We’ve already seen this before, but I guess Vanity Fair Italia “officially” released their new cover, so here you go. I do love this photoshoot with Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. It reminds me of the photoshoot Brad did with Angelina for W Magazine right after she had the twins.
Anyway, what happened with By the Sea wasn’t pretty in the end. With two of the biggest movie stars in the world and a major studio backing them, By the Sea couldn’t even get off the ground. The film opened in 10 theaters in eight cities over last weekend and the per-screen average was… $9,544. As in, it made $95,440 in its opening weekend. Granted, it was never going to be a huge hit. It was never going to be a box office sensation. But you’d be hard pressed to find anyone willing to justify spending millions of dollars on this project. Yahoo did an in-depth look at what went wrong. Some highlights:
Truly, ‘By the Sea’ bombed. The only comparison to be made was George Clooney’s Good Night, and Good Luck, which “posted a location average of $38,313 when it opened in 11 theaters in 2005.”
The reviews were terrible. Yahoo describes the reviews as “scathing” and they quote box-office analyst Jeff Bock at length. Bock summarized: “Even when you have two of the most recognized faces in the world in Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, if the project by all accounts, isn’t some kind a masterpiece, it will likely become film fodder. Or, to put delicately, a wash.”
Universal’s shenanigans. We’ve heard before that Angelina has a close relationship with Donna Langley, Universal’s studio chief, and that’s why Universal greenlighted this nonsense. Their distribution chief Nick Carpou tells Yahoo: “Our folks love working with her. Engaging on a project like this after the extraordinary success of Unbroken was a great opportunity to remain highly collaborative with her. It gave her a chance to express herself in a highly personal way, and gave us a chance to work with her on that.” Universal will also be putting BTS in 100 theaters this coming weekend.
At least Universal didn’t spend too much on it. Yahoo writes: “Universal greatly minimized its marketing spend by opening By the Sea in select theaters, versus a nationwide release. And insiders say both Jolie Pitt and Pitt took drastically reduced fees.”
No awards: “Universal set the Nov. 13 release date in May, clearly intending for it to be an awards player, but was vague as to whether it would open nationwide or in select theaters. But the film, which debuted at the recent AFI Fest, didn’t impress Oscar handicappers, who have discounted its awards prospects.”
What’s somewhat surprising to me is that at this point, no one is really coming for Angelina Jolie’s head. She made a dumb, stupid movie and she wasted millions of dollars. But! She didn’t risk that much of the studio’s money, she didn’t get paid that much and it didn’t cost that much to promote her vanity project. So… maybe it is a wash. Still, I wish Angelina could figure out a way to use her on-screen and directing time on projects with, you know, a story. A plot. Something more than sitting on a bed and sighing prettily.
Photos courtesy of WENN, Vanity Fair Italia.
Well, I still wanna watch it and judge for myself, although I must admit I wasn’t expect it would be so bad. A local critic said she’s really talentless.
Our local critic said Brad gave a good performance and didn’t really slam Angelina personally. But he did say this would be their “Gigli.” Ouch.
Gigli???
BURN!!!
Yeah that’s probably the worst insult I’ve heard thus far. From the trailer it seems like Eyes Wide Shut might be a better comparison..but even EWS got relatively decent reviews.
Boston, I totally read that “BURN!!!” in a Michael Kelso voice…
As did, I Doofus, as did I.
I feel like that if this was anybody else but Brad and Angelina, they and the movie wouldn’t be so heavily attacked. I think “Serena” with Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence was only released in a couple of countries and On Demand in the US. It barely made a blip on anybody’s radar. But BTS is getting destroyed. All of these headlines are not necessary. From day one, when the film was greenlit, Angelina said this was a vanity project. She always said that BTS is a personal, art film not a big budget movie. I’m baffled why people were expecting an Oscar contender breaking boxoffice records.
Me too. It was to expand to my city over the holiday. I think that will not be happening now. Ouch of the ticket numbers.
It barely got any promotion, these type of films barely ever make it big. My fave films r ones that I never seen promoted. But I have not seen this film.
It sounds just as bad as Madonna and Guy Ritchie’s vanity project. I didn’t watch it but wasn’t this set in the sea too? Plot is everything. Get a good script and take it from there.
Swept
Swept Away still stands out as the worst movie I have ever watched. Hopefully this one isn’t as bad, but I don’t plan to watch it because it sounds like watching paint dry might be more interesting.
Not a real-life couple, but Six Days, Seven Nights as well based on: (1) “romance”, (2) seaside locations, (3) terrible.
Why are the people that have actually SEEN the film saying they loved it. Hmmmm
I haven’t actually seen anyone, even the huge fans, saying they loved it. I’ve seen them saying they think it’s not as bad as the reviews make out, which is still a really long way from loving it.
Most fans can’t see it because it isn’t playing in their area. I want to see it but I have to wait for the DVD. 🙁
I have seen positive tweets from fans and causal moviegoers.
Is this why Rudin and Pascal were calling her spoiled or entitled or whatever it was? Maybe this was the film that hammered that nail to the wall.
ETA: It was “minimally talented spoiled brat.” And about Cleopatra. But the gripes among studios (first Sony, now Universal) seem fairly consistent?….
Yeah, those email sentiments seemed pretty confusing to me until this movie.
Eh, she was trying to act as a producer on a film she’s not a producer of (Cleopatra). Going behind the actual producers backs and trying to hire a director out from under them, changing the script etc…that’s some pretty extreme entitled behavior. It’s not in any way her film, she doesn’t own the rights, she’s just an actress for this one. I’m not sure why her fans shy away from recognizing that. That she wasn’t immediately fired and blacklisted speaks to her power in Hollywood.
IIRC, Rudin’s point that he made harshly was that she wanted to turn Cleo into a “vanity project”. That’s also what reviews are saying about BTS.
Pascal called Jennifer Aniston a “joke”, and was laughing at her for begging for work, saying she’d work “for peanuts”. This is from the Sony emails. Do you believe that too, or just an arrogant, a-hole that had over 100 assistants QUIT because he was impossible to work for? And that was within a two year period.
Rudin wanted David Fincher for his pet project, that bombed, by the way, and knew Fincher was talking to Angie about Cleo.
Fincher refused to work with Rudin.
No, I believe it.
Remember, it was from these Hacks that we learned 1. No one wants to be producing Adam Sandler movies anymore. 2. Charlie Sheen is HIV+. 3. The women on American Hustle were hustled out of millions that their male costars were raking in.
