A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints

[Doctor Z]

Just saw this movie recently and I was blown away. I already knew Robert Downey Jr. and Chaz Palminteri were great actors, and they just reinforce that in this film. But I was completely impressed with Shia LaBeouf. I came out of this one with a newfound respect for The Boof. This movie kinda slipped under the radar a couple years back (probably because it's actually good), but I recommend everyone check it out. Very powerful film, especially for anyone raised in New York City. (I actually walked through their shoot in Astoria a few years ago, and was furious because it fucked with the subway stop I needed to get off at. At least it wasn't in vain.)

[patsopinion]

mr b was pushing this moive hard and had palmi whatever on the show


i saw it like a year ago and came away with the same experience
very cool

well made

for those that have seen the no no no movie that boof did for transformers, youll recognize the acting as being in a completely different class

[booster11373]

It was a fantastic movie, Its why I dont hate Shai Labouf

[razorboy]

To be honest I thought the film was good, not great. I have recommended it in conversation to people, but it's not a film I rave about.

[cogsdoc]

Yeah, I'm of the same opinion, good but not great. Downey was good, but wasn't onscreen enough to truly shine. Anybody else think that Eric Roberts was an odd choice?

[SuperKarateMonkeyDeathFez]

This movie kinda slipped under the radar a couple years back (probably because it's actually good)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAH...no.

Seriously, how often do "actually good" movies go by with almost ZERO attention, good or bad?

[donnie_darko]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAH...no.

Seriously, how often do "actually good" movies go by with almost ZERO attention, good or bad?

it happens quite often, believe it or not but there are people who go to movies based simply on what commercials they catch during the most recent airing of whatever reality show it is they watch. In most cases these are the big budget flicks.

Crazy right? thinking beyond your own life and realizing there are people who don't share the same interests as you......

[SuperKarateMonkeyDeathFez]

it happens quite often, believe it or not but there are people who go to movies based simply on what commercials they catch during the most recent airing of whatever reality show it is they watch. In most cases these are the big budget flicks.

Crazy right? thinking beyond your own life and realizing there are people who don't share the same interests as you......

That has absolutley nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I don't even dislike this film. It was perfectly fine when I saw it and then I forgot about it. I just think a statement along the lines that films that are "actually good" (whatever that means) are ignored is silly. Movies that are generally really good (and subjective as that is, this isn't a vacuum these films are being released in; films that click get noticed somehow...for a variety of reasons and tastes, postive and negative, sure, but they don't just sneak by) get SOME kind of attention. It doesn't have to be massive...it can be quite quiet or under the radar, but they don't just come and go without a whimper like this flick did. That doesn't mean this movie is good or bad on its own, but the idea that a film is ignored because it's too good is pretty goofy.

[hammersavage]

There are plenty of good to great films that totally go unnoticed. They do get viewed over time but take a movie like Idiocracy for example. Brilliant movie that made no money its 1st weekend because it wasn't promoted and was quickly pulled from theaters because of the content. The American public has no idea how many good movies they miss. Eventually the good ones get recognized through cable or DVD.



This movie really was profound for me. Probably one of my favorite movies of the decade, the themes just spoke to me. Here's my favorite scene:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XtP0T3uiME&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XtP0T3uiME&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[SuperKarateMonkeyDeathFez]

Idiocracy didn't go by unnoticed. Yeah, it got the shaft in terms of VERY limited release, but it had a number of big reviews in print media and big online sites that gave it notice. aGtRYS came and went and that was it. I'm talking across the board...reviews big and small...print, TV, online: everywhere. It got decent reviews and that was that. Again, that's not saying it's good or bad, but let's not act like there is some active effort to ignore good films.

[hammersavage]

There is absolutely an effort by movie studios to not promote films that they don't think will be financially successful. And generally, movies of higher quality (indies, art films, docs) will get no studio backing and will go unnoticed. The quality has very little to do with it. The public has to ACTIVELY seek quality films in order for those films to roll out wider and get mass recognition.

Little Miss Sunshine was a success cuz it was optioned for $10 million by Fox and released on 3,000 screens. It had studio backing because someone thought it could reach an audience. Many other studios passed on the chance because they thought it didn't. It all depends on getting lucky with someone from a major studio.

Idiocracy could not even physically be seen, even if every review was excellent. It's all about what the studio puts into it and since it was anti-consumer, the movie chains pulled it. It had no chance to succeed.

[SuperKarateMonkeyDeathFez]

There is absolutely an effort by movie studios to not promote films that they don't think will be financially successful. And generally, movies of higher quality (indies, art films, docs) will get no studio backing and will go unnoticed. The quality has very little to do with it. The public has to ACTIVELY seek quality films in order for those films to roll out wider and get mass recognition.

