Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

All things Natalie

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Dazza » Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:58 pm

What does it deserve though? A thousand screens isn't too bad for a Western, let alone one with such problems.
User avatar
Dazza
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5939
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:19 am
Location: South Africa

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Belerofonte » Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:00 pm

And more reviews...

RogertEbert.com... mostly positive:

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/jane-got-a-gun-2016

Entertainment Weekly... negative:

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/01/29/jane-got-a-gun-review
User avatar
Belerofonte
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 am
Location: Spain

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Belerofonte » Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:36 pm

Dazza wrote:What does it deserve though? A thousand screens isn't too bad for a Western, let alone one with such problems.


I did not say the number of theatres, but the lack of real marketing. It is no use being in movie theaters if the public is not even aware that you exist ... and I think they (Weinstein Co.) have done the least with minimum effort. understandably? probably, but it is still disappointing.

Anyway, what really bothers me is that it is the third consecutive Natalie film that I will not be able to see in theaters, and that frustrates me ... a little bit :wink:
User avatar
Belerofonte
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 am
Location: Spain

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Dazza » Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:44 pm

Yeah, I can see that, but you should get many more chances this year. In theory.
User avatar
Dazza
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5939
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:19 am
Location: South Africa

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Rachel » Sat Jan 30, 2016 3:15 am

There were 8 other people in the auditorium at the showing I saw tonight. I was probably the only one in the audience who didn't get a senior discount. FWIW, one person was wearing a cowboy hat. One lady was asleep when we were filing out. Not surprising given the genre and the absence of marketing. I was honestly surprised to see that many people. I can't see this getting a lot of word of mouth because there wasn't a lot to recommend.
Rachel
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 2:38 pm

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Belerofonte » Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:18 am

Predictions for Friday: $250K in 1210 theatres...

http://deadline.com/2016/01/weekend-box-office-kung-fu-panda-3-finest-hours-fifty-shades-of-black-1201692571/

Weinstein Co.’s service deal of the Natalie Portman western Jane Got a Gun is coming in lower than expected with $250K off 1,210 theaters for a FSS of $750K. The pic came to fruition at the 2012 Cannes film festival, originally from a Black List script by Brian Duffield with director Lynne Ramsay attached. Following her departure from the film on its first day of production, Warrior director Gavin O’Connor took over the film. Portman, who lives in Paris, made her way over to the states for the NYC premiere with co-star Joel Edgerton and made pit stops at Good Morning America and The Tonight Show. The pic’s financier Straight Up Films are handling P&A for Jane. Triple note that the 38% Rotten Tomatoes score for Jane is only off of 13 reviews. The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly and The New Yorker are among the few who have seen it.


This reinforces my view that, with independent of their quality, the film simply has not had any kind of visibility ...

... And we're going with more reviews:

Rotten Tomatoes: 38% with only 13 reviews account.
Metacritic: 52 with 10 reviews.

Los Ángeles Times, Variety & The Wrap; the most positive so far:


http://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/jane-got-a-gun-film-review-1201692416/

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-jane-got-gun-review-20160129-story.html

http://www.thewrap.com/jane-got-a-gun-review-natalie-portman-joel-edgerton-ewan-mcgregor/

Lukewarm reviews from cinemablend & We Got This Covered:

http://www.cinemablend.com/reviews/Jane-Got-Gun-69157.html

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/jane-got-gun-review/


Reading the reviews from the press, the review Rachel has made and IMDB notes, I think that this is a conventional western, one of many that could have been done in the fifties and sixties, no originality, but also made trade and correct perfomances. It's disappointing, but perhaps, after all the drama happened behind the scenes, was all we could wish it happened. Hopefully you have better luck in its exhibition at BD/Dvd.
User avatar
Belerofonte
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 am
Location: Spain

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Belerofonte » Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:09 pm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/01/30/kung-fu-panda-3-tops-box-office-with-soft-10-5m-friday-finest-hours-jane-got-a-gun-stumble/#8f62d0b27b23