What’s not to believe? Plus, these are people’s opinions, unfiltered, so, yeah. I’m going with that’s how they REALLY feel, and the press releases afterwards are just spin.
Could you please post a link to Pascal’s comments about Aniston? I’ve seen people here mention that before, but I was unable to find it. I have to think it would have been a bigger headline, especially since the media loves pitting Aniston and Jolie against each other still, for some reason.
@lucy Page Six says it was about Jennifer LAWRENCE NOT Aniston.
http://pagesix.com/2014/12/13/j-law-paid-less-than-male-american-hustle-co-stars-sony-e-mails/
Pascal was saying that about Jennifer Lawrence, not Aniston. Pascal actually said she loves Aniston’s movies and would want to work with her.
Based on what we see of the movie, she is a minimally talented writer. Possibly spoiled in thinking she didn’t need to bring on a writing partner. Not a brat.
I don’t like her…..but….I don’t think she makes movies to get hits. She seems to do things, these days anyway, that mean something to her. You can have a good film but not find an audience. There’s been plenty of actors/actresses that never got an Oscar when they deserved it, and some who got one who didn’t. It’s a roll of the dice.
That’s cool but the movie still bombed.
Lizzie I didn’t mention that inside I was screaming YES! the Dame Angie Jo failed….lol…..but as I mentioned in another post, I’m trying to be more positive, so there you go….
Ha ha…oh, Nancy 😉
Well Jolie fans got their day in the sun with Cake, so I guess all is fair in love and celeb gossip.
Despite the box office issues and bad reviews, I still think Jolie will come out of this relatively unscathed.
Failure and criticism (when it’s honest) can be an invaluable learning experience. Angie doesn’t seem thin skinned, and hopefully she will learn and improve with each film. I recently watched Unbroken, and was shocked at how unmoved I was. Typically, I’m an ugly crier on a subject like that. It was somehow relentlessly bleak, yet unsympathetic.
But the movie wasn’t good. It’s not just about the horrible box office or the lack of awards buzz, it’s that according to almost all critics out there, the movie sucker.
There are a lot of small movies for certain tastes that never becomes hits but at least they’re decent efforts. This seems like self indulgence at best and to think that it got a 30 million dollar budget is baffling.
Evidence that is was $30 million budget (not deadline) or you are lying..
Variety has also noted that insiders are snarking over that 10 million claim.
Where’s the evidence that it was a $10 mil budget?
Unless someone here works for the studio, no one can provide the receipts proving it either way. Studio’s actively put out false information about budgets, so unless there’s another hack, we’ll never really know for sure. It might be $10, it might be $30, it might be somewhere in between.
It’s a movie filmed in two rooms with five actors for eight weeks. Could it really be $30 millions?
It could easily be $30mil. People have spent far more on far less before.
Even if it was 5 million or less, you can’t just make a film without any business considerations. Non commercial Independent european films who naturally won’t appeal to the masses still have to pay the bills and break even, otherwise no more films will be made. Even a non profit charity has costs and needs to be sustainable in order to to the work they do. My point is, just because you want to do something “special and artistic” which imo as a lot of merit by itself, that doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want without any considerations for the business side of it. And to experiment you don’t need to spend millions.
Angie and Brad were the first to say this was NOT a film for everyone. This is an art film, many people can’t grasp the concept of art films. This was never meant to be a commercial film or Oscar bait.
This was as Angie and Brad put it, an “experiment”, something they wanted to do, they produced it, whatever the outcome, they knew it all on them and was willing to accept that.
NOT meant to be Oscar bait? Of course it was.
It also failed as an art film…
I will watch it too but it always looked an experimental project
Me too, I plan on seeing it if it goes to DVD. And I agree, it was never going to be a huge success.
When I saw the stills of them making it, it kind of reminded me of the Audrey Hepburn film “Two for the Road”, but then when I saw the trailer it didnt look very good to me, but I might still watch it when it comes on Sky movies for free. I still think Brad and Angelina are interesting to watch.
Those pictures are so cringeworthy.
agreed
what’s going on with her foot? (one on left)
Shes wearing fishnet tights and it makes her feet to look weird. In the second photo her one foot looks tights free on the toes but the other has tights on. Photoshop fail maybe.
Omg. I just realised where that foot is positioned…and why its positioned that way. Lol. Angie is a naughty-naughty girl.
@Naya:
I’m sure Brad had NO objections to where Angie had her foot.
Some people seem to be having problems accepting the intimate look of the pictures. Looks as if after ten years together they would know Brad and Angie are in love and still hot for each other.
Dont be so defensive, a little naughty never hurt anybody. And shes clearly still naughty.
They look like ads for wedding bands…
Awww really? I think they’re super-cute…well, except for the weird foot one.
I find pictures that are that intimate being shown so publicly to be quite cringeworthy.
I’m of two minds here…
the first looks like a perfume ad and the second looks like (as mentioned) an ad for wedding/engagement rings…but I still like both of them.
I like them, too. Except for Brad’s hair on the cover, it’s too contrived looking.
He’s channeling a 70’s Benicio Del Toro look.
Brad and Angie are married, there’s not one thing wrong with the pictures. Some are just upset Angie is Brad’s wife and the woman he loves more than life. His words, not mine.
ick, the photos.
I never even saw a trailer for it!
I saw one last week. No posters though. I wasn’t interested in seeing it because it’s just not my kind of movie. I find couples’s angst boring as hell to watch after the first 15 minutes, no matter who’s playing in it.
I saw the trailer multiple times and it didn’t even clearly project what the story was. It did not make me want to see it or intrigued in the slightest. But I’m not surprised you haven’t seen many posters or that most people haven’t seen the trailer. It isn’t getting released many places, so why spend money to promote it?
Some people prefer movies with car chases, comedies that make them laugh, and some like adult films about feelings and angst. And some like all three.
I prefer movies will plenty of dialogues, this movie was perfect for me. I love international films, more mature, less juvenile than what most US moviegoers prefer.
@Evie,
Movies are like meals. Sometimes you’re in the mood for steak, other times you’re in the mood for pizza. It doesn’t mean you’re juvenile or less mature for preferring either. Just sayin. Sometimes I want to watch a caper film. Other times a tearjerker. Luckily for me, there is plenty to choose from.
good for keeping the ego in check. Everybody needs a few bombs.
Meryl just had a huge bomb with Suffragette, Clooney had a huge bomb with his last acting job, Tomorrowland, and he had another bomb as the Producer of the Bomb Sandra Bullock just had at the BO.
