It looks more like a streaming movie than a cinema experience, probably released too early and might've faired better in summer, female lead definitely bogged, male lead semi-bogged, inflated budget, loosely based off of a TV show barely anyone remembers, etc etc.
Unironically because zoomies ad liberals have been programmed to refuse to watch movies with white male leads and conservatives are friendless losers who don't go to movies at all. Would've been an $800 milli banger just 5 years ago.
Nah, its because audiences have been conditioned not to go see films unless they are based on properties they are already aware of. (Apparently this is based on an '80s show but who actually remembers it?) Oppenheimer only did well because of the Barbenheimer meme. Its vidya shit from here on out in theaters.
Talk about the right hand not knowing what the left is doing. Wokeness must have produced a competency crisis in Hollyweird that is going to become more and more apparent as time goes on.
Where do you people live where movies are that expensive? It's like $15. And if you really need food and booze just buy some candy or something at the store and a pint of whiskey and bring it in with you. The notion that movies cost that much is absurd.
this post just reads as extremely underaged
especially the part about a pint of whiskey
18-20 yo tops
probably works at the cinema
probably gonna larp respond as a boomer
Gosling plays a stuntman who does stunts for an actor. On the set of one of their movies, something goes wrong and Gosling's character breaks his back. He stops doing stunts for over a year, but then gets a call from a producer telling him that the cameralady who he had a fling with is now directing a movie starring the guy he did stunts for and wants him to come back. He shows up and it turns out that the actor is missing and so he goes to investigate what happened.
Honestly, while I liked the movie, the plot was the worst aspect and is filled with holes if you really think about any of it.
But it has the added twist of the actor framing him for killing his new stuntman. Seeing the scene I thought it was the new stuntman killed the actor because that would make more sense
No one moves tickets like Gosling.
Yeah, nobody else headlining a picture can cause a failure like he can
I heard this about the plot "Some great editing an hour into Fall Guy where Stephanie Hsu shows up outta nowhere, mutters about the budget but she's walking dogs & somehow Gosling knows 1 dog and in ten seconds she has the magical McGuffin & explains the mystery. Wow. Okay. Just threw my hands up." is it as baffling as that?
The plot is actually good, but the execution was bad. The scenes needed to breathe. There was a kind of wry detachment which could be funny, but ultimately undercut the stakes. It was never clear what peril was actually real because the base reality was so goofy.
>Ryan Gosling a stunt man >literally me is literally in Drive for normies >stars Oppenheimer's Kitty and Barbie's Ken >basically a Barbenheimer sequel
Why didn't they use any of the above for the marketing?
Nobody likes bogged faces. Women are moronic and think people not going out of their way to offend them IRL means they approve of their hideous new plastic look.
Action comedies shouldn't have a budget of $125M. Why would you give Emily Blunt $10M when she doesn't sell movies? You could get some random actress for a tiny fraction.
Ten million dollars for emily blunt and another ten million for gossling.What the hell were they thinking with those salaries for actors who don't sell movie tickets?
But it has the added twist of the actor framing him for killing his new stuntman. Seeing the scene I thought it was the new stuntman killed the actor because that would make more sense
[...]
Yeah, nobody else headlining a picture can cause a failure like he can
>Drive >La La Land >The Big Short
All made over x3 their budgets back and have Gosling in a lead role.
>lists three terrible pictures nobody watched
Thank you for proving my point
Nice Guys was kino.
It is evil filth. Just an advertisement for smoking.
have a nice day israelite
I heard this about the plot "Some great editing an hour into Fall Guy where Stephanie Hsu shows up outta nowhere, mutters about the budget but she's walking dogs & somehow Gosling knows 1 dog and in ten seconds she has the magical McGuffin & explains the mystery. Wow. Okay. Just threw my hands up." is it as baffling as that?
Yes, hell, she's one the only good parts of the picture and it's mired by gayling being around.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
you'll be happy i got so drunk tuesday i've been too nauseous to smoke the past two days from the worst hangover in years.
He's a romcom lead. No one gives a shit about his action slop just like Gyllenhaal. They're Mickey Mouse kids on steroids pretending to be tough, it's embarrassing.
>More like The gay Guy >I've never seen a Gosling picture before because he looks like a gay. And he was in that evil picture The Nice Guys, what a scumbag. Hate the other lead, too, she's also terrible person. This picture is boring as all hell. I think its being marketed as a "romantic comedy" and, y'know, I was laughing because it looked bad and was shot amateurishly and its trying to sell flaming fruit Gosling as an action star which is the real joke.
