Actually, what I really want to know is this…
This movie has evidently turned out to be an official flop.
I have seen multiple media sources saying that the movie has flopped because people don’t like Mel Gibson after his recent drunken tirades; and they’re saying that’s the reason this wonderful movie has failed.
Personally, I don’t care one way or the other about actors’ private lives. I go to see movies for entertainment; and if I stopped going because of an actors off-screen shenanigans, I wouldn’t be watching many movies.
So, my point is, I don’t think people are going to see this movie because it’s not an overly interesting subject matter for a movie. I don’t care if you put Harrison Ford, Tom Hanks, Gene Hackman, Robert DeNiro, or Denzel Washington in that role… I’m not likely to see a movie about a man suffering from depression and uses a beaver puppet to talk to people.
However, I’m curious to see what the reasons are that YOU didn’t (or did?) see this movie.
I saw the trailer for this several weeks ago, and I couldn’t believe it was real. It just looked like a bad joke.
The only reason I even saw the trailer was that it was linked on a blog I read – essentially “Can you believe this shit?” – and other than that I would have had no idea this film even existed until it showed up at my local multiplex.
The reviews seem to be tepid but not universally horrible, so I’d guess that a combination of Mel Gibson hatred and a lack of studio backing are responsible for its poor box office.
I agree - it’s a movie about a guy with a beaver puppet. It has an uphill battle, even assuming the actor playing the guy with the beaver puppet wasn’t Mel.
I have no intention of seeing it in the theatre, which has nothing to do with Mel.
The trailer looks ridiculous. Mel’s issues wouldn’t necessarily stop me from seeing a movie (I paid to see both Apoclypto and Edge of Darkness), but the premise for this one is just too stupid to interest me, and I don’t much care for Jodie Foster either (she’s actually more of a turn off for me than Mel Gibson).
Neither Gibson nor Foster are particular favorites of mine, so their presence in the cast isn’t enough to make me watch all by itself. Neither is it enough to turn me away. Count me in as one more who found the basic premise too stupid to spend lifespan on this movie.
Now, if instead of a beaver it was a bearded man in a red and white striped hat, they may have been on to something. Heck, if it was just some small stick, that too would have been better.
I was reading about this yesterday. It said it’s opening release only generated 100K or so but that at Cannes it received a standing ovation. I guess I’ll wait to hear some good things about it before I invest 2 hours of my time because yes, the premise does come across, right or wrong, as very weak.
Perhaps he should have played on his past success and titled it The Passion of the Beaver.
Well, I gave Lars and the Real Girl a chance, and it was a pretty decent movie about a small town family and their community really pulling together to support a profoundly damaged individual.
Synopsis: a delusional man (Ryan Gosling), who is essentially the town weirdo, buys a life-size doll to be his girlfriend. His brother’s family and the community tentatively go along with it because he’s at least interacting with people and seems harmless. It kind of works because the small town is kind of treating him like their accommodating a disability and everyone is pretty kind. It’s a quiet movie about a really shy guy who needs to sort some stuff out.
The Gibson movie… well, the tone of the trailer is… “too big”. I can’t really describe it in any other way. It’s already not working for me.
When I think of “communicating in a funny voice via a hand” and “beaver” I think of The Shining. I’d have a hard time making it through the movie without that association haunting me.
A beaver just seems like a mistake. If you’re going to do this thing, why not make it a raccoon? Or a squirrel. Hell, a groundhog? Why go with beaver when it’s got a porno-slang connotation. Ugh.
It takes a very high interest threshold to get me to go to a theater but this has been in my Netlix queue since I first heard about it. I am a fan of Ms. Foster and if you focus only on acting ability, Mr. Gibson is better than average.
Regarding “Lars and the Real Girl”, one of my favorite movies and so much better than you have a right to expect from the synopsis.
Really, people liked Lars and the Real Girl? I thought it was skeevy–but not in an entertaining way. Just a dull, dolls-are-weird way. It was a let down.
Tastes do vary but if after seeing “Lars” you still think the doll rates a mention in a short summary and the community support dynamic didn’t, you didn’t focus on the parts that the ones of us who liked it thought were key. Not right or wrong, just a different perspective.
I did like Lars and the Real Girl, but I just can’t bring myself to give The Beaver a chance. Watching the trailer I don’t think I could suspend my disbelief enough to take it seriously. It looks ridiculous.
I don’t go to the theater unless its some sort of special effects-fest where the big screen adds to the experience. But I’ll probably rent it, as the premise seems interesting and I don’t really care one way or the other about the off-camera antics of movie-stars.
Since I’m probably the only Doper who’s seen it, I guess I should say something. I liked it, a lot. It was (to quote my Twitterreview) “interesting, sad, funny, deep, dark, a lot more complex than you’d think.” It’s possible that people who’ve dealt with depression either themselves or via a loved one or friend might understand the movie more, it’s hard to say.
I don’t always agree with David Poland but I liked his interesting review of the movie. There are major spoilers in the review, but if people aren’t going to see the movie anyway, they might as well at least read what some people are seeing in the film.
