter shenanigans, she could have been the figure that eventually holds and grips the audience and takes them on a journey along with her. That’s what Emma Stone would have done, for whom the part was written.

The character of Nelly is a wild-child, a manic-pixie who implodes and leaves a wake of destruction in her wake. One can imagine Stone, bringing her empathetic stardom to bear, making the audience care for even this person. Robbie manages no such miracle. She plays a crude, snide, foul-mouthed nuisance, Harley Quinn all over again from the DC films or even Tonya Harding from I, Tonya (2017).

At this point, it is worth pondering whether Robbie is simply a one-trick pony or essentially playing herself in all her parts. There was some outrage when it was first reported that Robbie might be campaigned in the Supporting category for awards consideration. Turns out that outrage was misplaced because Robbie manages the unlikely feat of giving a supporting performance in a leading role.

Another flop for Damien Chazelle. First Man was an utter bore.

She should be more worried about Barbie.

Emma Stone would have elevated this shit to a cult classic trash.

Why didn’t Emma Stone do it?

Margot Robbie has looks that on other actresses looks like drag.

Margot Robbie has always been one-note and I'm tired of Hollywood pushing her on us.

Who's the Weinstein v2.0? Because her PR campaign reminds me of JLaw some 6-7 years ago - fluff pieces and cover stories in magazines, media ubiquity, being told that she's the best thing to happen to Hollywood in ages, etc.

R8: I want to know who is Chalamet's Weinstein too.

Margot Robbie is gorgeous and I could watch her all day (cis gay male here) but the trailer for this, which I’ve seen about eight times, makes it look like an ugly mess. It looks anachronistic, no attempt at period detail, which bugs me. Diego Calva doesn’t have the looks or presence to be a leading man. We evidently get to see Brad Pitt’s (still great) ass through wet, transparent white underpants, which did cause me to waver, but I don’t want to see this, except maybe streaming on TV.

The trailer looks terrible. Why was this movie made and so much put into it? It has been done before—and better. I predict a massive flop.

She’s no Meryl or Julia. Sad last days. All hype.

I’m interested in seeing it. I’d it sucks I guess I’ll enjoy it in a different way

I believe that this author has vastly overestimated the mediocre Miss Sharon Stone's acting chops.

I predict that equally beautiful blonde Australian actress Samara Weaving is going to steal Margot's place in Hollywood.

I saw some small clip online and thought her acting was bad. It seemed like she was trying too hard.

[quote] Babylon is many things, but above all else it is crass. The first glimpse of the wild party the elephant is on its way to attend involves a woman squatting and pissing all over a guy who’s giggling on the floor of a bedroom. Another character pisses himself when he’s threatened.

Lovely. Is Mr. Chazelle into golden showers, per chance?

Yet when I mentioned last year how Damien Chazelle was a one-trick pony and overrated, I got nothing but criticism.

One of the most overrated directors working in Hollywood today.

[quote]Robbie is simply sensational here in a go-for-broke performance that really lands.

[quote]When Robbie is on the screen, it's impossible to take your eyes off her, even when she’s dancing in a packed mansion. But it's that innate star power that makes this role so perfect for her. We especially see how great Robbie is when she’s on the set, giving us slight variations of the same scene, yet her ability to make each take different simply by her mannerisms and her choices in the scene. From the moment we see Nellie act, we know she's a star, and we once again get another great role where Robbie can show how tremendous she can be.

Pete Hammond likes every movie he sees. That is a very low bar.

They'll probably dump "Barbie" in the winter doldrums period of Jan./Feb.

Barbie doesn’t come out until July.

Margot has flopped with Amsterdam and Babylon.

Sounds like she's not one of those actors who can carry the narrative. Not enough dramatic imagination. I liked her in I, Tonya, but she was playing a character who has no self-awareness and isn't ever truly authentic. She's been fine in some supporting roles--Once Uppon a Time in Hollywood and Wolves of Wall Street, but clearly she's got some limits.

Oh well, who's next?

I thought she did about as well as anybody could do playing the role of Sharon Tate.