Little Miss Sunshine was a success cuz it was optioned for $10 million by Fox and released on 3,000 screens. It had studio backing because someone thought it could reach an audience. Many other studios passed on the chance because they thought it didn't. It all depends on getting lucky with someone from a major studio.

Idiocracy could not even physically be seen, even if every review was excellent. It's all about what the studio puts into it and since it was anti-consumer, the movie chains pulled it. It had no chance to succeed.

That's still not my point. Downplaying a movie's release due to business reasons and thinking it won't play wide is completely different from the nonsensical idea that movies are shut aside or ignored or whatever because they're "actually good." Even movies with incredibly limited releases get a lot of reviews. There's a ton of magazines and newspapers and websites out there that review practically everything. A film would have to be basically not released in the first place for it to get next to no attention. No, Idiocracy didn't get a decent push or wide coverage, but it did get attention across the web and in plenty of film magazines. It's not like these are actually unseeable in this day and age. If a film tends to have "it," people seek it out...like they did with Idiocracy. AGtRYS has almost 3 times the number of reviews of Idiocracy on RT.com, so it got even more attention and did even less.

[Furtherman]

I missed this movie. Netflixed!

[hammersavage]

That's still not my point. Downplaying a movie's release due to business reasons and thinking it won't play wide is completely different from the nonsensical idea that movies are shut aside or ignored or whatever because they're "actually good." Even movies with incredibly limited releases get a lot of reviews. There's a ton of magazines and newspapers and websites out there that review practically everything. A film would have to be basically not released in the first place for it to get next to no attention. No, Idiocracy didn't get a decent push or wide coverage, but it did get attention across the web and in plenty of film magazines. It's not like these are actually unseeable in this day and age. If a film tends to have "it," people seek it out...like they did with Idiocracy. AGtRYS has almost 3 times the number of reviews of Idiocracy on RT.com, so it got even more attention and did even less.

Most newspapers and national magazines do not review independent films, at least not in print.

And yes, for 95% of the country, most quality films are UNABLE to be seen in theatrical release. Movie theaters owned by major movie chains do not show Independant films outside of the major cities. They show the largest opening movie of the week on 5 screens instead of 4 and one for a smaller film.

I see these films because I am an active movie goer. At least 20 times a year I tell people of a movie I just saw and they have never heard of it because they experience movies passively. Of those 20 times, I'd say 18 of the them people say 'I checked out that movie and it was awesome. Don't know why I never heard of it'.

[booster11373]

Most newspapers and national magazines do not review independent films, at least not in print.

And yes, for 95% of the country, most quality films are UNABLE to be seen in theatrical release. Movie theaters owned by major movie chains do not show Independant films outside of the major cities. They show the largest opening movie of the week on 5 screens instead of 4 and one for a smaller film.

I see these films because I am an active movie goer. At least 20 times a year I tell people of a movie I just saw and they have never heard of it because they experience movies passively. Of those 20 times, I'd say 18 of the them people say 'I checked out that movie and it was awesome. Don't know why I never heard of it'.

Great point when I lived in the New York metro area I went to the movies 2 to 3 times a month since moving to NC my choices are limited, smaller films are just not shown here. The local public radio stations host a undy and small film release once a week for 3 nights at the local performing arts center but I still find myself watching the majority of films on DVD at my house

[SuperKarateMonkeyDeathFez]

Most newspapers and national magazines do not review independent films, at least not in print.

There are major publications in every major city that cover basically everything that gets released. There are scores of websites with tons of traffic and are widley known that essentially review everything. There are numerous magazines out there devoted to film and pop culture that basically cover and/or review everything. I'm not talking about the Average Joe finding out about the flicks...I'm talking about the people that actively look for these films and reviews of them and easily find them. This movie didn't escape that very vocal and viable audience.

And yes, for 95% of the country, most quality films are UNABLE to be seen in theatrical release. Movie theaters owned by major movie chains do not show Independant films outside of the major cities. They show the largest opening movie of the week on 5 screens instead of 4 and one for a smaller film.

So? Opening a film like this in Tumbleweed, USA or suburbia would just be stupid from a moneymaking standpoint, and this industry is a business. My point is that films like this have their audience, have a rather significant demographic of people who seek out smaller films and reviews of them. This film didn't just vanish into the ether. Enough people knew of it and it got pretty decent coverage for being a smaller film.

I see these films because I am an active movie goer. At least 20 times a year I tell people of a movie I just saw and they have never heard of it because they experience movies passively. Of those 20 times, I'd say 18 of the them people say 'I checked out that movie and it was awesome. Don't know why I never heard of it'.