>There's a few good bits when the leads aren't involved like the Asian chick driving the garbage truck, that's pretty funI missed the last like 20 minutes to go see Tarot instead. Now that was a picture, a real spookum.
>And why was this shot for a 13? Walked into the theater sure it's an R but somehow it isn't.
IMDb rejected my perfect review of this trash "movie". Those bastards
Because it's not capeshit/star wars/remake or a sequel. Cinemaphile cries out for originality but wont actually go to see it until years later when it's already been written off as a flop (like Nice Guys).
these fricks constantly complain about how Hollywood has run out of ideas and keeps making squeals but then never see anything that's original. it's there own fault
audiences don't know what they want. they're completely moronic
Complete moron take. Nobody wants to watch Gosling pretend to be tough and Blunt pretend to be smart enough to direct an action movie. Doesn't matter original or IP if the story and casting are misconceived from the beginning.
no. nobody wants to watch an original action movie with recognizable actors in them in cinemas anymore. it doesn't matter if it's Ryan gosling or not. it's fricking sad.
No doomer homosexual, Ryan Gosling isn't an action star. Have you ever heard him speak? He has perpetual 14 year old boy voice, just like Jake G. Action heroes have to be credibly tough to be taken seriously, not just pumped full of designer steroids. Bruce Willis or Patrick Swayze were never jacked and it never mattered, because you believed them.
what's the last original action movie to come out of cinemas that did well?
there's practically none. a Bruce fricking Willis or a Patrick Swayze wouldn't change that by this point. it's because audiences don't want to watch these movies in cinemas anymore. maybe if it was dumped on Netflix. it's fricking sad
>what's the last original action movie to come out of cinemas that did well?
Probably John Wick, that's the only action franchise in the last decade to make any kind of impact.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
that was over 10 years ago and if the first john wick came out today it would either get limited screening in cinemas or be dumped a streaming service. i don't even know if it would get made
Why do you insist on blaming the audience? You're part of that audience and obviously you want to see good action films, you don't think there's anyone else that wants the same thing? Maybe the problem is that actors used to live real lives, be in the military etc. before their acting careers. Now we have a generation of soft smartphone homosexuals coming out of commie universities and that's who we have to choose from. You going to make an action movie with Chalamet? Because he's the only draw under 40 right now.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
because it is the audience's fault. people constantly cry about Hollywood being unoriginal and not creative anymore but then they'll watch the same shit over and over again.
it's not because it doesn't have a bruce willis or a masculine actor in it or not anymore.
for an original movie to do well anymore it has to be a massive event or get really really lucky. people don't go to the cinema for simple original action movies anymore and it's fricking sad
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The Beekeeper and that John Wick shit have also worked at the box office.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
beekeeper isn't a great movie but Jason Statham is an exception somehow. i don't even know how he does it
john wick came out over 10 years ago and if the first John Wick came out today it would either get limited screening in cinemas or be dumped a streaming service. i don't even know if it would get made. it wouldn't be half as successful
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
moron
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Masculine lead isn't the point. Action stars have to convince they get things done, solve problems with gimmicks combining plot and their bodies. Tom Cruise doesn't need muscles.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>for an original movie to do well anymore it has to be a massive event or get really really lucky.
if you want to make an original movie, don't "base" it on an existing property. If I see a movie called Fall Guy, I'm gonna assume its about a stunt man bounty hunter. you are driving away the people who want something original because they think it won't be, and you are driving away the fans of the original property because it has nothing in common with it but the name
The standard rule of thumb for breaking even is 2.5 times the budget, so for The Fall Guy that's 2.5*$130M so $325M worldwide gross to break even. It won't get anywhere close to that.
The monkey movie premieres this weekend and weeks later Mad Max Furiosa. The fall guy will not get 200 million at the box office and will be a failure similar to Arguille.
A former child star actor working as a valet undergoes cosmetic surgery to remove is old looks in order to win back the love of his a lister former gf currently working on a film.The twist is that you never seen the girl clearly until the third act until its revealed she underwent cosmetic surgery to win back his love. Aaron Taylor Johnson can be the jealous costar or something. Could be played as a joke as old people's version of star crossed lovers or something
People don't want to go to a theater for non-franchise movies. Studios need to learn this soon, and release movies (at least simultaneously with theaters) on streaming services.
Probably because they put the popular actors in front of the text to the extent no one can see from the trailer what the second word is to make it "dynamic", rather than just putting the fricking title in the top half like any competent graphic designer would have.