No matter who was chosen, the actress was going to face a tidal wave of criticism about not being pretty/charismatic/enough of an ingénue to convincingly play Tate.

Margot Robbie seems like a nice person, but she does not have the mysterious "it" factor to really carry most films. She's pretty and a decent actress, but she really has to force her charisma, and it doesn't come across as authentic the vast majority of the time. As R24 said, she was watchable in "I, Tonya" because she was playing a crass and raving cunt, which diverted attention from other elements of the performance that were not that notable. Even still, her performance in that movie felt lukewarm to me compared to a lot of the actors surrounding her.

In this role, she appears again to be leaning into outrageousness and bravado (not entirely her fault, as the role was likely written with this), but that alone will quickly lose efficacy if there's not enough wiring under the floorboards of the performance—which seems to consistently be the problem with her. Based on the clips, I too have trouble buying her as a '20s starlet. She sounds like a modern day chain-smoking hairdresser from New Jersey.

All that said, I still might go see this just for the spectacle. I like a (good) movie about old Hollywood—"The Day of the Locust" is one of the best I think, if not the best. Even if Robbie's performance is weak in this, I'm frankly more offended by Brad Pitt giving us another paint-by-numbers performance as a slick Hollywood fuckwit with "clever" one-liners.

Also, is it just me, or is Robbie's hairstyle and overall look giving hard Fergie in "Nine" vibes?

I loved this movie and thought Robbie was sensational. She was so vibrant. I am honestly surprised that more critics don't like it.

She appears miscast in this movie.

I get Robbie confused with about five other blond blue-eyed actresses. There is nothing remotely interesting about her. Yvonne Strahovski (Serena on Handmaids Tale) is a FAR superior actress with actual range. She is much more deserving of the roles Robbie lands.

Watching the new trailer, it seems more apparent to me that something is off about the period details in this. I don’t know if it’s the sets, the costumes, or both—or maybe just that vintage fashion has made a comeback. I don’t know. But it looks like a piss-poor recreation of the era (unless Chazelle was really going for anachronism, which I don’t think is the case).

People who see this will be upset that it’s 3 hours and Brad Pitt is in a supporting role. The male lead is an unknown actor.

R31 that makes it sound more promising as far as I'm concerned. I've had sufficient of Brad Pitt. I already bought a ticket to see it this coming Thursday night. I suspect it will either be a "love it" or "love to hate it" situation.

It can’t be worse than Tar.

I'm so looking forward to seeing "Barbielon" R3.

[quote] Babylon is many things, but above all else it is crass.

This article was written by Rich Juzwiak, the former Gawker writer who can’t cum without writing 500 words about it.

For him to disapprove of debauchery seems out of character, to say the least.

Someone really hates MR because this is like the 3rd thread saying she’s flopping. I’ve seen mainly positive reviews for this. On another note.... Brad Pitt looks really fluctuate these days. A couple of months ago he was looking younger and pretty great. At the premiere he looked older, but also good.

Robbie is a one-trick pony and everyone seems tired of her.

Anya Taylor-Joy in Florence Pudge are the new IT girls.

JLaw's films, like Katy Perry's music, are done.

Margot is BLAH. Her problem is she’s always outdone by male co-stars in ensemble movies and picks shitty scripts for her female led movies.

Anya Taylor Joy freaks me out now. She got so thin she looks like an alien. If she looks that on screen I can only imagine what she looks like in real life.

Florence is fine. She’s cute but I haven’t been wowed by her yet either.

Of the younger crop of actresses I really like Jessie Buckley, Vanessa Kirby, Vicky Krieps and Lea Seydoux. They’re all foreign and mostly do independent/arthouse work so they’ll have long and varied careers rather than being “IT” girls. Saoirse Ronan is a technically good actress but leaves me absolutely cold.

Also, I wish I liked Mia Goth but I feel like the Gen Z “film” fans are trying too hard to push her as some horror goddess. I saw a tweet the other day comparing her Pearl performance to Kathy fucking Bates in Misery!