Lots of egos are having to held in check, it seems.
It was a vanity project as has been pointed out again and again. Angelina’s way of celebrating her creativity, her new marriage, and expressing her innermost angsty thoughts. What? People didn’t believe that her internal dark thinking really had changed all that much did they? There is a lot of darkness within that noggin. That being said, I still admire her way of just putting it out there and I am sure Brad with all of his bombs in the past is just fine with it. Next!
It sounds like the problem with BTS wasn’t that it was too dark but that it was too boring.
Please clarify which movies of Brad’s that bombed?
The Counselor, Killing Them Softly, Spy Game, The Assassination of Jesse James and Tree of Life all under performed, especially domestically.
Tree of Life, Killing Them Softly and The Assassination of Jesse James all had critical praise though. I personally wouldn’t classify them as bombs. But yeah, The Counselor was a dud for all involved.
@kate – Look @ u bringing the receipts!! *now DUCK*. LOL
Oh I know, but we’re talking financial bombs aren’t we? If not then a ton of Brad’s films were critical bombs.
Jesse James is one of my all time favourite films, but it made 15mil on a 30mil production budget.
Except maybe for Spy Game those are all pretty indie with decent budgets. I think that’s why he doesn’t get too much flack for them. Especially Tree of Life–that movie was always going to be a hard sell. I think he’d have more trouble if it were movies like World War Z with huge budgets & expectations that bombed. He did have that issue before rebounding with movies like Troy–back when he did Meet Joe Black and other bigger budget movies that underperformed. Since then he tends to take risky movies that have small budgets so they are bound to not cause too much harm if they don’t succeed.
Got it Kate. I tend to call a movie a “bomb” when it has the combination of bombing financially and critically. If it has just one or the other, I call it a disappointment. LOL. And yes, Jesse James was a great movie.
Kori – OMG I hated Troy. So bad, And it hurt because I am a big fan of Eric Bana.
Good old Maya!! Always jumping to defend people who have no idea you are alive and care even less. And always willing to insult a real person actually here to do so. 🙂
For a long time Brad had nothing but bombs. The only success he had was when he was paired with another star. Tom Cruise, his wife Angie, George Clooney. Its rare that he has a hit going solo. Angie has proven that she can open a movie by herself. She’s proven it plenty of times. This blip will be just that, IMO, a blip. And if guys can put out a vanity project that bombs and still get work, then surely she can, right? Right.
Tree of Life and Jesse James are films that will be shown decades from now. They are two of the best films I’ve ever seen, especially Jesse James.
WWZ didn’t bomb, Fury didn’t bomb, just what are Brad’s big bombs.
The Big Short, Brad’s newest film is getting rave reviews, he’s in the cast and he produced the film. Seems as if Brad is doing better than fine.
what the heck is up with her foot in this photo? i dont understand why they photoshopped it like that? is it her foot? im stumped….
Her right foot totally freaked me out as well!
I think it looks weird ‘cuz she’s wearing stockings? Trying to figure it out myself. Still want to see the movie.
I have read that it’s not a bad movie but it’s not every ones taste. I wanted to see it but it was not in my area. I will buy the DVD when it comes out.
She is wearing a fish net stocking, it’s clear from the cover picture.
i read a bunch of reviews on metacritic (i think that is what it is called) because i do want to see this. i really enjoyed the first 8 to 10 reviews.
OMG, I was just wondering the same thing! That looks so odd.
It looks like she’s missing a big toe or something.
Ouch
Yeah, even with all the context/perspective in the world, those box office numbers have got to hurt.
After this past weekend’s performance I’m not sure why they are expanding to 100 theaters though (particularly with MockingJay part 2 opening). Why not go to an On Demand model? Maybe they’d find more success. I won’t go see this film in the theater, but I would watch it on demand.
TEN theaters, that’s all so far. When it plays in over 400 theaters and it doesn’t manage to reach $2 million, then you’ll know for a fact it is a bomb of epic proportions.
I always seem to like the movies no one else does, so I rarely read reviews. For example, I loved Battlefield Earth (pre Travolta shenanigans) .
The movie Monsters is excellent, btw. Well worth watching.
Post of the day…
*Grabs popcorn*
I’ll grab the tequila and join you.
For those grabbing pop corn or tequila the joke will be on you. The only ones who will be going nuts are the non fans. Brad and Angelina will be all right. Lots of movies bombed big time this year and the studios lots much more than $10m on those, just saying.
Be sure it’s Clooney’s, he needs the money. He’s now doing US coffee commercials. OUCH!!!!
It was an art house project that didn’t cost much. It might get some viewers on cable or ITunes.
It was first reported that it cost $30m, and then AFTER the movie received its first (bad) review, it suddenly only cost $10m? And it was never confirmed btw.
The location alone would be $10m! I believe the first report personally, but we will never know. Studios never have to confirm these things. Not budgets, not anything if they so wish.
It was always meant to go wide and only when they knew it was bad did they decide to do limited release.
It didn’t change when the first reviews came in. Reviews started coming in about two weeks ago, and the production budget was reported, weeks before.
The film has never been anything but $10 million, as reported, first.
Deadline is the one saying $30 million, no one knows where they got the number because they certainly didn’t spend $20 million on advertising. Some site trying to cause trouble, DL has a habit of that when it’s Brad or Angie.
The location most likely did not cost that much, since game of thrones has filmed there.
I’ve seen it, Kaiser, and it is not a bad or a stupid movie. It has its faults, of course, but I found it interesting and I still think about it, several days later. People totally wrote if off, even before seeing it. Also, you should read Time, or New Yorker, or NYT critic review – at least they were open minded and did not watch it with preconceived notion.
Also, you should read Time, or New Yorker, or NYT critic review – at least they were open minded and did not watch it with preconceived notion.
Time and NYT have a very good relationship with Jolie. Top critics have criticised the film based on what were presented, not on who she is, nobody is out to get her. I think most are actually very kind to her because she is Jolie. Any other female director would never get the chance to direct again so in way it’s good that she’s Jolie.
Fans just really want her to be great at everything, that doesn’t exist. A bit of failure is good, it makes you think. Puts things in perspective.