Aging stunt guy breaks his back and retreats from the industry. He's lured back when he's told by a producer that his ex girlfriend who was a camerawoman (and is now a director) asked for him specifically then finds out the guy he doubles for has gone missing and is tasked with finding him to save the movie and get his girlfriend back.
The concept is dumb. Seriously, do you think this idea would have anything going for it if it didn't star two well-known actors? I know the knee jerk reaction is "people are dumb cuz marvel and franchises" but some movies are just made that aren't good ideas.
I dunno I saw one of the early trailers and it seemed ok, I think maybe people are just reluctant to trust holywood in general now so only huge titles can have any success at all
How much do you think this cost to make compared to spy x family code white which has made roughly the same amount of money
I was all up for some Gosling kino but the trailer I saw made it look shit. It was all weak banter between Gosling and Blunt. Semi-ironic awkward "finger gun" cringe joke is not a good way to sell a movie.
it was another "let's buy the rights to an old series, keep the name and just throw it onto an original movie that has barely anything in common with the original show>
Too kino for the modern audience.
It looks more like a streaming movie than a cinema experience, probably released too early and might've faired better in summer, female lead definitely bogged, male lead semi-bogged, inflated budget, loosely based off of a TV show barely anyone remembers, etc etc.
It's getting advertised and promoted as a 'TOM C-RYAN GOSLING SAVING Hollywood and the Spring with A PISSY BLOCKBUSTER', when it looks like a b-movie
gosling getting bogged was downright sad
A 20 year old hot female lead would have sold this imo
Unironically because zoomies ad liberals have been programmed to refuse to watch movies with white male leads and conservatives are friendless losers who don't go to movies at all. Would've been an $800 milli banger just 5 years ago.
or maybe it’s woke slop
You’re moronic. The maga nonsense embarrassing.
The trailers didn’t indicate a clear plot. It’s that simple. They tried to bank on star power alone and it came across as a rom com. End of story.
i'm going to see challengers this weekend with my gf, i simply don't want to see this
t. she has no idea i'm conservative tho kek
>i'm going to see challengers this weekend with my gf
Good movie, actually made must bust out laughing several times and I got invested in the story.
nice i'm amped. looks like it was pretty sexual too. can't wait to take her home and creampie her after the movie
>You have to be conservative to want to watch any movies with a white male lead
If you say so pal. Take a walk indoors homie.
Nah, its because audiences have been conditioned not to go see films unless they are based on properties they are already aware of. (Apparently this is based on an '80s show but who actually remembers it?) Oppenheimer only did well because of the Barbenheimer meme. Its vidya shit from here on out in theaters.
I wasn't memed into seeing it.
The marketing department needs to do a better job!
>spoil 80% of the plot in the trailer
I don't think it does any favours to the producer
About half of the scenes and dialogue from the second trailer wasn't in the movie.
Talk about the right hand not knowing what the left is doing. Wokeness must have produced a competency crisis in Hollyweird that is going to become more and more apparent as time goes on.
It cost way too much. It's ridiculous that an action comedy costs 150 million (plus marketing). Also it's uninteresting.
Budget.
>“The Fall Guy” cost Universal at least $200 million to make
According to NYT.
Looks boring. Emily Blunt is ugly as frick and the polar opposite of sexy.
Holy jesus she looks like Nicholas Cage.
Please tell me that that poster was edited.
>looks like Nicholas Cage.
Is this supposed to be a bad thing?
'Cause it looked cringe as shit and I was sick of seeing the trailer in theaters, so I definitely wasn't going out to see this shit.
>from the director of Bullet Train
Oh. It might actually be good, then.
it isn't. BT was a fluke.
It looks like a generic Netflix movie. Why would anyone go pay $50 when they can just wait for it to pop up on a streaming service?
They finally made a movie for Cinemaphile specifically without realizing there's no money here.
I saw this at the kinoplex.
They got my 14.49 but I had a feeling that it'd end up flopping tbh.
Where do you people live where movies are that expensive? It's like $15. And if you really need food and booze just buy some candy or something at the store and a pint of whiskey and bring it in with you. The notion that movies cost that much is absurd.
It was $8 for me with the XD discount.
>XD
have a nice day
Bumfrick Alabama and 2 adult tickets are $30. Now add popcorn & a drink
>Now add popcorn & a drink
No I don't think I will. It's two hours. Buy the tickets in person and you're down to $12 each.