I wonder what happened to Emily Browning. I know I’m in the minority, but I LOVED Sucker Punch. To me it was far better than every single superhero movie released before or after it. Same with Abbie Cornish actually, she was really impressive in that Jane Campion movie about Keats.

I didn’t see LaLa Land because I thought it looked dumb but I do want to see this. I find Robbie fun to watch as an actress so even if it sucks it won’t be hell to watch

Is everything a Marvel Alternate Universe template?

Agree with R8. Whose pole has this talentless bimbo been smoking?

They really are pressing us hard with 'Margot Robbie'.

I give her credit for replacing Jennifer Lawrence so quickly, but I don’t find her very interesting or talented.

She's nominated for a Golden Globe, Critic's Choice Award, Satellite Award and AACTA International Award (thus far) for Babylon.

[...]

She gets the roles because she looks like a movie star.

That doesn’t bring in audiences.

She seems to think she's gonna be around forever.

[...]

Why does she have 80’s hair in a 20’s setting?

R45 I'm not the biggest Margot champion, but Lady Gaga would have completely killed this movie—and not in a good way. She is one of the most abysmal "actresses" of the 21st century.

A "depraved, disgusting ode to Hollywood", "crass" and "never bores"—none of those things translate to "bad film" in my book. I am struggling to understand what this inane writer's central point of criticism was. What a stupid fucking review.

[...]

Piss, shit, and vomit.

Sounds like a fraternity rush party.

She isn't even Elizabeth Berkeley?! Oh dear. That's quite a put down!

Robbie looks like dollar stare Jaime Presley.

R49: She literally compared herself to Katherine Hepburn.

Crawford & Davis must be in tears from Cinematic Heaven at what Hollywood has become.

But will Margot Robbie still have a career by the end of this decade tho? Hollywood moves on very quickly these days. It's not like back when people like Crawford & Davis or Lansbury & Hepburn etc, had careers that lasted 40 50 60 70 plus years in show business. It's possible, but you have to really work at it & you gave to truly enjoy being a Star & being in showbiz in Hollywood these days. It seems that all people really care about today, is just getting to "the bag." Nothing else really.

She has ugly eyes.

I can't get past how anachronistic the trailer looks. It's like they weren't even trying to capture the era.

I wonder if it will even open at $10 million. It cost $80 million before prints and advertising. Margot Money Loser.

R39 while the gen-Z hype over Mia Goth is overblown, she is a fantastic and weird actress—truly the millennial equivalent to Shelley Duvall. If I'm being frank, the trending social media over her portrayal of Pearl reads to me as borderline mockery, with people recreating some of her bizarre and insane line delivers ("I'm a STARRR!"). In some ways, it is a camp performance, but there was a lot of emotional depth that she brought to that role. She was heartbreaking, pitiful, endearing, and terrifying all at once. Certainly a lot more interesting and daring than anything I've seen Margot Robbie do on-screen.

I don't know that comparing Goth to Kathy Bates is at all useful or relevant, but I do believe her performance in "Pearl" will go down in the annals of genre history as one of the best of the era, if not all time. Little Miss Flo in "Midsommar" only WISHES.

Lady Gaga is in her 40s. I like her music but she’s not the right choice for an up and coming starlet

People already predicting a doom and gloom box-office scenario for Damien Chazelle’s “Babylon” should probably check out these numbers.

Deadline is reporting that Chazelle’s film is currently tracking to make $18 million on its opening weekend. So, those are pretty good numbers give the current moviegoing circumstances. I’m actually very surprised.

Martin Scorsese’s “The Wolf of Wall Street,” a fairly similar 3-hour passion project, opened to $19 million in the pre-COVID days. How Deadline managed to get these numbers I don’t know, but it’s a positive sign for the film.

What I don't understand is why this is set in the 1930s when nothing about it even remotely resembles the 1930s? I would never have guessed from the trailers and certainly not Margot Robbie's overblown hair.

R64, Gaga is 36, Robbie is 32. Not that huge of an age difference.

The only problem with Gaga's casting is that she wouldn't be believable as a 1920s or 30s starlet. She doesn't have the looks that capture that era. Although then again, neither does Margot Robbie.