Personally I feel she should be properly mentored by somebody instead of having jumped into filmmaking with no prior passion or even passing interest (she admitted to falling asleep during films not too long before she started to direct!). It’s showing. µ
To compare, Paul Thomas Anderson is also an auteur, producer and director and he was mentored but it was his passion, his obsessive love with filmmaking coupled with his natural talent for filmmaking and storytelling that got him the opportunity to learn from this mentor. You’ve gotta start from somewhere and Jolie had neither skill nor passion, she said herself that she did ITLOBAH because she wanted the story to be right, she was so interested in the topic that she clearly wanted to control whatever message it was going to convey. Not because she loved storytelling. Whenever she speaks about her films, it’s too serious, I think she still does not like to tell a story. It’s too much about how it makes her feel and how important it is to get it ‘right’. Stories aren’t meant to be right or wrong. I wish she could just be happy and tell a story first before thinking about messages and morality. That way she might step away from her own needs and will be able to entertain an audience.
Lol – so the positive reviews are now because they have good relationship with Jolie?
Man you people really reach at anything to put this woman down.
Well, I wouldn’t say that Manohla Dargis Is usually kind to Angelina! Have you seen the movie?
Right, the critics that gave her a good review seemed to do so MAINLY bc she is Angelina. Like, the only thing the movie had going for it was that it came from Angelina’s mind and she’s so intriguing as a real person that it was interesting to see what kind of story she wrote. Basically, if anyone else had written or starred in it but everything else about the movie remained unchanged it would have gotten a bad review. The reviews sounded voyeuristic.
Those aren’t even positive reviews though, they just aren’t completely scathing.
I read a few that talked more about their persona than they did the film. I respect the bad reviews, but it’s unprofessional to talk non-stop about a celebrity persona, if you are supposed to be reviewing their film. People can go to RT and you’ll see quite a few.
@Artemis, who wrote: “Time and NYT have a very good relationship with Jolie.”
Not the Film critics. Go to the “New York Times” archive and pull up past film reviews featuring Angelina Jolie. The negative 2008 NYT film review for “Changeling” was harsh, and the entire review was all about Angelina Jolie “emoting just to get an Oscar” and not about the film at all. The kindest review I’ve read for an Angelina Jolie film at the “New York Times” was the one for “Maleficent.”
AJ as an actress is almost irrelevant at this point. Sure she acts sporadically but her artistic endeavors as a producer and director are much more the topic of discussion for 4 years now.
The fact that you have to go so far back speaks to this point. Back then (her acting days) she wasn’t making films ( she never got to the acting level of Julianne Moore for example), she wasn’t married (even NYT dared to scrutinize her relationship at times when that was besides the point) and her humanitarianism wasn’t upgraded to Special Envoy yet. She really progressed with leaps and bounds from 2010 til present. Back then she was big and more relevant to popculture yes… But compared to now? She’s effing’ peerless! She soars high above any other contemporary star. God knows what her image/profile will be in another 5 years from now.
Instead of People covers, we get profiles, op-eds etc in respectable outlets such as NYT and Time. Also, Angelina the actress was never the main draw. It’s her personality and her political clout that are her most important and marketable features. Because she wants it that way. Who cares if the reviews from almost a decade ago were scathing when she has actively withdrawn herself from films since 2008? You have to go back that far because she is not really acting anymore save for 1 film/2-3 years. Everything changed since then and NYT et. al. are clearly supporting her and her work and making her more credible as a Serious actor and humanitarian. It’s all part of the image. If it wasn’t, we would see Jolie shilling info to People and other low rank tabloids.
I have read that it’s not a bad movie but it’s not every ones taste. I wanted to see it but it was not in my area. I will buy the DVD when it comes out.
Certified flop.
They’re over-exposed as “celebrities” to the point that they’re just not believable in character – ANY character – especially as a duo.
They’d both be better off pursuing something fun, a la their “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” days, but I realize that doesn’t jibe with her view of herself as an ac-TOR of the highest order and prestige.
Either way, she needs to stop directing. She’s really, REALLY bad at it.
I was watching Mr. and Mrs. Smith the other day. They were both awesome in that movie and looked like they were having fun. I said to my son, “why didn’t they just make a sequel to MMS”…I think that would have been cool. Stop being so f-ing serious all the time. Sometimes films are meant to inform an audience and make them think. But there is nothing wrong with just making a film to entertain people! As a matter of fact, in these rough times in the world, I appreciate movies that can make me laugh a little and escape the “real” world…
“They’re over-exposed as “celebrities” to the point that they’re just not believable in character – ANY character – especially as a duo.”
I’ve said this about a few “movie stars” as well. I think that Pitt is a better actor than Jolie, overall. Jolie had a few roles that I liked her in but all came before “the Brange”…now, whenever I see her on screen, I see “Angelina Jolie” and not whatever character she’s playing. Pitt, on the other hand, is good enough that, for me, he can still be the character, and not just “Pitt with an accent and a costume”.
I think that, once you get to a certain level of fame, you have to A) be REALLY REALLY GOOD to pull off a role convincingly and B) able to keep your private life VERY VERY private so people don’t see YOU but the character.
Agree completely, especially with your last point. The actors that I really enjoy watching, whose work I will seek out, generally keep their private lives very low key, and are able to disappear into a character the way that many famous “movie stars” can’t.
I think they’re about equal as actors, but Pitt is better at choosing projects that play to his strengths. He’s great in thinky-action movies and that’s primarily what he does. She’s great in action movies and lighter stuff, but over the past decade she’s gravitated more and more to Very Serious Actor roles that I don’t think fit her.
But why doesn’t she pick “thinky action movies” too? Her action stuff is so stupid. I mean Salt (a cell of Russian orphans spend decades infiltrating the US Governement. Lmao) or Wanted (an ancient assassins unit so skilled that members can shoot a bullet and make it travel in a perfect circle. Just stop). The tickets sold but have some self respect, Angie.
She was paid $15 million for Wanted and $20 mill for Salt.
I love Salt and Wanted. I wish she would do another action film.
I haven’t seen By The Sea but I will watch it tonight but not at the theater though it’s playing here in NYC.
We will probably see her in Salt II, but if she gets out of it she is seriously lucky. Lucky to get out of Tomb Raider III, Salt II, and Wanted II.
The photoshoot is gorgeous. As for the movie.. yeah, I’d like for her to be a meaningful director.. and write more ‘consistent’ script.
Or maybe don’t write. Just because she can, doesn’t mean she should. There’s no shortage of wildly talented screenwriters out there, so get one of them to write the story you want to tell.
Re: Good Night & Good Luck. Excellent film, but obviously not a mass market appeal film. George, like AJ is in a position to do projects he feels strongly about.
Somebody mentioned George up thread, that’s why I mentioned it.