You could write a book on the tragic production history of Jane Got A Gun. The film was written by Brian Duffield with star Natalie Portman bringing on Lynne Ramsay (hot off of We Need To Talk About Kevin) to direct. But Ramsay ended up leaving the film with Gavin O’Connor (Warrior) taking over while basically the entire male supporting cast got switched around (Michael Fassbender, Jude Law, and Bradley Cooper were in and then out while Joel Edgerton switched roles and Ewan McGregor ended up being the baddie). Cinematographer Darius Khondji also left, and was replaced by Mandy Walker. Anthony Tambakis (who wrote Warrior) was brought in it rewrite the screenplay. The film finally got finished only to have original distributor Relativity go bankrupt, and Weinstein Company eventually swooped in to save it. The picture now arrived, basically dumped in theaters sans press screenings, as more of a morbid curiosity than a feverishly anticipated entry.

And the sad irony is that, after all the fuss, it’s pretty good. It has some rough edges and it’s very slow (west), but it’s well acted, and its third act is awfully effective. If I may, Portman in full western gunfighter mode does cast an iconic image. I get why Weinstein didn’t spend much of a fuss on the film, as the financial Straight Up Films handled the marketing and the film has the whiff of damaged goods. But it’s not remotely a calamity and it’s a darn shame that this $25 million western drama is barely going to crack $750,000 for the weekend in 1,210 theaters. It earned $277k yesterday. I’m not saying you need to rush out and see it right now, but it’ll be one of those you stumble upon after theaters and feel a little bad for not giving it the theatrical support it could have used when you had the chance.
User avatar
Belerofonte
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 am
Location: Spain

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby awiseone » Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:03 pm

awiseone wrote:I reserve the right to form my own opinion about "Jane Got a Gun" ,after I see the movie.



To my surprise and delight it's showing at my favorite theater :D
I'm planning to see it this afternoon.
User avatar
awiseone
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:45 pm

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Carlito Brigante » Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:48 pm

Rachel wrote:There were 8 other people in the auditorium at the showing I saw tonight. I was probably the only one in the audience who didn't get a senior discount. FWIW, one person was wearing a cowboy hat. One lady was asleep when we were filing out. Not surprising given the genre and the absence of marketing. I was honestly surprised to see that many people. I can’t see this getting a lot of word of mouth because there wasn’t a lot to recommend.


The thing is that the marketing problems doesn’t seem to be isolated to just this movie. As much as I completely adore Natalie Portman, the truth is that right now she’s just having big time issues marketing herself. I honestly don’t understand what she’s doing. It’s almost as if she’s reverted to doing college films out of UCLA with practically no target audience. It’s really bizarre.

This shit is marketing 101. If she’s doing two biopics, isn’t she supposed to market the first one as her own film and then market her second film as the Aranofsky biopic starring Natalie Portman? The Ginsburg film now looks like a complete marketing nightmare if it doesn’t have the same name recognition. It’ll be completely overshadowed. Unless she nails her performance as Jackie Kennedy then the Ruth Ginsburg movie will have no legs to stand on. There just won’t be an audience left. I mean what is she aiming for? Being such a good actress will only take her so far. She’s WAY BETTER than this.
Carlito Brigante
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Belerofonte » Sat Jan 30, 2016 8:20 pm

Well ... the fact is the "RBG biopic" has been delayed indefinitely, and she has put priority on "Jackie" and possibly "Annihilation". Anyway, the truth is Natalie NEEDS a great critical & box office success desperately to return to the front line and not be definitely overshadowed by other actresses.

Until a couple of months I had not said this, but I think Jackie has many ballots to be that movie. "Annihilation" has also the profile (and potential) of great, well receive film... and Planetarium remains a complete mystery. Even it would be good, at this time, a collaboration in Thor Ragnarok (even ten minutes) to remain her in the spotlight. And for "Weitghless" I say nothing for obvious reasons...

