Why did it flop and is it kino?
Talk normally and i'll answer
>>215351472Why did it fail to make a return at the box office, and is it a film of good quality in spite of its financial failure?
>>215351430Too much woke shit.And people in 1920s wouldn't go around saying "Motherfucker".
because people weren't ready for it.
They didn't want a deconstruction of Hollywood to be so negative and heartbreaking. Margot shined as an starlet on the rise. It needed more lezzie action between the asian girl or samara. It was bizarre seeing eric roberts play himself.
>>215351430Why did the black guy sabotage his career over a bit of makeup? They made it clear to him it was a lighting issue not black face and white actors use white makeup and don’t freakout
>>215351430Robbie is box office poison
>>215352660That’s why Barbie flopped isn’t it you fucking spastic
>>215352685Thanks to Gosling and one of the most known trademarks of all time
>>215351430>>215351559It flopped because there's nothing about it that appeals to mainstream audiences. As for whether it's good, the answer is no. It's a massive piece of shit. Chazelle sucking his own dick for 3 hours. The ending in particular is cringe inducingly awful.
>>215353346C'mon lol. Do you really think the film would have made anywhere near as much if Gal Gadot had accepted the role. Robbie was a major driving factor behind its success.
They marketed it like a sleep inducing artsy movie. While in reality it's a very fun movie.
>>215352622It was the principle.
>>215353475No, it was Barbie making money for Barbie. You can credit Robbie for looking more like Barbie than most actresses sure, but her career has been disappointments outside of Barbie.
>>215352622Because back then they actually asked the actors to look darker. That's why they needed "darkies in the talkies". Go back to most old 1900s-1920s films and they direct the black people to act as "niggerly" as possible for the scenes because they wanted a stereotype or charicature of the person.
>>215353475It could have been any attractive blonde, blue eyed actress and that movie would’ve been a hit.
>>215351430Legit a 2/10 movie. Degenerate yuropoors should never come near america ever again.
>>215351430I know it was going for over-the-top but the garishness of some scenes dragged it down imo. Chazelle is a decent director but there’s always something in his films that rubs me the wrong way and I can’t put my finger on it.It would have been a better film with someone like Baz Luhrmann at the helm.
>>215351430Because it was 2hrs+ (I couldn't take it anymore after that) and full of idiotic exhagerated scenes because that's just SSOOOOOO FUNNY LOOOOLLLL.
>>215351430Sluggish Robbie was a wrong choice. The film should have been shot two years later and Rachel Zegler should have been cast as the lead.
>>215351430I like it but it is way too long and some scenes are pretty obnoxious. That scene were margot Robbie freaks out at the snotty rich people party felt like it belonged in a sex teen comedy
>>215352106>And people in 1920s wouldn't go around saying "Motherfucker".Perhaps it's a Schwartzer word?
>>215351430Movies about "the industry" have never been popular unless they're comedies. The marketing also didn't make it clear what the movie was even about.
>>215351430it's a horrible movie on every dimension, everyone involved with making it should be ashamed
>>215356984Fuck you, Margot and Pitt were hilarious and the other plots had heart.