Margot is the current it girl but at 32, she only has a few more years.

When Barbie flops, she won't even have a few more years. Her casting was most bizarre in Mary Queen of Scots next to Saoirse Ronan. They should have cast a more seasoned actress.

Mia Goth is one ugly bug eyed freak with a weak chin. She reminds me of that other bug eyed freak from England. Now I discover they were both in a film together.

Looks like Alien meets Westworld.

Actresses seem to fit two categories; the Margot Robbie Tits and Ass School

or....

The Unattractive and Kooky Brigade.

R63 Goth is brilliant. I can't wait to see what she will do next.

R68 Robbies looks are very of the 1965- 1975 era. I can see why she was cast OATIH. I can see her as a starlet or playboy model of that time. 1920s not so much.

The hair is an odd choice

Robbie is abysmal in "Babylon"...her work is crude and aimless...I don't ever want to see her in a movie again after this thing.

Margot is beautiful in a generic Hollywood prototype. This tweet is funny.

She looks like a fuckable Ellen Burstyn

Ah, goddamnit: who are the actresses in the squares? Twitter is too sprawling to narrow it down in 243 comments... I can't even tell which one is Margot.

I hated X, but I did like Pearl somewhat better. Mia Goth carries the movie very well and had a mostly strong grasp on the outlandish character.

I will keep watching her films because I agree that the risks she takes (even when they don't land) are way more admirable than Margot and co.

I couldn't stand La La Land, First Man and Babylon. Chazelle is so fucking inauthentic.

One thing I’ll say for Margot, she made one hell of a lot of money for DC’s merchandising line by popularizing Harley Quinn.

[quote] who are the actresses in the squares?

The first one is Jamie King. And the graph just illustrates how uncreative Hollywood still is with casting.

I suppose if you’re born with looks like that you know you have a place in Hollywood….

Thank you!!!

[quote]something is off about the period details in this

It's not supposed to be an accurate period reproduction, which should be obvious to anyone who saw Robbie's long, stringy hair. The clips I've seen of "Babylon" seem to capture the feel of that time (desperate, grungy, end of an era, beginning of the Great Depression) rather than the actual look of the time. There's a reason Samantha Weaving and Li Jun Li are period accurate but Margot Robbie's isn't.

Gaga couldnt act her way outta a paper bag.

Ellen Burstyn is eminently fuckable.

What is the reason Robbie is not in period looks and the others are R85?

I've never heard of Emma Mackey and Faith Ford in that tweet...

I think Margot will be fine in the long run. I like her and she seems to have her eye on the big picture. She's already producing projects, even ones that aren't for her to star in. Reese W didn't start doing that until she got stuck in Rom Com Hell

R89, Faith Ford was best known as a supporting actress on Murphy Brown in the '80s and '90s. Emma Mackey was in the Death on the Nile remake.

I think that does show how the tweet comparing the six women is kind of an exaggeration. Ford is old enough to be the mother of several of those women, and two more of them (Jaime King and Jamie Pressley) were starlets from the early 2000s who haven't been relevant in a decade or more.

The critical consensus is that Margot is great in Babylon. She got Golden Globes, Critics Choice, AACTA nominations for her work in Babylon and will probably be Oscar nominated for it. We're now using two obscure bloggers as reference? Hell, even Blachett got panned in Tár. A critic called Blanchett performance terrible lol.

I hate her stupid fake Brooklynese.

The NYT panned it/her and said she was “badly used.”

I saw it this afternoon at a 3:00 matinee. There was one other person in the theater. Granted, we are in the midst of an ice storm where I live, so that could have had something to do with it, but I don't see this turning out big box office numbers over Christmas.

That said, I liked it—didn't love it, though I loved parts of it. The first 2 hours are fucking fantastic, but in the third hour, I got the sense that the sheer breadth of the project was causing it to sort of collapse in on itself with the way the character arcs were handled. It does drag at points in the last act. It really does have some fantastic moments though—the opening sequence at the lavish party is pure cinematic gold. The practical details revolving around the silent-to-sound transition were interesting, too. There is a great, protracted sequence where Robbie is trying to hit her mark and deliver lines with repeated failures and interruptions. Great stuff. Film buffs and people who are interested in film history will enjoy those elements.

