MovieChat Forums > Nine (2009) Discussion > The reason this film flopped (my theory ...

The reason this film flopped (my theory at least)

posted 14 years ago by RyanCShowers
56 replies | jump to latest

Sad, but true. It flopped.

I've been on a journey with this film since, what? August? September? Around there. To quote the leading lady, "I watched it rise and watched it fall". And I loved it when I saw it in theaters on Christmas, but it wasn't what I was expecting.

That was the biggest problem. That everyone thought it'd be this feel-good, fast-pace, thrill-ride, all entertaining (no dramatic substance) film like Chicago was. When you broadcast [b]"Rob Marshall, Director of CHICAGO", then see the trailer what most people were probably expecting was a sequel to Chicago (Not literally, a sequel, metaphorically).

What Nine is, is (To quote Miss Kidman at the SAG FQA) "A Psychological Musical". The biggest complaint I heard from audiences and critics was that it was boring. I never knew how to describe it before but Nicole hit the nail on the head.

Anyways, that's my theory on it anyways. Agree with me or disagree

http://i994.photobucket.com/albums/af66/Hours_2002/ActingWins99-10.jpg

[–] BestOfAllPossible 14 years ago

The hole in the argument, I think, is that Nine should not be boring. If it had been done well, it would not have bored.

[–] RyanCShowers 14 years ago

But my point is that it isn't boring Rob Marshall made a masterpiece here.

http://i994.photobucket.com/albums/af66/Hours_2002/ActingWins99-10.jpg

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RyanCShowers 14 years ago

Well actually the original version was 2 hrs 15 mins long, I believe. Why they didn't put the extra stuff of the DVD is beyond me Actually, the only complaint I have is them not including "Simple" that Penelope would've sung. If they would've she may have been a threat to Mo'Nique this year.

I didn't think DDL was flawed at all. The accent, the charm, the darkness, perfect.

And you have to remember, this is probably one of the most dark musicals in history. Guido is supposed to be dark. It's about the terror and stress of filmmaking.

I don't think anyone liked it as much as me

http://i994.photobucket.com/albums/af66/Hours_2002/ActingWins99-10.jpg

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RyanCShowers 14 years ago

If the story is depressing like you said, why do people like 8 1/2 but not Nine?

http://i994.photobucket.com/albums/af66/Hours_2002/ActingWins99-10.jpg

[–] BestOfAllPossible 14 years ago

ShannonSam writes out a very long, detailed, thoughtful post about the many shortcomings of the film and how it presents its characters, especially in contrast to its predecessors and all you got out of it was that the plot was depressing?

[–] Bergman_Fellini87 10 years ago

People like 8 1/2 because its one of the most greatest, & influential films ever made. I've read your posts before, & seeing the amount of idiotic Gwyneth Paltrow grovelling you do, I doubt you'd appreciate Fellini's masterpiece.

Roger Ebert's review explains clearly why Nine does not impress admirers of Fellini's film.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/nine-2009

[–] kvc2 14 years ago

Scream -- after teaching NINE in freshman literature this semester, I have really come to appreciate it more. I think we've all been dragged through the amateur critics' opinions enough (it sucked, it's boring, ir doesn't have a plot, the songs are not hummable). I've come to think there's a lot of subtlety in NINE which most people just don't see -- like Marshall going back and forth between B&W and color to pay respect to Fellini.

On the test I gave my students a "give away" question (any answer was correct):

I thought this film was
a. entertaining
b. boring
c. hard to follow
d. educational

All my students but one answered "entertaining."

If people don't know that gogo dancing was the 1960s style, their lack of knowlege only leaves them with the song, Hudson, and the choreography -- all of which the amateurs have knocked enough. If they understood what Marshall's historical intent was, they may have had more appreciation for that number.

In any case, I do admire you for standing up for your own taste and for a film I think is a lot better than it has been given credit for.

[–] BestOfAllPossible 14 years ago

You can't eat intentions, to coin a phrase. Regardless of both Marshall's and Yeston's intent with "Cinema Italiano," the result was a lacklustre song. I thought it was one of the better moments in the movie as far as the filming of it goes, but the song still wasn't very good.

We can talk about Marshall's intentions all day long, but the fact is, they didn't amount to what I felt to be a good movie. They didn't amount to what I felt to be emotionally satisfying. And, perhaps the greatest sin of all, they didn't amount to what I felt to be a good adaptation of Nine.

[–] bsharporflat 14 years ago

I think BestOfAllPossible is correct.

That's how it was for me. Some of the acting in this movie was great. The choreography and sets were fantastic. Some of the singing was truly great (Cotillard, Kidman and even Fergie).