And I'd bet good money most or all of those films found an audience and attention and buzz in the demographic I'm talking about...people like you and me who seek out these films and read the film geek sites and magazines. There's a lot of us. No, we're not blockbuster-sized, but we make noise when something seems to click. The loud film geek has pretty much become a cliche at this point...they glom onto little films like this because ultimately they're not hard to find or read about. Nobody really glommed onto this one. C'est la vie. It likely is not due to it being hard to find or know about since it got a heckuva lot more exposure than films like Idiocracy that ultimately kept gathering steam with the film geeks.

[hammersavage]

Idiocracy got waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy more publicity when it was released. It just made no money because it was pulled. I knew of this movie when it was released and so did a bunch of people I know. I didn't know about AGTRYS until it was on DVD. I personally know more people who saw this since I recommended it so vehemently but I think both of their viewerships are dead even to comparable at worst right now. I love them both.

90% of the box office for a given year are by films that get subpar reviews critically (from say rotten tomatoes). The good films would get less of a percentage but usually a film or two a year break through for some reason and make a good amount of money. That means that yes, the better films are not seen in theaters or go unnoticed. They are eventually seen through word of mouth but the process takes a while.

If the good films didn't go unnoticed by the movie going public, Slumdog or the Visitor or Milk or what have you from this year would be the box office winners for the year over Indiana Jones and Kung Fu Panda. I wish it were like that but I'm resigned to the fact that great movies are made and I personally try to get them seen because its almost impossible for it to happen another way.

[SuperKarateMonkeyDeathFez]

Idiocracy got waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy more publicity when it was released. It just made no money because it was pulled. I knew of this movie when it was released and so did a bunch of people I know. I didn't know about AGTRYS until it was on DVD. I personally know more people who saw this since I recommended it so vehemently but I think both of their viewerships are dead even to comparable at worst right now. I love them both.

Check out both on RT.com. Idiocracy only has 39 major reviews that could be culled. AGtRYS has 92. Granted, that isn't the end-all-be-all of how much attention either got, but it's a pretty good barometer as to which one had more of a shot of exposure based on reviews.

90% of the box office for a given year are by films that get subpar reviews critically (from say rotten tomatoes). The good films would get less of a percentage but usually a film or two a year break through for some reason and make a good amount of money. That means that yes, the better films are not seen in theaters or go unnoticed. They are eventually seen through word of mouth but the process takes a while.

I think "unnoticed" is too subjective. Even those little breakthroughs had the rabid core of film geeks raving about it when it first showed up. They had SOME buzz before they blew up.

If the good films didn't go unnoticed by the movie going public, Slumdog or the Visitor or Milk or what have you from this year would be the box office winners for the year over Indiana Jones and Kung Fu Panda. I wish it were like that but I'm resigned to the fact that great movies are made and I personally try to get them seen because its almost impossible for it to happen another way.

I don't know why we're coming around to box office. It's really not hard to find out about these films, and they have a core cult audience of people curious to know about them with plenty of outlets to do so, especially an indie with a quirky title and Robert Downey, jr. in it. That's like crack for film geeks. I'm not saying that means that everyone can see the film right away, but the idea that it slipped totally under the radar and nobody in film nerd-land caught whiff of it just doesn't seem too likely. Hell, it got reviewed by EW and RS and shit like that when it came out.

[booster11373]

I'm curious to see how a Director that made such a personal film does a follow-up

[hammersavage]

Check out both on RT.com. Idiocracy only has 39 major reviews that could be culled. AGtRYS has 92. Granted, that isn't the end-all-be-all of how much attention either got, but it's a pretty good barometer as to which one had more of a shot of exposure based on reviews.

Guide opened on 8 theaters. Widest release was 60. Total gross $517,000.
Idiocracy opened on 130 theaters which was its widest release. Total gross $444,000.

First off, how is anyone supposed to see those films? A high profile movie gets released on 3,000 screens. These movies have no chance. Especially if they get pulled for content (Idiocracy) or have no star (Robert Downey and Shia 2 years ago were not stars).

[hammersavage]

I'm curious to see how a Director that made such a personal film does a follow-up

His next film is "Fighting" which he also wrote. Starring Channing Tatum who played Antonio in Guide. Also has Terrance Howard and Luis Guzman. IMDB says "A young ticket scalper is introduced to the world of underground street fighting."

Sounds like a decent premise but I don't know if this is another personal story, maybe someone he know. We'll see but I'll be interested because I liked his work in Guide.

[furie]

I work in that area and it was cool to watch the movie and recognizing landmarks. Today I was actually at the sandwich shop that they vandalize in the movie.

[Furtherman]

I missed this movie. Netflixed!

This was a great movie, thanks for the tip Doctor Z!