1. This is the most random cast I have EVER seen! It seriously seems like a joke, a glee club director, a pop star, a werewolf, a vampire's bff, a gossip boy and a tennis wag walk into a bar... I guess this joke will be told by... Chris Rock? What?
2. How do you make a movie about a self help book about pregnancy?
movies based on self help book have been done before "Mean Girls", "He's not just that into you".
shareEverything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex
And they all have been rated poorly. So why continue with the failing trend?
" The rug really tied the room together, did it not? "share
Mean Girls wasn't rated poorly.
shareI found Mean Girls to be an instant teen classic. It's like Clueless to me. and 6.9/10 is not bad at all. If less boyfriends were forced to watch it against their will, I'm sure the targeted audience would have more of an impact in getting that to above a 7/10.
This movie on the other hand, didn't have a strong enough story to bring the couples together to connect the story. This is sure no Pulp Fiction, Crash, or even that movie with Jon Stewart where he is banging Scully from X-files. :P
ALynn's wording was:
"How do you make a movie about a self help book about pregnancy?"
She was very specific and wasn't questioning all self-help movies. It amazes me that people answer questions so indirectly sometimes.
I don't think it's to be a 'self help' movie. I think it's just a story of pregnancy, and they picked that as a name. Don't read into it so much. Plus, it's not a random cast. It's quite a few big names and they play couples expecting babies. I'm sure it will be a good movie.
shareThey didn't just pick the name. It's the title of the first in a series of at least 3 pregnancy/child care books. If you had any knowledge of the design/production process, you'd know they never "just pick" something. The rule is that you always have to have a reason behind the decision.
shareThe rule is that you always have to have a reason behind the decision.And the reason is many times marketing/money related. The reason this movie is named after that book is because the book is popular and lots of people recognize it. Rather than calling it "Tools Having Babies" or something that actually describes the plot they're leveraging the popularity of something else to get people to watch their movie. It's not like there was some writer who came to a studio with a script based on a reference book. There was some studio guy who decided that it would be profitable to name a movie after the book and then either had someone write a movie, or they slightly changed an existing script to reference the book.
You're sure it will be a good movie? Do you blindly enjoy every movie even if its a piece of crap? Because without seeing it that is a pretty bold statement to make. And "big" names? Really?
share1. Basically, the random cast is an assembly of actors from currently popular shows and movies, so it's not that random. They'll mostly be people the trendy will recognize.
2. How? By dramatizing it with a storyline wrapped around it.
+ 1
The very thesis of having celebs tell you about pregnancy is retarded. Their resource is acting/tennis/whatever... Does those skills come with immense knowledge of the human cr0tch as well? I must have missed something.
Pass.
EDIT: Maybe... It's because pregnant couples are the only people on this earth who are as self-centered as celebrities?
We should abort the nineties. That entire generation; launch them into the sun, earth is too crowded for these little brats.
this is like a chick flick on steroids
the only people who care about pregnant women are other pregnant women or women who just had a kid. so this is a niche movie aimed at like 1% of the audience. but when you get women talking about babies and pregnancy, they are like freight trains. and they are always right. the quote from The Change-Up said it best:
"these are called children, or dependents. never disparage your own child, everything they do is a miracle from god. when they're bad, it's only because they're tired or going through a phase. when other kids are bad it's because of indulgent parenting or inane defects in the childs character"
in other words, when women catch the scent of a child, then everything and everything becomes about that kid. it takes over and nothing is more important than the kid. not even the plot of this movie.
nobody wants to see a bunch of catty pregnant women do exercises and talk about how perfect their kids are going to be. every woman thinks their baby is the greatest thing in the world, and to make a movie about FIVE women like that.... wow.
In other words, it will be a smash hit.
I love your comment! I'm a woman who absolutely loathes chick flicks and can't stand most rom coms. This film is my ultimate nightmare.
shareOh and add Xerxes from 300 to the list. :)
share
Make sure you take a bag with you when you go to see it.
[deleted]
What these other movies don't get is that part of the magic of Love Actually is that it's done by Richard Curtis, who knows how to do ensemble movies. Plus, it's not based on a self-help book or a holiday (yes, it's Christmas, but it's not ABOUT Christmas, you know?). My husband and I have been trying to have a baby almost two years, and I really don't want to see a movie about people who whine about how hard it is to actually have one. For some of us, that's a little bit of a sore spot.
shareFirst, I want to say I really sympathize with your efforts to create a family, and I wish you the best for that (I put in a little prayer for you, for whatever that might do). I hope you succeed and find joy!
Now, to the negative (this is imdb, right? ;-):
LOVE ACTUALLY is a toxic mess-just my opinion (though shared by many others, contrary to the many who sing that movie's praises). What Curtis did was take a lot of excellent ingredients (high production values, beautiful locations, incredible, large cast of actors, many of whom who are not only big stars, but also truly good actors) and put them together to create a stinking mess. I respect your feeling for the movie, but I feel so strongly, I'm compelled to post a counterpoint. To get a sense of why some of us detest the movie so much, read some of the reviews here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314331/reviews?filter=hate.
Singling out Richard Curtis for praise for his ability with ensemble movies makes me...well, it lets me know we disagree fundamentally, which is just how things go, and we both have the right to our opinions (note my careful diplomacy). Off the top of my head, I would offer a few examples of what I consider good ensemble movies and their makers--older first, then more recent: George Cukor, et al's DINNER AT EIGHT http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023948/; William Wyler, et al's THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036868/; Ron Howard, et al's THE PAPER http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110771/ (PARENTHOOD also comes to mind, and probably other Howard movies); John Sayles' LONE STAR http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116905/ (again, Sayles is very good at ensemble movies with multiple story threads that actually work; even when not completely successful, they're worthwhile). Do you have any suggestions for other large ensemble, multiple storyline movies you've enjoyed?
[deleted]