I don't add a popcorn and a drink
Do you just sit there and swallow your spit for 2 hours? How do you not eat popcorn at a movie theater?
I don't have the constant urge to stuff my face because I'm not fat
If you buy tickets at the theater you'd save nearly $5
>tfw when my two tickets were cheaper in hipster brooklyn ny than buttfrick alabama
this post just reads as extremely underaged
especially the part about a pint of whiskey
18-20 yo tops
probably works at the cinema
probably gonna larp respond as a boomer
Because Ryan Gosling is no longer me.
Because it looked too generic
Name three (3) other movies that this looks like.
Free Guy
Larry the Cable Guy
Demolition Guy
plus Emily Blunt looks like a b***h, so does Gosling
> A simple action comedy starring recognizable actors = generic now
it's fricking sad. if this was a more recognizable ip people would be slurping this shit up.
>No, Birth of a Nation’s box office is not signalling the death of Vaudeville
because Cinemaphile didn't shill it enough around here
What's the plot here?
.........................................................I fall.
jej
Gosling plays a stuntman who does stunts for an actor. On the set of one of their movies, something goes wrong and Gosling's character breaks his back. He stops doing stunts for over a year, but then gets a call from a producer telling him that the cameralady who he had a fling with is now directing a movie starring the guy he did stunts for and wants him to come back. He shows up and it turns out that the actor is missing and so he goes to investigate what happened.
Honestly, while I liked the movie, the plot was the worst aspect and is filled with holes if you really think about any of it.
This sounds like Hail Caesar! for brainlets.
But it has the added twist of the actor framing him for killing his new stuntman. Seeing the scene I thought it was the new stuntman killed the actor because that would make more sense
Yeah, nobody else headlining a picture can cause a failure like he can
I heard this about the plot "Some great editing an hour into Fall Guy where Stephanie Hsu shows up outta nowhere, mutters about the budget but she's walking dogs & somehow Gosling knows 1 dog and in ten seconds she has the magical McGuffin & explains the mystery. Wow. Okay. Just threw my hands up." is it as baffling as that?
That is quite literally what happens, yes.
Worse script than bullet train?
Yes
The plot is actually good, but the execution was bad. The scenes needed to breathe. There was a kind of wry detachment which could be funny, but ultimately undercut the stakes. It was never clear what peril was actually real because the base reality was so goofy.
so it has nothing in common with the plot of the Fall Guy tv show, except main character is a stunt man
Is this really confirmed it flopped? In that case, I loved it.
They both look bogged
>Bullet Train
this flick was complete trash, who watches this shit and wants more?
you were hailing it as anti-woke movie, cinema is healing, trannies are mad lol
Because it stars an evil homosexual and a hideous evil b***h
People don't like movies about movies it's poison
Tarantino on suicide watch
The Drinker review was enough for me to understand this movie is not worth watching
emily too old
gosling too bogged
I also don't know if it's a movie version of the tv show from the 80s, which I watched, or just using the same name
They are both too old for the role.
>movie about movies, instant cringe
>Gosling can easily do better than Emily Bog
everyone thought it was about fall guys video game (2020)
If that were the case, it would've been a massive success.
probably the leading lady’s FRICKED UP monster face.
>Ryan Gosling a stunt man
>literally me is literally in Drive for normies
>stars Oppenheimer's Kitty and Barbie's Ken
>basically a Barbenheimer sequel
Why didn't they use any of the above for the marketing?
Nobody likes bogged faces. Women are moronic and think people not going out of their way to offend them IRL means they approve of their hideous new plastic look.
I dont like Emily Blunt, the marketing made it seem like an INDIAcore movie
The rest of the world exists. If your movie doesn't appeal to them, you're fricked.
It has Emily blunt - old and ugly. Simple as. Also bad/non-existent marketing.
Action comedies shouldn't have a budget of $125M. Why would you give Emily Blunt $10M when she doesn't sell movies? You could get some random actress for a tiny fraction.
Ten million dollars for emily blunt and another ten million for gossling.What the hell were they thinking with those salaries for actors who don't sell movie tickets?
No one moves tickets like Gosling.
Blade runner fails
Gray man fails (on Netflix)..
Barbie triumphs but it's about fricking Barbie.
Goss is a mixed bag. It can hold a movie despite the fact that I don't like it but I don't consider it an A list.
>Drive
>La La Land
>The Big Short
All made over x3 their budgets back and have Gosling in a lead role.