But the songs were what sunk it for me. They just weren't very catchy or memorable or touching.

It is a failing of much of modern Broadway, imho. There are so many great songs in the history of American theater that current writers are so familiar with. They go through such great pains to avoid cliche and imitations of old songs that they come up with weird, unlikable new songs. I think it would benefit them and us if they would write songs that capture the proper mood and not worry so much about being innovative.

[–] BestOfAllPossible 14 years ago

The choreography was lacklustre and uninspiring. The musical numbers didn't offer anything new that we couldn't get out of the scenes. The musical numbers which do offer insight were either pushed so far into dreamland that the insight is no longer recognizable or they were cut.

The musical is a masterpiece. The movie is Nine lite. If Marshall had the courage to actually tell the story that the musical tells and tell it without glossing over it with pretty sequins, maybe the film would be a masterpiece, too. And it wouldn't be boring.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] slapmonkey 14 years ago

Never saw the musical but if you're correct then Marshall should never be allowed to direct again. The problem with Nine is simple -- the songs were boring (so he must be crazy if he left out the best songs) and the dances insipid (he's just rehashed all the Chicago stuff).

~~~I know I'm good for something... just don't what it is {yet}~~~

[–] scrapmetal7 14 years ago

Do you see the flaw in your reasoning? If people say they were bored, then they were bored. plain and simple. Saying, "It wasn't boring" only means it wasn't boring to YOU. Therefore that is an irrelevant response to THEM.

[–] Grey603 14 years ago

I agree more with the original poster. It was much more...internal than anything else, it was about someone...lost, and it works, but there were flaws.

As odd as this sounds, I think if Anthony Minghella hadnt passeed, and the screenplay was just his it wouldve been a different film. All his screenplays weather original or adapted have been beautiful. And im sure he wouldve made 'Simple' work.

I wish the film had been longer, and I dont know who to blame for that.

Either way, for what it was, it was a really good film. With some great performances.

I'm superstitious. Before I start a new movie, I kill a hobo with a hammer-Gwyneth Paltrow

[–] ugahushpuppy 14 years ago

I think it flopped because it simply is not a well known musical in general.

[–] danbmcg 14 years ago

Read my post.

[–] IcedChai3 14 years ago

I also think the tagline "from the director of Chicago" backfired on this movie, but for different reasons. Chicago had an excellent box office, but I'm not sure as many people actually liked the movie as ticket sales may have hinted. I personally thought Chicago was very overrated. Seeing that 'Nine' was being promoted as Chicagoesque was enough to keep several people I know from wanting to see it.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scrapmetal7 14 years ago

Magnificent performances. I'm more than willing to give credit where it is deserved, Everybody, from the big stars to the extras, did exceptional jobs. All of the women who sang were magnificent. But it didn't matter in the end. You can sing your heart out, but if the song is crappy, (or boring, or unimaginative, or uninspired, or redundant, or annoying, as all of these songs were) then it's a fail.

A musical MUST have inspiring music. Nothing in a musical is as important as its songs. This movie is proof of that. With the talent and ability assembled here, this movie should have been a triumph. Instead, it is an ordeal. It is a disservice to its audience, and to its cast.

FAIL.

[–] RyanCShowers 14 years ago

The songs were great. Not bad at all Where the hell did you come from?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpHaFUZWAd0&feature=related

[–] bostonlatin 14 years ago

IN response to the original poster.

BORING.

That about sums it up.

Nothing original.

[–] BestOfAllPossible 14 years ago

Rob Marshall compromised in almost every way. And it's a copout to excuse his cutting of extremely cinematic musical numbers which give real depth to the characters by saying that "Movies are different." Obviously there are some things that you can do on stage that you simply can't do in film, but the cuts were not because of differences in the mediums, they were because of the insulting convention that Marshall imposed upon the piece.

[–] angelofvic 14 years ago

I'm wondering how the stage show was different from the film.

I didn't like the film, but then again I dislike Fellini very much, and I don't think his life and values serve up a very good musical. So then the question is, was the stage show that much better? If so, why?

Apart from the Fellini sleaze factor, and the fact that DDL didn't really convey a suitable enough change of heart at the end to make the end believable (but then Fellini would never have really changed either), the movie was indeed rather slow-paced and dull. Contrast that with the snappy never-a-dull-moment film of Chicago. Big difference.
.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lf1234 14 years ago

That may be the reason it flopped financially; the "fun" factor. I mean, Mamma Mia is the highest-grossing film musical. That right there told you Nine's fate before it was even made.

THIS is the world we live in. A "fun" world.