State of Play

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    Juno Styles
    Member

  • Juno Styles
    replied
    Re: State of Play

    it was a good movie, but come on, when's the last time a $60 million dollar political thriller made a boat load of cash? just like hollywood to dump a bunch of unnecessary money into a film, watch it flop then blame it on the genre.

    Leave a comment:


  • tinman01
    replied
    Re: State of Play

    Originally posted by TheKeenGuy View Post
    It only grossed about $37M in this country and was considered a massive failure.

    In fact, its failure despite critical acclaim has been pointed to as one of the big reasons that studios are vetoing adult dramas by and large at the moment.
    I liked this movie, indeed it reminded me a bit of those great seventies thrillers like THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR and PARALLAX VIEW. Although, it's not as memorable.

    This is actually one of the few movies in which I can stomach Russell Crowe (GLADIATOR anyone? A Roman general speaking with an Australian accent? About as convincing as a Terminator robot speaking with an Austrian accent!).
    And I'm glad this didn't get made with Pitt and Norton. Pitt to me is only likeable in comedic roles (hamming it up in Tarantino's way overrated BASTERDS or in the OCEAN films) and with Norton I always think about his horrible turn in that DeNiro crime caper THE SCORE, where he pretended to be a slowwitted person as part of some infiltration scheme. Easily the most cringeworthy performance of recent years.

    I wouldn't complain if more movies like STATE were made, too bad Hollywood these days seems to be only about money...a necessary evil the filmmakers have to deal with...although they probably don't complain as long as some of that same money gets thrown their way.

    Leave a comment:

  • Adam Isaac
    Member

  • Adam Isaac
    replied
    Re: State of Play

    Top film.

    Leave a comment:

  • Geoff Alexander
    Member

  • Geoff Alexander
    replied
    Re: State of Play

    Originally posted by Architeuthis Dux View Post
    I liked it overall.

    Some things it did very well: The portrait of DC. I lived in DC for a while. In most movies about DC, there are very few -- or certainly not enough -- black people. (Black people may actually be a majority of the peolple who actually live there. They certainly were in my neighborhood.) In this movie, there were more, so that made it seem a bit more realistic.

    Also done well: Twists. There were plenty of them.
    Also done well: Tension. A couple of tense moments in there.

    Not as well done: Bad guys. So who ultimately was the bad guy? The steely-eyed army killer? Ben Afleck? The Blackwater stand-in? Congressman Jeff Daniels?

    Also a little much: Partner-swapping. Ben is (was) doing it with the girl who dies at the beginning, Russel is (or was) doing it to Ben's wife, the cute blogger gal apparently isn't getting any, PointCorp is doing it to the entire country, and the Rupert Murdoch company is doing it (metaphorically) to the newspaper. So which are we supposed to be indignant about, and which were we supposed to be sympathetic towards?

    Also not great: The title. I realized it was based on some kind of Brit series, but if you're going to take the series off the small screen and put it on the big screen, and take it out of Old Blighty and put it in the US, you could probably use a punchier title.

    All in all, not bad. I'l have to watch a couple more of those '70's paranoia thrillers to compare them.
    I liked it for what it was attempting to do, but it fell short.

    Beyond that, someday, someone is going to write an incredible movie about Blackwater, and I can't wait to see it. I haven't seen Shadow Company yet, but I think the Blackwater story may be better suited as a feature. Love to see Brad Pitt as Erik Prince.

    Leave a comment:

  • Architeuthis Dux
    Member

  • Architeuthis Dux
    replied
    Re: State of Play

    I liked it overall.

    Some things it did very well: The portrait of DC. I lived in DC for a while. In most movies about DC, there are very few -- or certainly not enough -- black people. (Black people may actually be a majority of the peolple who actually live there. They certainly were in my neighborhood.) In this movie, there were more, so that made it seem a bit more realistic.

    Also done well: Twists. There were plenty of them.
    Also done well: Tension. A couple of tense moments in there.

    Not as well done: Bad guys. So who ultimately was the bad guy? The steely-eyed army killer? Ben Afleck? The Blackwater stand-in? Congressman Jeff Daniels?

    Also a little much: Partner-swapping. Ben is (was) doing it with the girl who dies at the beginning, Russel is (or was) doing it to Ben's wife, the cute blogger gal apparently isn't getting any, PointCorp is doing it to the entire country, and the Rupert Murdoch company is doing it (metaphorically) to the newspaper. So which are we supposed to be indignant about, and which were we supposed to be sympathetic towards?

    Also not great: The title. I realized it was based on some kind of Brit series, but if you're going to take the series off the small screen and put it on the big screen, and take it out of Old Blighty and put it in the US, you could probably use a punchier title.

    All in all, not bad. I'l have to watch a couple more of those '70's paranoia thrillers to compare them.

    Leave a comment:


  • beejay
    replied
    Re: State of Play

    they hired a Washington Post consultant, but the actual journalism side of it was far-fetched.

