Granted the ILD film only had a low 11 mill budget, the film has done abysmally in both North America and overseas, but it is on track to making 3 times its budget, so it will make a profit, but Coen bros films have done better.
shareI think the trailer sunk it. A good deal of people simply aren't into folk music for one thing. Even my sister who's a big Coen Bros. fan as I am took one look at the trailer and seemed disinterested in seeing it. I think it's a good film and a shame it didn't do better.
RIP Philip Seymour Hoffman 1967-2014... a tremendously great and talented actor.
The whole thing about 'I don't see a lot of money here'.
This is a theme that takes over the film.
The film is living Llewyns life, it's alive and failing and that's what it's about.
It's a work of art about failure and why and how and who and when.
It's about giving up.
The history and the music make it a rich experience if that's your cup of folk.
I guess it succeeds as a failure and box office failure only makes it more successful in a way... but it is loved for the style and craft of all involved.
And as for Llewyn and his 'Hang me oh hang me' well we didn't have to, he's already hung himself.
That said this film has a real life of it's own and you can't ask much more than that. By not protecting it and allowing the failure it's natural progression.
It did okay in France UK and Italy and that's about it.
Old Bee Party V Swirled
You know, most of the popular movies of today will be utterly forgotten tomorrow.
In the long run, almost everything fails.
All you've really got is your sense of self, and Lllewyn refuses to give that up. So does the movie. Neither is willing to pander. If you want to listen, then fine. If not, au revoir.
I too think the trailer may have been a factor. After reading about the film I wanted to see it, then saw the trailer (w/Please Mr. Kennedy) and had second thoughts.
shareI don't know about the trailer, but I just saw it on DVD and was disappointed. I am a big fan of the Coens' work, and not just the biggies like No Country or Fargo. I seriously loved Burn After Reading, and even thought A Serious Man was very good.
I was even looking forward to a film about the subject matter, recognized a mostly good cast here, Goodman in particular, and in principle was not put off that the main character was not going to "succeed" in the story.
Still, we get to the end of the film and it's... So? That's it?
I could say I didn't get the ending, and could have watched it again. But I was so underwhelmed by it, I couldn't begin to think of watching it again.
Better luck next time, Coen Brothers. Or more likely I hope you redeem yourselves next time.
I've seen it twice now and liked it better the second time around and I watched it with a friend that time as well. I really appreciated the 'role' of the cat and John Goodman quite a bit the second time.
RIP Philip Seymour Hoffman 1967-2014... a tremendously great and talented actor.
I liked the movie but I agree that the trailer made it look kind of boring. I waited a long time to finally watch it because I lost interest after seeing the trailer. I don't know what they could have done to make it better, I think this is just a hard movie to do a trailer for.
shareThis was always going to be a hard sell. I mean it LOOKS boring! A grey poster, a dull title and about the folk music scene! It took me ages to work up the enthusiasm to watch it. But i did watch it finally and liked it a lot.
Will probably buy it on Bluray eventually. Will definitely buy the soundtrack.
"Perhaps he's wondering why someone would SHOOT a man before throwing him out of a plane..."
it doesn't have any of the main traits the masses seek in a movie: heroes and villains, sympathetic protagonist, likable characters, great transformations, humor, happy ending
Surreal Cinema: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls006574276/
It had next to no advertising. I don't think I ever actually saw a trailer for it, on tv or otherwise. It's a small movie, the kind that won't naturally draw much a crowd. It starred a relatively unknown. It reminded me of the books Tropic of Cancer , or Hunger. Just a struggling artist trying to make it, but also trying to just get by, the struggle between trying when it seems hopeless or giving up on your dream, and becoming just like everyone else, which you hate.
It completely enthralled me, but I can see why it doesn't have mass appeal.
The premise is a hard sell. I must admit I had very little interest in it myself. Even though I love much of the Coens' work, I'm not a great fan of folk music or biopics, so it took me a while to get around to this one.
I liked it quite a lot in the end. Even the songs were mostly lovely.
Sammo1 wrote:
Granted the ILD film only had a low 11 mill budgetI find that a very helpful observation in trying to understand how to take this film.I know that I, and I believe most people, judge films in terms of their expectations. If you put on a DVD because it is labeled as a comedy, and that is what you want, it can be difficult to adjust to the fact the film is not really a comedy. Oyster Farmer and Whisky are two truly excellent films, but if you think that you are going to see a comedy . . .Telling someone that they have to see a film, that it is a great film, is a dangerous thing to do because mostly films will not live up to that billing, and that causes disappointment.This is a "Coen Brothers film," and it is not unreasonable to expect this film to be like their other films. It isn't. It is a very low budget, very small scale film. If you expect Fargo, you are going to be disappointed and people are.I like small-scale, low-budget films — for American films, I immediately think of several written and directed by Nicole Holofcener — and I know what to expect, and I judge them for what they are, not for something that they are not trying to be.Such films, taken as they are intended to be taken, can be as "good" as any other film. share