Good Night Good Luck was a strong movie that had a small budget but had very favorable reviews, 93 percent rating with critics on Rotten tomatoes, and 83 percent favorable rating by audiences on Rotten tomatoes. The movie made money for the studio.
Budget $7 million
Box office $56.5 million
I was curious how it did so I looked it up, and was surprised to find that GN&GL went on to make $54 million worldwide, on a $7 mil budget. Those are pretty big numbers for a small film like it was. I remember liking it too, but not much about it specifically though.
LOL great mind Jayna
I really like Good Night and Good Luck. I repeat watch when it’s on.
I also like his film Confessions of a Dangerous Mind.
I’ve said this was going to be a box office bomb since day one, and some of the brangaloonie jumped on me…
Btw: my point is, as I’ve just said, if she wants to be an accomplished director she should start with small things and find her own way. She is not in the position to do “vanity project”, because in this way she gets the reputation of a woman who wants to do something she is not capable of, and she is wasting time and energy.
This is a small project she was passionate about, she want to do this kind project where it is impossible to make but because of her status she can make, she is not interested commercial movie anymore she want to do indies movies
Indie movies don’t cost this much and don’t get the promo space she got and always gets for her projects. Indie films rarely have stars, it’s usually about the story, that’s their strength. She would have to completely rethink her career and public personna if she really wanted to pursue those projects, she is just too famous.
All I have to say is thank you, Kaiser, for those old W Mag photos. I would hit it. Both of them. Good lord.
wow i’ve never seen those pics before- they’re amazing! i really like the one by the little paddling pool 🙂
Those were the pics that led to the oft-quoted ‘Brad is missing a sensitivity chip’ remark. They were taken as part of the promo for Mr and Mrs Smith so the timing was you-know-when.
I will see this movie. It is in my area.
Angelina is not a vain person and does not live her life in a vain manner. I am curious as to all of the criticism about a movie very few have seen.
This is something different that she has done before, and I have read other reviews where once again, she uses her beauty to get viewers to pay attention to what she really wants you to focus on.
I think she is vain and I don’t know why that’s such a bad thing to admit to (e.g. Gwen Stefani OWNS her vanity and she’s badass).
For example I had a massive problem with Jolie’s character in ‘The Tourist’. The script was bad enough in general but the fact that every now and then they had shots and dialogue emphasizing her beauty was cringeworthy. Like yeah we know she’s pretty, duh, we don’t need to be told that over and over and over. It’s embarrassing. That Jolie read that script and agreed to it was a sign for me that she likes to emphasize her beauty. Talking about beauty is BORING no matter how beautiful the subject. That is not a story.
Same thing happens in BTS where there is no excuse for this type of vanity as it came from her own mind! There is no reason why a character needs to be praised that much for her beauty, it can be subtle if you do want to do that but that doesn’t happen as critics clearly mention how everybody talks about her beauty and it’s really over the top. Just NO. This is Jolie’s own damn doing this time so if that’s not vanity I don’t know what is. Jolie is all about aesthetics as reviews are consistently praising visuals but a compelling story is lacking.
Clearly growing up in Hollywood as ‘most sexiest’, having bio children treated like the next coming of Jesus and being praised for her universal beauty in every interview has gone to her head. Despite the fact that BTS is not about her marriage, where does she really draw the line between reality and fiction when there are so many blurred lines? When it’s that personal of a project, where can we tell that Jolie is drawing from real life and where she is being fictional?
Going back to The Leg at the Oscars, it’s obvious that she thinks she is the hot shit which is great because she IS but for the love of god, stop pretending that you don’t think it’s this way. She’s not like ‘us’, she is Angelina Jolie. Own up to it but don’t bore us to death with it while pretending you’re above it in your shitty art projects. Bye Angelicia!
ps still going to see this though haha…
But she is playing character that is vain in BTS. Character that realied on her beauty and is aging and has problems dealing with that. Why is that bad?
Great post, Artemis and totally agree!
thanks, marthab. i read that in a few of the reviews, and found that little bit of perspective refreshing. between that and the fact that it is visually stunning (no critics disagree on that), i have a feeling i am going to enjoy this film. i don’t like typical hollywood films. so this should be interesting.
Great post Artemis! I like Jolie and i think she is a great movie star, one of the few actress in this day and age that has that movie star quality. But like most movie stars she is vain, thats why it doesnt work when she wants to be art house. A really great actor or actress , one that can rightly be called a master of her craft must lack vanity.
There was this programme on BBC iplayer the other day , it was about the actresses that came up through the 60s. Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, Elieen Atkins and Vanessa Redgrave. Redgrave was( like Jolie) stunningly beautiful as a young woman, but apart from being in possession of a first rate talent she completely lacked vanity. Like many great male actors ( this is far more unusual amongst female actresses) she was prepared to look or act in any way to get to the truth of the character. She could have been merely a movie star because of her looks but she had that intensity of artistic temperament that doesnt take vanity into consideration.
It must be difficult for Jolie because of her position in hollywood i suspect very few people are prepared to tell her something isn’t a good idea.
It seems like a mistake for her to direct herself and her husband. Its hard enough to carry that off if you are a great director but if you aren’t that skilled or experienced its going to be hard. This goes back to Brads comment about the cassavettes the fact that he even made that comment tells me that they are a little out of touch. Cassavettes was an excellent director one of the most innovative directors in american cinema, Rowlands is one of the great american film actress of the 20th century. Jolie and Pitt are good actors and stellar movie stars but they haven’t got that kind of artistic vision that Cassavettes had.
@Josephina:
The only reason not many has seen this film is because they have no access to the film. It’s expanding this weekend, hopefully, more can see the film.
I’m just going to go ahead and say it… I think Angelina should act more often, not completely abandon directing but maybe she should i dont know, take some directing tips from more experienced people? It seems like these passion projects of hers are just that, and critics aren’t loving it.
I like AJ and BP but I … am not a Brangeloonie, to put it simply.
Ooof.
Eh, plenty of male directors do shitty movies that bomb often, usually for far more money. You don’t see their careers going down the drain, so I would hope the same could be said for her and any woman who comes after her.
Lots of movies bombed this past six weeks and low ratings by critics for most: Truth, Burnt, Brand in Crisis, poor reviews and flopped.. Steve Jobs got strong reviews but flopped.
I’m not interested in any of these movies, nor Angie’s, at the theatre,but will probably watch them at home on Video on Demand.
She’s fine. It wasn’t some huge budget bomb in the U.S. with bad reviews, like Ridley Scott’s Exodus: Gods and Kings. It did better overseas, which Angie’s probably will also.
