ITEM: For those who may have been scratching their heads over the Charles theater's decision to show the new Steven King adaptation "The Mist" and/or may have been interested in seeing it, please be advised that a projector is broken as of Sunday, November 25th, and the film will not shown again until repairs can be made. From what I have heard, which is by no means definitive, the film has not done well for the theater. It may be an attempt to court a new audience for the venue (see the brief run of "Superbad" earlier the year). This new audience will be essential for the establishment's health once it gets past this time of feast into one of the many famine periods in the art film cycle. The new Landmark imposed desert awaits.
ITEM: Speaking of, if you were thinking about traveling down to the Landmark to see "Lions for Lambs," I would instead suggest seeing it at the dollar movie, where it is also playing for approximately half the price. This would imply that you, dear reader, want to see "Lions for Lambs" in the first place. This means that you like watching big stars talk a whole lot. I don't. I hope that the UA resurrection bears more intriguing fruit sometime soon. The studio has quite a legacy to live up to, and I am curious to see how it all plays out.
5 comments:
I am an advocate of the Charles occassionally showing Hollywood pictures, especially since these days the line between "indie" and Hollywood films is ridiculously thin.
However, I feel like the Charles has generally chosen poorly in the big-budget films they've shown. The Mist? Pursuit of Happiness? It's like they were chasing mediocrity.
It should be very possible to program the occassinal "big" film of merit while still choosing films that don't have a negative impact on the theater's "street cred." For instance, Fincher's Zodiac would've been a good choice for the Charles and probably would've done better there than it did at area multiplexes.
That Mist looks creepy!!!
My coworker read the book and he'll tell you how it ends if you'd like.
A half-price ticket for "Lions for Lambs" is still double what I'd ever pay for it.
Or, whatever math makes the most sense in that situation...
I do feel like the Charles often stumbles when it comes to this. They seem to make bad choices, as if they have no idea. I often wonder if pictures like Zodiac (which I had to schlep out to the county to see) don't play due to distributor or studio issues...
My understanding is that most Hwood distributors want to get their films on as many screens as possible -- either right away, for Pirates of the Caribbean-level hits, or once the film opens "wide" with slightly smaller films like Zodiac.
Post a Comment