    Russell Crowe hits SEND on a sensational investigative story, with no copy editing and no vetting?

    (okay, Rachel hits send)

    still enjoyable and expertly crafted.

    Leave a comment:

  • TheKeenGuy
    Member

  • TheKeenGuy
    replied
    Re: State of Play

    As I recall, Norton and Pitt ended up dropping out because the writer's strike put the freeze on any further rewrites for the script.

    Leave a comment:


  • MacG
    replied
    Re: State of Play

    Originally posted by loopdesign View Post
    I think it was based on the Gary Condit / Chandra Levy thing. So it's really not THAT implausible.
    I never said the situation of Affleck banging a girl that worked in his office was implausible; merely the way he fvcks himself by getting all teary-eyed in front of the press corp as his own damn hearing.

    Leave a comment:

  • PunchTheKeys
    User

  • PunchTheKeys
    replied
    Re: State of Play

    Originally posted by HLTassin View Post
    I thought it was great. Loved Russell Crowe, thought Ben Affleck was a little bland.

    I think Edward Norton would have been better.

    Did y'all watch the miniseries? I forget how many episodes it is.....maybe 6-7? but it was fantastic also.
    Actually I felt Ben Affleck was the stronger perf.

    If you read the earlier draft, the Michael Carnahan one, you'll get an inkling or a hint as to why Brad Pitt dropped out. It's got a slightly different ending...the only thing the media ends up focusing on is the pop psychology behind why Affleck's character he did what he did (i.e. was he a psychopath, where did he go to school, what did his mother do wrong).

    And nobody even mentions PointCorp, the private security company.

    In the film, it's a far less cynical ending, if I recall, PointCorp gets busted, and Crowe quips something like "People ought to feel ink on their hands when reading something important." I get the feeling Pitt & Norton dropped out cause of the altered ending.

    The film's especially topical now considering the case of Blackwater (now xE or something), the real-life, thuggish private security company in Iraq. Interesting too how similar it is in name to the CIA programs in the Bourne films (Blackwater - Blackbriar).

    Leave a comment:


  • stuy
    replied
    Re: State of Play

    It was terrible casting. I pu that aside and still enjoyed it. Russell was fine but the rest

    Leave a comment:


  • jkk808
    replied
    Re: State of Play

    Crowe was alright, but pretty much everyone else was awful. Affleck as Crowe's college classmate? Um, c'mon.

    Nice to see Robin Wright Penn in a movie, even if it was an awful part.

    I like Jason Bateman, but he was awful too.

    Leave a comment:

  • loopdesign
    Member

  • loopdesign
    replied
    Re: State of Play

    Originally posted by MacG View Post
    I thought it was awful. Brad Pitt was a genius for bailing on the pic. The story was one big, fat contrivancy after another. The worst was Ben Affleck's character blubbering before the hearing he was presiding over (and in front of the press, no less!!!) that the girl who worked in his office -- and whom he was banging -- was killed.

    No way in hell would a person in his position ever have done that! As it is, it was just a painfully lame mechanism to get the story rolling.
    I think it was based on the Gary Condit / Chandra Levy thing. So it's really not THAT implausible. I thought Crowe was good as the disheveled reporter.

    Leave a comment:

  • WritersBlock2010
    Member

  • WritersBlock2010
    replied
    Re: State of Play

    Originally posted by TheKeenGuy View Post
    It only grossed about $37M in this country and was considered a massive failure.

    In fact, its failure despite critical acclaim has been pointed to as one of the big reasons that studios are vetoing adult dramas by and large at the moment.
    ...Yet when Oscar season rolls around this (critical acclaim) is what the studios want more than anything.

    Is it me, or is it getting ironic in there (Hollywood)?

    Leave a comment:

  • TheKeenGuy
    Member

  • TheKeenGuy
    replied
    Re: State of Play

    Originally posted by nuvuefilms View Post
    It got 86% fresh at rotten tomatoes and grossed about 86 mil. I'd say critics and fans liked it. Clearly, the filmmakers did something right. I did think Affleck was terrible and he almost ruined the movie. Him crying at the courtroom scene was a soap opera performance at best. Crowe and McAdams saved the movie in my opinion. Nonetheless, it's a good case study for a successful political thriller. I think the theme of newspapers vs. bloggers was handled wonderful.
    It only grossed about $37M in this country and was considered a massive failure.

    In fact, its failure despite critical acclaim has been pointed to as one of the big reasons that studios are vetoing adult dramas by and large at the moment.

    Leave a comment:

  • nuvuefilms
    Regular

  • nuvuefilms
    replied
    Re: State of Play

    It got 86% fresh at rotten tomatoes and grossed about 86 mil. I'd say critics and fans liked it. Clearly, the filmmakers did something right. I did think Affleck was terrible and he almost ruined the movie. Him crying at the courtroom scene was a soap opera performance at best. Crowe and McAdams saved the movie in my opinion. Nonetheless, it's a good case study for a successful political thriller. I think the theme of newspapers vs. bloggers was handled wonderful.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X