Movies that are not big budget action packed vehicles are slowly fading out. At some point, the only movies people will go out of their houses for will be Star Wars/Marvel type films that can be seen in IMAX. Television is taking over – especially with large-screen, HD TVs. And who wants to go out and spend over $50 (tickets plus food and/or drink) for two just to see something that you can watch in your living room for a fraction of the price?
This just proves to me that there are very few, if any, actors who can open a movie. If people don’t want to see the story then who’s in it only kind of matters and if people want to see the story then who’s in it only kind of matters. Personally I think the writers are the big difference-makers. You could put a sentient ham in a Marvel movie and it would probably at least make its budget back.
@BostonGreenEyes, I love to go to the movies. It’s just a poorly reviewed movie across the board (which is usually pretty spot on) won’t get me to spend that kind of money and I know I will be bored in the theater if it’s not that good. At home, its flaws don’t seem so glaring while relaxed on the couch. LOL
I still believe there’s an audience at the theater for more character driven movies or non-action hero movies, but it has to be a great script.
Bridge of Spies with Tom Hanks has been doing well because of strong word of mouth, great reviews, and audiences love it. So it has held steady for the type of movie it is and for a movie that came out during the huge The Martian gangbusters.
I do go see almost every Liam Neeson movie at the box office, even all the Takens, because i LOVE him. Although, I didn’t go see the poorly reviewed (and rightfully so) small budget movie, Third Person, at the movies with him, but caught it at home. It was weak but so good to see him in a non-action movie and other actors I like in it.
I don’t think it will hurt her acting career at all, she’s had a good return on other films, and as you said pretty much every big name actor out there has had flops.
I do think it could possibly hurt her directing/writing career, unless she truly goes indie and gets financing for her projects elsewhere. Ditto for Ryan Gosling, who went through a similar situation last year. I’ll be curious to see if a studio is willing to hand over millions to either to write and direct stuff any time soon. I think she’s lucky to have already been hired for her next one before this flopped.
Oh look at all the haters claiming it is a bomb when it was only released in 10 theatres. It is being released in more theatres this weekend and globally in the coming weeks. Let’s call a movie flop after the end of a cinema release..
Critics claimed the Tourist was a flop after the first weekend and yet it ended up earning almost $300 million.
i find it really really pathetic how people on here claim to be feminist and moan about the fact that there aren’t female directors and yet they are the first ones to jump on anything Angelina directs.
PS: Richard Leakey just confirmed that Angelina is still directing his movie with a budget of $110 million. Glad to see that the big studios have trust in Angelina and believed in her talent. Unlike some who claim to be brangeloony and yet celebrates when one of their movies supposedly “flopped”.
PS: I don’t remember seeing threads after threads about other movies who flopped in a bigger way than this movie – why is that?
Regarding the Richard Leakey news, thats a good budget. Hes just been appointed the head of Kenya Wildlife Service (again) so it could bring some attention to the poaching problem in the region. I just hope to God that she doesnt turn it into a “white man saves Africa” tale. That would seriously piss me off. Richards story, and how his race & family notoriety protected him while his black colleagues were quietly eliminated or ruined, is a complex one. It requires a clever director with a delicate touch and the jurys still out on whether Angie has that touch.
@ maya: Frankly this is one of the most balanced pieces about these two that I’ve ever seen in this site and I was pleasantly surprised. Maybe go to Just Jared if all you want to hear is praise for an obviously troubled project.
So only negative stuff written then it is balanced but if only positive stuff written is only praise?
Did I get that right?
It’s balanced to write negative things when something negative happens. BTS did not do well in any sense; its box office was abysmal (on a per theatre basis, which is how arty movies in limited release are judged) and its reviews have been dismal.
I’m sure Angelina will have a successful movie in the future or will engage on some humanitarian issue, and positive things will be written about it. But it’s not “hate” to be honest when something didn’t go so well for her.
” But it’s not “hate” to be honest when something didn’t go so well for her.”
it is for some folks. 😉
doofus I think a lot depends on the name of the poster and their intent. 😉
@MJess
It does. I usually read the comments without posting. Jolie brings out the snark in particular posters.
@Maya:
According to Anon33, only “negative” statements about Angelina are “fair”.
Spot on Maya! It seems to me that Rudin’s comments simply opened the door to anyone who had a beef against Jolie/Brad. I have no problem with a film critic panning the movie, but I will withold judgement until I see the movie. This post is simply bait for the trolls.
@Maya The writer of this article pretty much called By the Sea a bomb, is she a hater as well? I think I read where she said it’s a stupid movie. Even AJ fans said it was a bomb are they also haters. It’s not hating to say something didn’t do well when it truth it didn’t do well.
Kaiser is an admitted and proud Brangeloonie but that doesn’t mean she won’t report the true situation about this movie.
Facts are facts, Maya, and $9500 per theater is horrible whether it’s ten theaters or hundreds.
“Kaiser is an admitted and proud Brangeloonie but that doesn’t mean she won’t report the true situation about this movie”.
Kaiser was calling this movie a flop months ago. What’s up with that?
I read most Brangelina threads.
@Maya”
Serena was a huge flop but was covered up. Couldn’t have JLaw having such a flop before this last Hunger Games film comes out.
There was an article in Time magazine about how it flopped, among many other places, including this very website.
Jlaw didn’t direct or write Serena…
I love her but I really wish she would get back to acting . I’m not going to judge the movies she directed because I honestly haven’t wanted to see any of them. I just think she’s too much of a target and personality to stay behind the camera.
That Yahoo article explains a lot. I wondered why a film that was supposedly never intended for more than a handful of theatres had its stars on a full publicity tour. They did a sitdown interview on a major show together, they covered multiple publications, they allowed their kids to be photographed and they discussed their private lives for a “passion project” they had no real ambition for? And havent two industry publications questioned the declared budget? It sounds like this Donna Langley realised she needed to do some damage control or Universal shareholders will come after her neck, so instead of admitting she screwed up, she is playing it as “we totally planned this outcome”.
The Vogue Italy cover must mean they are trying to recoup in European theatres. I wonder how it will do there.
They are not trying to recoup in European theaters – it was always planned – that was scheduled realese (from now until April in European countries).
I agree the promotion and media coverage was disproportionate to what this movie seems to be. I think Universal was banking on people show up just because they’re super famous, but most people aren’t going to waste $12-15 on a movie that many critics said was boring. People will go see a bad movie, but they don’t want to be bored.