At this point, I can only hope and wish to see any of her films in the near future ... and if possible triumph at the box office and among critics. I think Natalie deserves it.
Last edited by Belerofonte on Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Belerofonte
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 am
Location: Spain

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Carlito Brigante » Sun Jan 31, 2016 8:57 am

Every actor gets a flop. That's part of the whole Hollywood shitty business. She did get way too over her head doing a western. If she thought she could do a western, she should think about it next time around. Westerns are good for shit. And you can quote me on that. I'm completely prejudiced against western movies. They should never make another western movie ever. They're worthless.
Carlito Brigante
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Belerofonte » Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:55 am

... and another clip of the film:



I don't know what the film as a whole, but the cinematography (and Natalie) looks great ... at least not look like a cheap movie at all.
User avatar
Belerofonte
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 am
Location: Spain

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Rachel » Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:23 pm

Apart from Natalie and Joel, the cinematography is the film's saving grace. But unfortunately, those are the only things keeping it out of made-for-tv movie territory. :\
Rachel
 
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 2:38 pm

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Dazza » Sun Jan 31, 2016 3:28 pm

Carlito Brigante wrote:
Rachel wrote:There were 8 other people in the auditorium at the showing I saw tonight. I was probably the only one in the audience who didn't get a senior discount. FWIW, one person was wearing a cowboy hat. One lady was asleep when we were filing out. Not surprising given the genre and the absence of marketing. I was honestly surprised to see that many people. I can’t see this getting a lot of word of mouth because there wasn’t a lot to recommend.


The thing is that the marketing problems doesn’t seem to be isolated to just this movie. As much as I completely adore Natalie Portman, the truth is that right now she’s just having big time issues marketing herself. I honestly don’t understand what she’s doing. It’s almost as if she’s reverted to doing college films out of UCLA with practically no target audience. It’s really bizarre.

This shit is marketing 101. If she’s doing two biopics, isn’t she supposed to market the first one as her own film and then market her second film as the Aranofsky biopic starring Natalie Portman? The Ginsburg film now looks like a complete marketing nightmare if it doesn’t have the same name recognition. It’ll be completely overshadowed. Unless she nails her performance as Jackie Kennedy then the Ruth Ginsburg movie will have no legs to stand on. There just won’t be an audience left. I mean what is she aiming for? Being such a good actress will only take her so far. She’s WAY BETTER than this.


Honestly don't know what you're going on about sometimes.

Marketing herself? Huh?

As always, she's taking films and projects that interest her. Her current slate (Planetarium, Jackie, Annihilation) is with 3 of the hottest up and coming directors around - if it was a Lifetime film, a supporting role in a Kevin Hart film, and the new Paul Haggis film then I'd share your concern. The Ginsburg film we'll have to wait and see who they get. There is no marketing for the Ginsburg film yet so why mention that at all?

You make a very common mistake, which is the overrating of star power. Can a star help to market a project significantly more than that of their peers? Sure, but it is very limited and only in certain roles.

So Sandy Bullock teaming with MM in The Heat is a home run. People loved the idea of that combination. Sandy riding the coattails of a tech masterpiece in Gravity, less certainty over how important she is to the success but nevertheless it works and she is as hot a property as she's ever been. She follows that up with something very middle of the road, that seems to play into her personality but ends up being a total failure - Our Brand Is Crisis. Does that mean there is no more audience for Bullock? No, it just means it didn't work this time.

You think people are following Natalie's career so closely that anyone would say "I saw her in a biopic, Jackie, a year ago and I didn't like it so now I'm not going to watch this completely different biopic"?
User avatar
Dazza
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5939
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:19 am
Location: South Africa

Re: Jane Got A Gun Discussion Thread

Postby Belerofonte » Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:58 pm

Box Office Weekend estimates:

Jane Got a Gun #17 $803,000 - 1210 theatres - (average $664)

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4150&p=.htm

The biggest disappointment of the weekend, however, is the Natalie Portman-led Western, Jane Got a Gun. With an estimated $803,000 from 1,210 theaters, the film scored a mere $664 per theater average. This is, by far, the worst wide release opening in Portman's career and the worst opening on a per theater average with 2011's Hesher, which opened in 42 theaters with $126,046 ($3,001 PTA), a distant second.




:(
User avatar
Belerofonte
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 am
Location: Spain

PreviousNext

Return to Natalie Portman

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests