[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/tv/ - Television & Film


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


It was low-budget but highly profitable, and tons of people still love it. Some even rewatch those old rom-coms from that era to this day. Why make the flops they do today and then whine about going bankrupt, when they could make something that actually lasts?
>>
>>216045075
Hugh Grant is relentlessly handsome and witty. Modern day actors could never be as charming.
>>
>>216045075

i don't know. i've been wondering the same thing as i've been watching 80s and 90s thrillers. it seems as through all feature length films are sequels, adaptations, or part of some existing IP and typically have a huge budget.
>>
>>216045120
This. Julia Roberts is suck a void or charisma and so fucking ugly with her horse jew face that makes the movie unbearable, sadly.
>>
>>216045075
I want this with milfy Scarlett now.
>>
>>216045354
>budget $42M
>$15M for Julia Roberts' paycheck alone.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.