They only did today show that it, no night shows unlike other actors who are all over the tv when they promoting their movie or no loads of press interview & in case you wondering the JP don’t do night shows they like do cover magazines, & if you been fellowing they just did 1 week promotion & afterwards they come back to do their respective project
If you didn’t read celebrity gossip you wouldn’t know this movie was playing in theaters. I know about the Vogue cover and the Today Show interview because I read celebrity gossip. I haven’t seen a trailer for this on TV or a billboard. Universal sure didn’t spend a lot of money promoting it in the U.S. I have a friend who’s an Angelina fan. She didn’t know about this movie until I told her. I’m curious. Would most of the people on here know this movie was playing if they didn’t read celebrity gossip?
I have heard radio promos for it on NPR on a daily basis. Every time I hear it it strikes me as odd…although it indicates to me that they were going for a more “highbrow” audience than a more commercial film.
But most people who do a little indie film don’t get a Vogue or Vanity Fair cover or a big Today show interview.
The trailer was on every entertainment/showbiz/magazine website, and I did see online ads for it. It certainly wasn’t advertised like some big blockbusters, but it did get some publicity and ads.
@Esmom:
Honestly, your average moviegoer who loves their car chases will not “get” this film. That might sound harsh, but it’s the truth.
Have you ever noticed…Angie’s movies are very reflective of her life, if indirectly. Like when she was in “Girl, Interrupted,” she was amazing…and also in her wild phase, having admittedly been institutionalized herself. Not to mention “Gia” and the drugs. She had a few odd choices in there (the one where she is a newscaster w Ed Burns) and that was the period we’d all agree she was a little confusing and probably didn’t know where she belonged. Then came Mr and Mrs Smith and the bad ass chick phase (my favorite, for the record), along w Salt, the James McEvoy one etc. The Marianne movie (some thing called Heart, I’m blanking) and the child abduction one she was very family oriented and focused, adopting and having multiple children.. And now, dealing with the melancholia of her surgeries she’s in a brooding moody movie.
I’m excited to see what is next, I enjoy her movies but I’m not sure BTS is for me.
No one is coming for her head because they know they will make back their money oversea. Btw, I love those black and white pictures of both of them, after ten years I can see the love is still strong. Good luck to the Jolie Pitt’s.
Not sure they will. It’s only being released in one cinema in my country. Usually even tiny little arthouse films (I’m talking under 1mil budget, no known actors) will be released in 2-3 cities at multiple cinemas. Seems like this one is just being buried.
They have decided not to release it at all in my country anymore.
Agreed. Initial numbers for a slightly wider European release – Italy & Sweden with 259 theatres combined (Monday 16th) – have Per Screen Average at just $1,133. And a poor ‘Other Rest of World’ (no theatre numbers for breakdown) of $40,746. With a US domestic (concentrated 10 theatres 4 day to Monday 16th inc) at only $104,713 & 65.3% drop off (ALL %- across the 4 days) By the Sea is not likely to float on European/Other markets.
Rumours are some countries are, as of this week, now not going to release as planned OR release has significantly scaled back. Sweden and Italy are testing ground for ‘art-house’ (although BtS is being thought only notionally that – on budget and in tone as realised). If the numbers don’t improve there, then the US concentrated 10 theatre Opening Weekend (Brangelina fans and the curious) may, bizarrely, prove to be their BEST stats with a, albeit poor, $10,000 PSA.
Whatever, generously splitting the budget range at say $20,000,000 (although Deadline and Variety as typically reliable source say $30,000,000), BtS is likely to NOTABLY underperform – domestic & worldwide.
Universal can take the loss but it doesn’t help Jolie-Pitt parlay money for future ventures with her at the helm. ‘Africa’ has already got a funding ? over it since it recently lost a backer over creative differences with Jolie-Pitt’s vision for it.
She may have over-extended use of her ‘Star power’ on this one only to find (third underperformer in a row – Unbroken did underperform too) roadblocks or limits her facility to play ‘Star power’ again anytime soon.
@Naya:
They gave interviews to a few publications, the rest were just rehash articles from the original interviews. From Brad and Angie, only a couple interviews about the film were given.
But, they are THE Brad and Angie, and every word they said was repeated dozens of times by every magazine and TV tabloid show.
I disagree with the last paragraph. No, Angelina should not be given a good story to direct. She was given amazing material in Unbroken and ruined the movie. The film ended up being very uneven and amateurish. She should be given fluff projects to cut her teeth and prove that she actually has the talent to be directing prestige projects in the future. Granted, the source material for Unbroken was difficult to adapt to film, but it would have been doable for an experienced director. I love Angelina Jolie as an actress, but this is her second high-profile strike-out in the directing department. I wish she made more films, but as an actress because she’s lovely to watch. Not every successful actor has what it takes to produce an artistically gratifying film, their egos notwithstanding.
And yet not a single director wanted to touch Unbroken for 50 years.
Bravo for Angelina to do what other famous directors didn’t want to do.
Same could be said about Matthew M. No one wanted to touch The Dallas Buyers Club. It was 20 years in the making but Matt got it made and won an Oscar, so did Jared.
The reason Unbroken sat around was because as it was, it was merely a classic Lifetime True Story. A story like that, however true, is so shmaltzy that you need to find a really clever way to tell it. Perhaps by adopting a unique narrative style or embedding smart symbolism in the footage for your more discerning viewers like Fincher or Aronfsky do. Shes lucky that the Evangelicals who bussed in to watch it, would buy tickets to a potato documentary if you told them that the lead potato is now born again.
@Maya– Unbroken was only published 5 years ago, so I have no idea where you are going with that 50 years nonsense, unless you want to make the argument that directors should research each and every WWII vet for possible movie potential.
@vilebody
Universal required the rights to make a movie on Louie’s life over fifty years ago. It was never made. Angelina pushed to get it made.
@Maya:
Angie doesn’t let grass grow under her feet, she’s a “doer”, not a “talker”. She said outright this was “a risk”, but she and Brad wanted to take it. She said, “life is short”, I admire her for that.
The reason no director wanted to take it because the story was too big and there was too much information about that time in his life. I do think a proper director would have done a good job. Jolie took it because she thought she had the skills to do it but she didn’t. She missed the whole point of Unbroken,
The trailer looks really dumb and tawdry. It also appears to show the entire movie in just 30 seconds – LOVE! PASSION! ANGER! LEAVES LOVER ON FLOOR OF HOTEL ROOM!
@Boston Green Eyes:
I assure you, there is nothing “tawdry” about this film.