For what it's worth, I thought Robbie was pretty good in this. I can't say she blew me away, but I ended up being pleasantly surprised by her. It was also nice seeing Tobey Maguire (playing someone totally unhinged, no less), and Jean Smart was great as the pointed Louella Parsons-esque columnist. The ending with the century-spanning montage of film clips felt cheap and out of place, though.

I wouldn't go see it again in theaters (once is enough, especially given that it runs 3+ hours), but I will likely watch it again when it hits streaming/Blu-ray.

She is attractive and they really try to push her but she doesn't have the *it factor* that makes you want to see her in things.

Washington Post:

Babylon (R)

“Quite honestly, by the time this muddled, overcrowded, tiresomely digressive trip finally crashes like so many post-binge hangovers, [writer-director Damien] Chazelle’s point has gotten lost in a self-indulgent, manically erratic shuffle.” (In theaters, 1.5 out of 4 stars) — Ann Hornaday

Damn, the critics really are goring this. It's flawed for sure, but I didn't think it was that bad. It's certainly better than a lot of the garbage that has been churned out by the mainstream in recent years. I envision a major box-office flop though.

Do fireballs from the sky take out all of these pricks and prickettes at the end of movie so that they receive the punishment that they so richly deserve?

Haven't seen it yet. I do think she has star quality in that she's beautiful, charming in interviews, and at ease in front of the camera. I remember watching her on Neighbours with my sister (I'm Australian) and even back then when she was still kind of developing her 'look', we both said within 5 years she would have made the jump to L.A and made it in Hollywood. I think it was only about 3 years later she had her breakout in the Wolf of Wall Street.

The only thing is, she seems intent on being a 'serious actress'. I admire the ambition, and she makes great and diverse choices generally. but I think sometimes she is too ambitious for her capabilities. Maybe something slightly more generic - but still high quality - would suit her. Rather than jumping between Barbie / Mary Queen of Scots / Babylon. The below scene is pure Oscar bait, but I do think she delivered as Tonya, she gave the movie a lot of heart.

It was long & frantic. Long. Loooonnnnggg. Robbie fine (Jean Smart was my fav) I’d tell people not to bother until it streams. - one could break it down to an hour at a time - maybe it would break up the relentlessness. Maybe. To be fair: two of the five of us really liked it.

Amateur

Yep, it's offically a bomb- worse than Amsterdam. And even worse than a critically Whitney boipic with an unknown lead actress.

*critically panned Whitney biopic

It’s doing so poorly the studio didn’t even release preview box office numbers from last night.

They just did. Ouch

Paramount’s Babylon at 3,343 theaters is seeing $1.6M today, including previews, a 3-day of $4.5M and 4-day of $6.5M in fourth. Critics’ score landed at 55% Rotten, with audience score better at 74%.

IMDb weirdly has almost 1,000 user ratings racked up for the film, but so far only 3 user reviews (all glowing) have been published on there. I am sure many more users have submitted written reviews. Very odd.

Scam

A friend and I were looking for a movie to see Christmas night. This, the Fabelmans, the Whitney Houston bio pic and dark horse The Menu are the choices. She vetoed this one right off. The others didn’t exactly thrill either. The Whitney Houston one looks like a TV movie, so I vetoed that. I don’t know much about The Menu. So the Fabelmans it is.

Avatar is a hard pass. I miss getting excited about seeing a movie.

I wonder if they will say box office was impacted by cold weather but it could still recover its $80 million cost. Deadline will never say something is a flop.

R109 Good choice. The Menu is also a good alternative

The Woman King is still in theaters. Voila's.range of facial expressions are impressive. Go see that instead!

R109. I wanted to like The Menu. Was all in for a goofy horror pic. This one wasn’t it. Silly beyond words. Ralph Fiennes is entering his ghoul /hag era. Or is already in it. I’m pretty easy on movies. Watch them & move on. - i just want peeps to save their coins on movie bombs. Anyway. Have a good time with your friend.

