Is it just me? It really diddn't do anything for me. But i do get the title now! Exactly what i was thinking when endcredits appeared, what just happened? If that was the meaning of the movie then they did good! 3000 years ago de niro did a good movie, if ever. Same robert different movie. In sweden we call people like him "överskattade" ;)
shareWell, you're right. This movie has no real point actually. You can't also say it's bad, cause it's not. I liked the movie, it had some dark satire humour in it. And also to be said: the actors played their role great, i think Bruce Willis was hilarious, and De Niro too. If you saw Burn after Reading, that movie had no clue either, and it's also good!
shareBurn After Reading had no point? There was a clear story in that film, compared to this run of scenes that are just boring. There is almost no story.
shareOP..... you're exactly right i saw this movie last night without seeing the title and the first thing that crossed my mind. "What just happened?" then i looked at the title and saw that was the name of the movie. I got a kick out of that.
What doesn't kill you makes you.....stranger-The Joker
So, De Niro never made a good movie and he's overrated. What a complete a-hole you are. In Sweden they call people like you "A-hole".
shareIt wasn't a terrible movie. I even debated rating it a 7. But despite it's humorous spots, it failed in more than one way. One, we weren't given a good reason to care about Ben. So whether his movie was a success or a failure, who cares? Two, the several storylines drifted off into Never, Never Land. All the movie really accomplished was helping us to appreciate that the life of a producer can be hectic, cost you a marriage and force you to play mediator between many different players.
Three, I'm assuming Keener was basically playing a Sherry Lansing-like character. I couldn't help but continue to ask myself if her part was really that necessary. Perhaps her parts should have been cut altogether OR make her role more integral to the story. Otherwise she would have never had to have been anything more than just a voice on the phone.
I guess the whole moral of the story was that if you want to be in the A-Club, a lot of sacrifices are require. We can nit-pick any movie, so....
The flick was watchable, but I'm not surprised at all that it lost a bunch of money. Banking on big names alone obviously isn't going to spell success. Fans still, believe it or not, appreciate a well constructed, well told story. This one was messy. I gave it a 6 because it DID have some bright spots and it WAS DeNiro after all.
These eggs have yellow eyes. But if I turn them, the yellow is gone.
The overall point of a movie is to entertain
and it did that for me
"Back home we got a taxidermy man he gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him"- Quint
Point blank.
No point
Point Blank
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
These eggs have yellow eyes. But if I turn them, the yellow is gone.
Funny. That's about the one thing it DIDN'T do for me.
It was boring and completely senseless. If there's no plot... there's no reason to make it. It's not like it's an action or comedy film that doesn't need much plot to entertain, or an arthouse picture that is all artsy and 'unique'. It's just a pointless, plotless, BORING movie with nothing of any credible or enjoyable value to it.
But that's just my opinion.
No Barry Levinson movie has a point: in "Diner" a group of friends hang out and nothing happens, in "rain man" two brothers go around, noyhing happens, and so on. But they're good movies.
shareThis was no "Rain Man"
People played their parts well enough, but like several people have stated, the main role was not likeable enough to give a *beep*
Wasn't a bad movie, just dull and doesn't create any waves (which is odd given the subject matter)
Never mind, there will be better movies
This movie was terrible. No point, no plot, wasn't funny, was terribly boring.
shareI have to agree with those who are more negative than positive (and even if I didn't, I wouldn't call them insulting names; there's far too much of that on this site). My basic reason is that movie seems to offer no explanation of how shooting the dog got put back in for the showing at Cannes, which clearly takes DeNiro, its producer, and Keener, the studio head, by surpise, Some friendly glances and a little physical contact between the director and editor in the last editing room scene suggest collusion between them, but if so, why?. So when the major point of contention in the film isn't satisfactorily resolved,it's not unfair to think that the movie is ultimately pointless.
shareSeemed to me like a movie made for people in the movie business. It had little relevance for those of us outside of it.
OK we had actors and directors throwing tantrums, showing how puerile they can be and I can see this being amusing to people who are in the business and live with that sort of life. But once again, those of us in the regular world, not a lot of point, despite the fact that the actors obviously enjoyed doing it.
http://www.oztvreviews.com/
Well deniro is genius in it, thats good enough for me
share