I may be in the minority on this but I prefer HER acting to Brad’s–shrug
I still want to see this for myself, I love drama and from the previews it looks dramatic.
I plan to see it alone, because I do not want to get pissed off if my husband groans or sighs during viewing.
It’s like Angie Goes to Film School, but later on and with multiple parents’ money. Whatever. These are the rules of our class system. It can’t be as bad as anything Uwe Boll has made. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460780/
This.
I saw the movie. Its….okay? I don’t know. It had interesting parts, and the chemistry between Brad and Angie was good, but the whole thing was pretty anticlimactic. You understood the stakes, but weren’t made to feel invested in the stakes. It all felt weirdly..detached. Which works wonderfully for some films but I think it was the wrong approach here. I did enjoy hearing them speak (or try to speak, anyway) some french, lol.
but isn’t the detachment part of the plot? as in her character is detached to the point of comatose almost?
I didn’t mean the characters were detached (and really, the character is more depressed and numb and bitter in my view than detached). I meant the direction/storytelling were detached.
ah, thanks for clarifying 🙂
i am going to see it in the next week or two.
I’ve only seen the trailer and my first reaction was that it was a bad parody of a 1970s European art house film (and I generally like Euro art house films).. It just looks really contrived, reminded me of that really pretentious ad that Brad Pitt did ages ago (for Chanel I think?). I neither love nor loathe Brad and Angelina; have enjoyed their work in some films and not so much in others, but from the few minutes that I saw in the trailer, I’m not shocked that this bombed at the box office. Even if it were a great reimaging of the genre, European art house flick is never going to be a huge draw in the US at least.
I saw the movie on Sunday. It isn’t great but it’s a decent film. I don’t think it’s as bad as critics are making it out to be. The movie has a slow pace, but I wasn’t bored. Angelina’s character, Vanessa is so unlikable. I know people are saying all her character does is smoke cigarettes and look pretty, she does that a lot but there is more to her character. Brad’s character, Roland has his issues but he’s way more likable than Vanessa. I actually felt sorry for him. He tried so hard. The scenes of them sitting on the floor is hilarious. Brad and Angelina have good chemistry. She is topless in two scenes and her doctors did a fantastic job with her surgery. I would give the movie a 7.5/10.
@Dana:
I agree, Brad comes off as more likeable, the one trying to save their marriage. They’ve lost none of their chemistry, after 10 years and 6 children, they are still hot for each other, that comes through loud and clear.
I applaud Angelina for showing her reconstructed breasts, very tastefully, I might add, but enough for women who have had reconstructive surgery can feel as if they are still as sexy and beautiful as ever.
All I can say is that Mr Pitt is super fine in these photos. Love him!!
Speaking of sitting in a bed and sighing prettily…! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVE3n8CriEc
I know a lot of people adore Angelina and my opinion won’t be a popular one, but I find it painful to look at her the same way I find it painful to look at Charlie Sheen – before his announcement. They look so frail and sickly and it makes you think “why isn’t anyone addressing the fact that they look like they are about to keel over and die?” Angie looks like she should be in a hospital. Not making movies.
Jolei does not look good I agree. She does looks very sickly and I have no idea why she isn’t resting from her surgeries either. She is already making her next movie in Cambodia. Why?
On the TV trailer, it looked like someone had just watched Godard’s Contempt and then thought, ‘Yeah, okay’.
As a lover of early 60s, stylish, arty, angsty European films, I’ll go see this if it plays here or dvd it and decide for myself. I do like BradnAngie, but I’m not a fanatic.
Eh…you win some, you lose some. It seems that Angelina and Brad both got something out of it, though, so I guess for them it goes in the win column.
I don’t see what the big deal is.
She wanted to make a personal art project
wth her husband… So what is she wasted studios money ? They gave it to her .. It’s their money … She didn’t do this for money .. She did it to celebrate her marriage and for an outlet for her grief over losing her mother, etc. it was a passion project. Atleast she didn’t try and Oscar hustle for it .. She barely did any promotion… Cuz that wasn’t her angle . No story here.
Passion project, art project. LOL Come on. She wanted to make a movie about a script she was passionate about borne during the time of losing her mother and worked on over the years. BUT every scriptwriter has inspiration for their script in adult themed movies.. BUT she wanted it to be a good movie and a movie the audience enjoyed and for it to be a success financially.
Any director/producer/scriptwriter wants their movie to be successful to make back the money. She has done quite a few print interviews pushing the movie by talking about her marriage and problems. She did only one interview live, true. But there was plenty of push on this small movie.
I think it’s an insult to label this as an art project. She wants to be a filmmaker. She understands the business and knows what it takes to build success on top of success. Don’t insult her as just wanting to blow ten million plus for a vanity art project. I have more respect for her than that. It’s not about making money for yourself . It is about wanting to make money for your studio and investors and to be successful in your field. No director/writer wants to make a movie that people don’t turn out to see and that doesn’t turn a profit, much less loses money or that gets low ratings by critics. Come on.
She knew this was her time and she made her film the way she wanted while she still had the clout. I agree, no story here.
It takes a rare person to direct a good film given how much one has to get just right, man or woman -granted, men have had infinitely more chances. She hasn’t proven herself to be a good director (yet), but my fingers are crossed that she keeps trying and knocks out a great one. My personal view is that most great or good directors (I know a few) are psychologists and run deep. My hope is that Ms Jolie Pitt will become that at some point. I want more female directors to succeed in that very male-dominated arena.
True. I think she will keep improving and learning her craft as a director..
And I think for any movie she writes the script she should have a co-writer. Even Ben Affleck, who I think is a strong writer for his movies so far or adapting books with a screenplay because as a director he really has a strong sense of the arcs needed in movies and the rhythm, has had a co-writing partner, even if he is the main writer as far as vision because he’s directing. He understands the collaborative process in writing a movie and I think it shows with the finished product, movies that tell a story but have a good pace.
I think that would have served Angelina’s screenplay much better to have had a co-writer brought in and tightened it up. Collaboration isn’t a bad thing and you learn from more experienced writers.
Angelina has true power that she was able to even make this film. I think people are afraid of saying no to her because you make her mad and you also have Brad Pitt against you and he could be valuable to getting some film made in the future. I think Brad and Angelina tried hard to make the type of film they like to watch, but being able to star in that kind of film when you are that famous doesn’t work, especially if the setting is so glamorous. Just watch the great independent foreign films from the 70s. Don’t act like you can do what they do. That’s a fantasy only they were interested in.