>indie film
>chick flick
>Giyslop with Brad Pitt
I agree with drive but otherwise goss was not the selling point of those movies
>lists three terrible pictures nobody watched
Thank you for proving my point
It is evil filth. Just an advertisement for smoking.
have a nice day israelite
Yes, hell, she's one the only good parts of the picture and it's mired by gayling being around.
you'll be happy i got so drunk tuesday i've been too nauseous to smoke the past two days from the worst hangover in years.
Jews hated Nice Guys.
He's a romcom lead. No one gives a shit about his action slop just like Gyllenhaal. They're Mickey Mouse kids on steroids pretending to be tough, it's embarrassing.
>More like The gay Guy
>I've never seen a Gosling picture before because he looks like a gay. And he was in that evil picture The Nice Guys, what a scumbag. Hate the other lead, too, she's also terrible person. This picture is boring as all hell. I think its being marketed as a "romantic comedy" and, y'know, I was laughing because it looked bad and was shot amateurishly and its trying to sell flaming fruit Gosling as an action star which is the real joke.
>There's a few good bits when the leads aren't involved like the Asian chick driving the garbage truck, that's pretty funI missed the last like 20 minutes to go see Tarot instead. Now that was a picture, a real spookum.
>And why was this shot for a 13? Walked into the theater sure it's an R but somehow it isn't.
IMDb rejected my perfect review of this trash "movie". Those bastards
Sounds too similar to Free Guy.
Blue and Yellow in posters.
Explosions.
Man and woman standing casually.
Just seems like audiences have seen it before.
i watched the trailer and it looked like a GIRLBOSS movie to me. lost any interest in it just watching the trailer.
went to see planet of the apes instead and got classic heroes journey in a world where the patriarchy is still intact. it even had damsel in distress.
they should have taken the money they spent on licensing all the music and put it somewhere else
Because it's not capeshit/star wars/remake or a sequel. Cinemaphile cries out for originality but wont actually go to see it until years later when it's already been written off as a flop (like Nice Guys).
nah it just looked woke and marvelesque
Nice Guys was kino.
>"Anon, i'm still literally (You), trust me and come see my movie!"
What's the type of monkey that has that exact face?
Nah bro he went orangutan mode
How to reverse the bog?
I think you can either get them dissolved or they go down with time depending on the type.
low diversity
Who the hell would watch two bogged morons anyway?
Me
He should return to making indie dramas and stuff with Refn but he doesn't want to do psychologically challenging movies anymore, it's basically over.
these fricks constantly complain about how Hollywood has run out of ideas and keeps making squeals but then never see anything that's original. it's there own fault
audiences don't know what they want. they're completely moronic
Complete moron take. Nobody wants to watch Gosling pretend to be tough and Blunt pretend to be smart enough to direct an action movie. Doesn't matter original or IP if the story and casting are misconceived from the beginning.
no. nobody wants to watch an original action movie with recognizable actors in them in cinemas anymore. it doesn't matter if it's Ryan gosling or not. it's fricking sad.
No doomer homosexual, Ryan Gosling isn't an action star. Have you ever heard him speak? He has perpetual 14 year old boy voice, just like Jake G. Action heroes have to be credibly tough to be taken seriously, not just pumped full of designer steroids. Bruce Willis or Patrick Swayze were never jacked and it never mattered, because you believed them.
what's the last original action movie to come out of cinemas that did well?
there's practically none. a Bruce fricking Willis or a Patrick Swayze wouldn't change that by this point. it's because audiences don't want to watch these movies in cinemas anymore. maybe if it was dumped on Netflix. it's fricking sad
>what's the last original action movie to come out of cinemas that did well?
Probably John Wick, that's the only action franchise in the last decade to make any kind of impact.
that was over 10 years ago and if the first john wick came out today it would either get limited screening in cinemas or be dumped a streaming service. i don't even know if it would get made
it wouldn't be half as successful
Why do you insist on blaming the audience? You're part of that audience and obviously you want to see good action films, you don't think there's anyone else that wants the same thing? Maybe the problem is that actors used to live real lives, be in the military etc. before their acting careers. Now we have a generation of soft smartphone homosexuals coming out of commie universities and that's who we have to choose from. You going to make an action movie with Chalamet? Because he's the only draw under 40 right now.
because it is the audience's fault. people constantly cry about Hollywood being unoriginal and not creative anymore but then they'll watch the same shit over and over again.
it's not because it doesn't have a bruce willis or a masculine actor in it or not anymore.
for an original movie to do well anymore it has to be a massive event or get really really lucky. people don't go to the cinema for simple original action movies anymore and it's fricking sad
The Beekeeper and that John Wick shit have also worked at the box office.
beekeeper isn't a great movie but Jason Statham is an exception somehow. i don't even know how he does it
john wick came out over 10 years ago and if the first John Wick came out today it would either get limited screening in cinemas or be dumped a streaming service. i don't even know if it would get made. it wouldn't be half as successful
moron
Masculine lead isn't the point. Action stars have to convince they get things done, solve problems with gimmicks combining plot and their bodies. Tom Cruise doesn't need muscles.