The box office results is less than Amsterdam.

Can someone please spoil the ending of Babylon? What’s so audacious about it? Do frogs fall from the sky?

She isn’t panned though. That means the majority of critics are trashing her performance. They aren’t. The film is getting bad reviews, but she has mostly good reviews. Almost all the reviews say she’s the best thing about the movie.

Way over praised for I, Tonya.

Nothing about her performance suggested Tonya Harding. Nothing. And that’s a problem.

Chazelle bothers so many critics (and me as well!) because he imitates other artists with precision and talent, but his work has no heart and soul - it feigns emotion but doesn’t evoke. All flash and no substance.

Robbie needs to pick better parts - she could be excellent in Barbie, playing off the human doll thing, which is similar to why she was so good in Wolf of Wall Street. She seems more interesting in her personal life than she’s able to come across on screen.

The NYT and other reviews panned her performance. Now the box office predictions are down to $5 million for the Christmas weekend. Major flop.

Must be her husband is cool with her saying she went off script and kissed Brad Pitt because she figured that would be her only chance to.

Nah r120. Brad Pitt has been into Robbie. He’s who requested she be cast as Sharon Tate and he wanted to work with her again here.

They bang

Who needed Babylon? From its dawn in about 1915 to either The Hays Code (1934) or just before WWII, the movie business—particularly during the early to mid 1920s—would make for a fantastic period series...such as we will not be seeing very much of any more. Too expensive and not enough interest.

Wally Reid's story alone would make for a great arc. But there were so many stories/scandals—both major (Fatty Arbuckle, Thomas Ince, Paul Bern) and minor (Jack Pickford & Olive Thomas)—and the money being made and spent at the time was astounding. Films about the era have failed (The Wild Party, The Day of the Locust) because the medium is not right. You really need a television series—a Boardwalk Empire type of approach. Something less concerned with a message and more concerned with entertaining storytelling and a tapestry of characters.

R115 the events of the movie mirror, on one level, the events of Singin' in the Rain. The main character flash forwards 20 years. He goes to see Singin' in the Rain. We see scenes from it. Then increasingly quick cuts of some of the greatest films of all time. Kubrick, Bunell, Scorsese, Spielberg. Minelli- and even a quick clip of the newest Avatar. It becomes an insane cacophony of sight and sound.

There is a similar scene toward the end of Interview with a Vampire. But, that's what the director is largely doing here. Essentially reframing scenes from movies he loves like a Pulp Fiction and Boogie Nights.

I fucking LOVE this movie, and Margot Robbie is fantastic in it.

My friend saw it 3x already, and I’m not joking.

Oh I don't know r68. She's done it before on AHS. I thought she was decent.

Samara Weaving = nepo baby

"Punishing?" Punishing.

"Despite the relentless churn on set and after hours, the movie is strangely juiceless. I don’t simply mean that it’s unsexy (which it is), but that there’s so little life in the movie, despite all the frantic action. There isn’t much going on other than the spectacle of its busily spinning parts, which might be tolerable if the first two hours weren’t so unrelievedly unmodulated, with everything synced to the same monotonous, accelerated pace. This hyperventilated quality initially serves the story and Chazelle’s concept of the era’s delirious excess, but the lack of modulation rapidly becomes enervating. After a while, it feels punishing." -manohla dargis

Hollywood loves to waste money on stories about itself…

Paramount’s Babylon had a $1.47M Friday, which is translating into a $3.34M three-day and four-day of $5M. The Hollywood period pic, with a running time of 3 hours, 8 minutes, received a C+ from audiences who bought tickets. Not shocking for a movie with a first half hour that includes an elephant pooping on someone, and a Fatty Arbuckle-like character reaping enjoyment at a raging party out of a — never mind. PostTrak was at 74% and a low 47% definite recommend. Relish Mix says that “some are on the fence about this star-studded romp” on social. Guys at 60% attended, 45% between 18-34, 31% over 45. Diversity demos were 68% Caucasian, 12% Latino and Hispanic, 9% Black and 11% Asian and other. The movie’s business was on the coasts in the big cities, which is also not a surprise, i.e., Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and San Diego.

At the end of the day, no matter where the movie’s gross lands, Paramount did continue to champion this $80M pic for the awards season, even though it was greenlit by former Paramount Pictures Motion Picture Group president Wyck Godfrey (who also produced Damien Chazelle’s First Man). In fact, the studio just made a first-look deal with Chazelle’s production company Wild Chickens, underscoring its faith in the Oscar-winning filmmaker.

The trailer looked too chaotic. Most people would even get what it was about.

Wouldn’t^

Hilarious tweet from a projectionist in Dubuque, Iowa which apparently I can’t copy/paste.

There have been examples for years that you can’t sell a story about Old Hollywood to the public (Hail Caesar, Café Society, The Last Tycoon, Ryan Murphy’s Hollywood) but they still greenlit this thing. But, Paramount has been badly run for years. Top Gun was merely a fluke owing to the fact that the rights still belonged to the studio.

R133 the difference between this one and those you listed are this is a big budget big studio film. Those you listed are small independent studio films.

C+ for Margot. Hahaha 😝

I'm seeing this Monday. I don't care if it is bad.

Something about the spectacle of it. Just appealing to me for some odd reason.

The Last Tycoon and Ryan Murphy’s Hollywood were big budget steaming dramas.

R109 I miss that too. Lining up to see the next big movie. A movie that you really don't want to miss. I haven't felt that way about a movie in a long time. Most of the movies now, I read about and go "well, I can wait until it streams"

OMG. What a bomb. But the same things critics are calling out about this film were present in his other films. I hated Lalaland and Whiplash, which in my experience was a cinematic torture chamber. I did admire First Man though. The guy is a terrific director but a terrible writer. I’ll only see his films if someone else scripted it.

Sorry, but these women who how so much work to became generic Barbies, well, while it may win them roles (playing Barbie), it renders them totally uninteresting.

Margot had two high-profile bombs: Amsterdam and Babylon.

Whiplash was very good at times but too long and contrived.

La La Land was ridiculous schlock. Emma Stone’s win is one of the worst. I actually think Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock and Halle Berry’s wins were much better than hers, but theirs are always more criticized.

Call me "gramps," trolls, but just reading the description of this movie. it's too tasteless and gross for me to waste my time on. Very weird shit is considered entertainment, these days.

Margot scat film

I got more positive mentions than she did.

I saw it this afternoon. In Chicago, at the old at light. It was half full. The three hours went by fast. It is not a good movie but I enjoyed it. BTW, what the fuck is that scene with Tobey, the one inside the tunnel?

R142 Emma’s win for La La Land was not deserved—she deserved the Oscar for The Favourite thought IMO. That was an excellent performance.

R146, I think Tobey Maguire in this is probably closer to his actual personality than any character he’s ever played.

The one casting decision that stood out to me was Max Minghella. If you had to cast an actor as Damien Chazelle, Minghella is the obvious choice, so having him play Irving Thalberg and yet make him a villain feels strangely confessional.

R148 is Tobey known for being insane? I don't know much about him, and he's seemed to have a low profile for the last decade. I thought his sequence in the film was a lot of fun. Utterly batshit, and creepy.

[quote]I saw it this afternoon. In Chicago, at the old at light.

R146 What does this mean?

I think that person meant "at the old ArcLight theater."

Another hilarious tweet.

I read the plot summary for this and it sounds like it was written by an ambitious fourteen year old who bought “Hollywood Babylon” at a garage sale.

Thanks R151, that's what I meant. The old ArcLight (very much missed) in Chicago that is now AMC New City, unfortunately.

Babylon basically cratered in real time, went from 5.3mm four day to 4.8mm

Entirely likely won’t even hit $10 million domestic

Paul Schrader says the movie isn't well-researched.

I wonder if the Academy regrets giving Chazelle the Best Director Oscar so early in his career. Legends like Spielberg and Scorsese had to wait decades before getting it, and this after creating several classics. Chazelle wins it from his third film that most people have already forgotten about.