MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Friday Estimates: Mamma Equalized 2

friday estimates 2018-07-21 at 12.32.03 PM copy

15 Responses to “Friday Estimates: Mamma Equalized 2”

  1. JS Partisan says:

    What happens when women see one movie, and men see the other movie? THIS WEEKEND! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

  2. Christian says:

    Another good Kore-eda movie that no one’s going to see.

  3. Aaron Aradillas says:

    Question: Where does one go for news on the entertainment industry? I really don’t want to go to Hollywood Elsewhere. I try to avoid toxic environments. MCN used to be my one-stip shop.

  4. Jspartisan says:

    Aaron, I usually find stuff on twitter, or via io9. It’s just the easiest way to do it.

  5. Normally I doo not learn article on blogs, but I wwish to say that this write-up very pressureed me to check out and do
    it! Your writong taste has been surprised me. Thanks, very great article. https://Loop.frontiersin.org/people/510558/overview

  6. Shane says:

    Has there ever been this many sequels out at once? Just crazy,,,

  7. Jspartisan says:

    Never forget that weekend, SB. When the third chapters of three movies were on the top three.

  8. palmtree says:

    Mojo says it’s the first time 8 of the top 10 movies were sequels. Seems plausible given how crazy that stat really is.

  9. PcChongor says:

    Sad to see SORRY peter out. Really thought it was going to take off, but perhaps nowadays the only way to Trojan Horse interesting original material into a wide release is via horror. The ending was a bit shaky for my tastes, but really enjoyed the flick overall. Wonder what A24 or Blumhouse could’ve done with it.

  10. movieman says:

    Mojo has “Equalizer” narrowly beating “Mia” this weekend.
    Nobody saw that coming.
    I wonder if those same totals will hold by tomorrow afternoon.
    Denzel Power!

  11. Dr Wally Rises says:

    Bizarre release timing for both MM2 and E2. I can’t fathom why Mamma Mia wasn’t released until AFTER the World Cup is over, thus cleaning up as counterprogramming for soccer widows (not such a big deal in the US, but most definitely a big deal overseas). And Mission is going to destroy Equalizer next week. The Denzel / Fuqua firm always seem to go for an early – Fall slot, so timing this for July seems odd.

  12. movieman says:

    The “Mia” date makes a certain sense: (it’s almost exactly 10 years from the opening of the original which bowed the same day as “TDK”), but it was definitely a mistake to slot “E2″ a week before “MI.” You’re right, Wally: fall would have made more sense.
    At least STX finally came to their senses and pushed “Mile 22″ back a few weeks to distance itself from Cruise.

  13. Warren says:

    The World Cup is over–the final between France and Croatia was played last Sunday.

  14. GdB says:

    I’ve had a hard time reading io9 lately because their Disney/SW coverage reads like they will say anything Disney wants to stay on the screening list.

    That shit didn’t happen when CJA and Newitzz ran the ship.

  15. palmtree says:

    To be fair though, I don’t think anyone anticipated the sixth MI would be setting the world on fire.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

This is probably going to sound petty, but Martin Scorsese insisting that critics see his film in theaters even though it’s going straight to Netflix and then not screening it in most American cities was a watershed moment for me in this theatrical versus streaming debate.

I completely respect when a filmmaker insists that their movie is meant to be seen in the theater, but the thing is, you got to actually make it possible to see it in the theater. Some movies may be too small for that, and that’s totally OK.

When your movie is largely financed by a streaming service and is going to appear on that streaming service instantly, I don’t really see the point of pretending that it’s a theatrical film. It just seems like we are needlessly indulging some kind of personal fantasy.

I don’t think that making a feature film length production that is going to go straight to a video platform is some sort of “step down.“ I really don’t. Theatrical exhibition as we know it is dying off anyway, for a variety of reasons.

I should clarify myself because this thread is already being misconstrued — I’m talking about how the movie is screened in advance. If it’s going straight to Netflix, why the ritual of demanding people see it in the theater?

There used to be a category that everyone recognized called “TV movie” or “made for television movie” and even though a lot of filmmakers considered that déclassé, it seems to me that probably 90% of feature films fit that description now.

Atlantis has mostly sunk into the ocean, only a few tower spires remain above the waterline, and I’m increasingly at peace with that, because it seems to be what the industry and much of the audience wants. We live in an age of convenience and information control.

Only a very elite group of filmmakers is still allowed to make movies “for theaters“ and actually have them seen and judged that way on a wide scale. Even platform releasing seems to be somewhat endangered. It can’t be fought. It has to be accepted.

9. Addendum: I’ve been informed that it wasn’t Scorsese who requested that the Bob Dylan documentary only be screened for critics in theaters, but a Netflix representative indicated the opposite to me, so I just don’t know what to believe.

It’s actually OK if your film is not eligible for an Oscar — we have a thing called the Emmys. A lot of this anxiety is just a holdover from the days when television was considered culturally inferior to theatrical feature films. Everybody needs to just get over it.

In another 10 to 20 years they’re probably going to merge the Emmys in the Oscars into one program anyway, maybe they’ll call it the Contentys.

“One of the fun things about seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film three months early in Cannes (did I mention this?) is that I know exactly why it’s going to make some people furious, and thus I have time to steel myself for the takes.

Back in July 2017, when it was revealed that Tarantino’s next project was connected to the Manson Family murders, it was condemned in some quarters as an insulting and exploitative stunt. We usually require at least a fig-leaf of compassion for the victims in true-crime adaptations, and even Tarantino partisans like myself – I don’t think he’s made a bad film yet – found ourselves wondering how he might square his more outré stylistic impulses with the depiction of a real mass murder in which five people and one unborn child lost their lives.

After all, it’s one thing to slice off with gusto a fictional policeman’s ear; it’s quite another to linger over the gory details of a massacre that took place within living memory, and which still carries a dread historical significance.

In her essay The White Album, Joan Didion wrote: “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true.”

Early in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt’s characters drive up the hill towards Leo’s bachelor pad, the camera cranes up gently to reveal a street sign: Cielo Drive. Tarantino understands how charged that name is; he can hear the Molotov cocktails clinking as he shoulders the crate.

As you may have read in the reviews from Cannes, much of the film is taken up with following DiCaprio and Pitt’s characters – a fading TV actor and his long-serving stunt double – as they amusingly go about their lives in Los Angeles, while Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate is a relatively minor presence. But the spectre of the murders is just over the horizon, and when the night of the 9th finally arrives, you feel the mood in the cinema shift.

No spoilers whatsoever about what transpires on screen. But in the audience, as it became clear how Tarantino was going to handle this extraordinarily loaded moment, the room soured and split, like a pan of cream left too long on the hob. I craned in, amazed, but felt the person beside me recoil in either dismay or disgust.

Two weeks on, I’m convinced that the scene is the boldest and most graphically violent of Tarantino’s career – I had to shield my eyes at one point, found myself involuntarily groaning “oh no” at another – and a dead cert for the most controversial. People will be outraged by it, and with good reason. But in a strange and brilliant way, it takes Didion’s death-of-the-Sixties observation and pushes it through a hellfire-hot catharsis.

Hollywood summoned up this horror, the film seems to be saying, and now it’s Hollywood’s turn to exorcise it. I can’t wait until the release in August, when we can finally talk about why.

~ Robbie Collin