>for an original movie to do well anymore it has to be a massive event or get really really lucky.
or it just has to be good and not garbage
>He doesn't know
if you want to make an original movie, don't "base" it on an existing property. If I see a movie called Fall Guy, I'm gonna assume its about a stunt man bounty hunter. you are driving away the people who want something original because they think it won't be, and you are driving away the fans of the original property because it has nothing in common with it but the name
It's just redundant boring pussy worship
he's no longer me
cause the title reminded me of this trash
watched like 30 mins and turned it off. I dont understand the praise this movie got
>'Free Guy is bad' meme
Free Guy IS bad, immigrant zoomer who doesn't know how to greentext.
>Something that bugged me this whole picture was: what Miami Vice did this homosexual work on?
It hasn't been out a week yet.
It only made $1.6M domestic on Wednesday, it's over. No legs.
How much does fall guy have to earn to be profitable?
The standard rule of thumb for breaking even is 2.5 times the budget, so for The Fall Guy that's 2.5*$130M so $325M worldwide gross to break even. It won't get anywhere close to that.
I remember that Steven Spielberg praised this film and after that I investigated and discovered that this film was produced by Universal.Kek
why do they keep doing this? it's absurd to think you can keep being profitable with such hihg production budgets
The monkey movie premieres this weekend and weeks later Mad Max Furiosa. The fall guy will not get 200 million at the box office and will be a failure similar to Arguille.
Goss and Emily c**t are box office poison
I'm probably never setting foot in a theater again.
Looks generic as shit, like Ryan Reynolds "Free Guy" 2 years ago
Also Blunt has no sex appeal in 2021+3
It just looked generic as frick in the marketing/trailer.
>director of bullet train
So that’s two flops in a row for this guy? Rest in peace.
why wasn't it called "the bog couple"?
Now that would have been more interesting.
A former child star actor working as a valet undergoes cosmetic surgery to remove is old looks in order to win back the love of his a lister former gf currently working on a film.The twist is that you never seen the girl clearly until the third act until its revealed she underwent cosmetic surgery to win back his love. Aaron Taylor Johnson can be the jealous costar or something. Could be played as a joke as old people's version of star crossed lovers or something
People don't want to go to a theater for non-franchise movies. Studios need to learn this soon, and release movies (at least simultaneously with theaters) on streaming services.
Probably because they put the popular actors in front of the text to the extent no one can see from the trailer what the second word is to make it "dynamic", rather than just putting the fricking title in the top half like any competent graphic designer would have.
What is this even about?
Aging stunt guy breaks his back and retreats from the industry. He's lured back when he's told by a producer that his ex girlfriend who was a camerawoman (and is now a director) asked for him specifically then finds out the guy he doubles for has gone missing and is tasked with finding him to save the movie and get his girlfriend back.
Kino
The concept is dumb. Seriously, do you think this idea would have anything going for it if it didn't star two well-known actors? I know the knee jerk reaction is "people are dumb cuz marvel and franchises" but some movies are just made that aren't good ideas.
Because it was very different from the game
Needed to be done when Emily Blunt was still in her prime, Gosling ruin his action chad status with his role in Barbie.
I dunno I saw one of the early trailers and it seemed ok, I think maybe people are just reluctant to trust holywood in general now so only huge titles can have any success at all
How much do you think this cost to make compared to spy x family code white which has made roughly the same amount of money
They cast a 40 year old hag
About to watch the cam since it's not showing in my theater yet.
Wish me luck.
Good luck
I was all up for some Gosling kino but the trailer I saw made it look shit. It was all weak banter between Gosling and Blunt. Semi-ironic awkward "finger gun" cringe joke is not a good way to sell a movie.
it was another "let's buy the rights to an old series, keep the name and just throw it onto an original movie that has barely anything in common with the original show>
Never played You Give Love a Bad Name