Very much agree. I understand there are certain business realities, but you've got to cut costs somewhere else when it comes to a movie from a 93-year-old film legend. Thanks for watching!
Thank you very much! I actually might have to take the trailers out of the videos from now on, since it seems like that prevents them from getting monetized. Bummer. I like butting into the trailers with my circular head.
1) Regarding the "cinematic husk" point... Recently I've been watching shows like Presumed Innocent, The Undoing, and currently The Staircase with Colin Firth and Toni Collette.... These shows have about ten episodes to develop a story and give us sufficient details about the characters to really make the drama work. It sounds like Juror #2 could have benefitted in the miniseries format..... 2) Your point about generational oblivion has a more sinister side too I think. Not only could you argue that there are no movie stars anymore in the mold of a Clint Eastwood. It also seems like the vapid nature of social media (or whatever the cause) works very hard to actively disqualify the great artists from previous generations. What has happened to Woody Allen, for example, is a real national tragedy, quite apart from the question of his guilt or innocence. The overwhelming evidence is that he's innocent, but slander wins now.
Getting in trouble aside, social media also just takes away the mystique that prior generations had. It's hard to be a mythical figure like Clint Eastwood was when there are 100 pictures of you eating lunch or posing with your dog. Some actors, like Adam Driver, do ignore the social media side, which helps get them closer to that movie star stature. And yeah, the Woody Allen situation is disappointing, to put it mildly. On the bright side, it doesn't seem like he lets it bother him. I still haven't seen Coup de Chance yet, but am planning to before I make my year-end list of best movies.
@@FeatureUnderground I saw Coup when it finally got U.S. distribution. Before then, I couldn't persuade a local theater to show it on the sly so to speak. I'd be curious to hear your take.
It's disrespectful to audiences and especially Clint Eastwood how Warner Bros. handled Juror #2's release. Thanks for another thoughtful review.
Very much agree. I understand there are certain business realities, but you've got to cut costs somewhere else when it comes to a movie from a 93-year-old film legend. Thanks for watching!
@@FeatureUnderground Particularly when said legend did so much for your studio in terms of legacy and finances.
@@madrouter That's a good point.
Haha your intros keep getting better and better!
Thank you very much! I actually might have to take the trailers out of the videos from now on, since it seems like that prevents them from getting monetized. Bummer. I like butting into the trailers with my circular head.
@FeatureUnderground Damn thats a shame but sure, it makes sense.
You are very engaging and I enjoy your reviews. I will watch a film you suggest
Thank you very much! Those are very encouraging words. I will try not to lead you astray, unless astray is the place to be.
Excellent review.
Thank you very much! Just filmed my review of The Brutalist, so that should be up as soon as I get time to edit it.
1) Regarding the "cinematic husk" point... Recently I've been watching shows like Presumed Innocent, The Undoing, and currently The Staircase with Colin Firth and Toni Collette.... These shows have about ten episodes to develop a story and give us sufficient details about the characters to really make the drama work. It sounds like Juror #2 could have benefitted in the miniseries format..... 2) Your point about generational oblivion has a more sinister side too I think. Not only could you argue that there are no movie stars anymore in the mold of a Clint Eastwood. It also seems like the vapid nature of social media (or whatever the cause) works very hard to actively disqualify the great artists from previous generations. What has happened to Woody Allen, for example, is a real national tragedy, quite apart from the question of his guilt or innocence. The overwhelming evidence is that he's innocent, but slander wins now.
Getting in trouble aside, social media also just takes away the mystique that prior generations had. It's hard to be a mythical figure like Clint Eastwood was when there are 100 pictures of you eating lunch or posing with your dog. Some actors, like Adam Driver, do ignore the social media side, which helps get them closer to that movie star stature. And yeah, the Woody Allen situation is disappointing, to put it mildly. On the bright side, it doesn't seem like he lets it bother him. I still haven't seen Coup de Chance yet, but am planning to before I make my year-end list of best movies.
@@FeatureUnderground I saw Coup when it finally got U.S. distribution. Before then, I couldn't persuade a local theater to show it on the sly so to speak. I'd be curious to hear your take.
Who can use that app to see films early, the "for your consideration" thing? There are qualifications I assume.
It's for voters. Could be Oscar voters, Golden Globes, etc. For me, I vote in the Houston Film Critics Society.