By: Dominic La-Viola

The Guardian has just released an article speculating about the lack of star power that some of Hollywood’s biggest stars no longer have. 

Referencing ticket sales from Tom Cruise from 1986-2006 or Will Smith from 1996-2016. Which without question is completely out of context and cannot be compared to current box office sales, due to the current state of the film industry. 

By the late 2010s, streaming started to make its move on the major studios because before this, they were really only a threat to cable and physical media sales. 

At first, streaming was a way to bypass cable and save some money each month. After Netflix took out Blockbuster, that is with its DVD by mail and its introduction to streaming. Then making it a competitor for cable. 

The writing was on the walls, but no one wanted to read it or believe it. They all just turned a blind eye, as they did to the comic book industry  in the late 90s and the music industry in the early 2000s. All just watched as what was slowly died. Waiting to try to reshape the future.  Which has given us overpriced concert tickets and vinyls that cost three times the price it once did.

However, the question remains how does that affect the current situation that Hollywood’s in?  Hollywood is in a critical state of transition, and with streaming services producing big-budget films with A-List stars, it only heightens the stakes and makes the transition more complex.

Cinemas have had their issues in that past few years, trying to keep up with streaming services and other entertainment platforms. 

So there is more than simply one thing that is causing issues with the film industry. 

First being the transition of movie stars making the switch to streaming services and the way  “TV”movies are being produced. Look at Mark Wahlberg in his latest film, Play Dirty. 

A Prime original that 10 years ago would have easily gotten a theater release.  Netflix with Eddie Murphy’s Beverly Hills Axle F, Frankenstein, and A House of Dynamite. 

Of course, we can’t forget the Prime release of Roadhouse, which was supposed to get a theater release that was dropped on Prime at the last minute. 

We can’t overlook the quality of “TV” movies that are being released weekly and not talk about them and the problem they present. 

Audiences no longer need to go to the movies to see their favorite A-List stars:  Mark Wahlberg, Robert De Niro, Adam Sandler, Chris Hemsworth, Eddie Murphy, Miles Teller, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lopez, Jason Momoa, and Jake Gyllenhaal. 

All these actors and actresses have done streaming movies in the past few years. Which then compete with films on the silver screen. 

The Rock’s Smashing Machine is a biopic picture that didn’t get the marketing or publicity needed to really drive the film.

Yes, biopics have been a huge success in the past few years, although again. Those films were about musical icons that everyone knows or knows of. Even if they didn’t grow up on their music or even like their music. 

The story of UFC legend Mark Kerr isn’t something that is marketable because he was a star fighter before it became popular and a worldwide phenomenon. If you did a movie about Conor McGregor, it would be more successful by default. Simply because even people who don’t watch the sport know who he is. 

  Big Bold Beautiful Journey. A romance comedy, with minimal marketing, failed? What a surprise. From what was shown in trailers, the movie was marketed as a streaming service movie of the week. Not that the film wasn’t good. Although that’s not its problem, its lack of marketing and marketability is. I’m sure we’ll see a huge increase in box office numbers from Margot Robbie’s upcoming film, Wuthering Heights. 

Which not only is already being marketed as the movie to see on Valentine’s Day weekend. It’s already getting trailers played throughout movie theaters across the states, and it doesn’t even come out for another 6 months. This movie has gotten more marketing already than most movies on the list, according to the Guardian article. 

Daniel Day-Lewis stars in his son’s directorial debut, Anemone. The first problem with this film. The marketing. Which it didn’t get any, and if it did. Someone needs to check to see where their money went,because I haven’t seen any marketing for the film. Then to top it off, how does one market this film?

Where is the marketable appeal? For I don’t see how one can market this movie to the average moviegoer. A family drama between two brothers set in the middle of the woods. Sounds like an arthouse film, in which film nerds are your target audience.

I have yet to see the film, although that’s not due to a lack of interest. That’s due to the lack of availability of the film. A completely different issue. One which is a topic of its own and for a different time. 

Good Fortune, the new comedy starring Seth Rogen, Keanu Reeves, and Aziz Ansari. It did all the right things, kept the budget at a minimum with only $ 30 million. It has a rather stellar cast and even has favorable critical reviews and audience ratings, yet still can’t manage to make it. 

Now, having seen a good amount of marketing for the film, I can honestly say that the film appears to be struggling due to its time of release. Something we’ve seen happen time and time again. 

The film is essentially about someone who is struggling so badly that a guardian angel needs to step in and switch his life with someone who is rich. To show him how the other side lives. The trailer shows Reeves’s angle saying that he thought if he switched them, Azziz’s character would see that money won’t solve all his problems. The other angel says, and then Reeves’s character says, well, it appears that money solved most of his problems. 

With the current state of things, between the government shutdown, the tariffs, and economic uncertainty that most Americans face during this horrible time of inflation. The film comes off as a depressing reminder of the current economic state. Not a fun escape from reality. 

For this film, it’s more bad timing than anything. Just as Seth Rogen’s previous comedy, The Watch,  which was released in 2012. The film was a box office disaster due to the film’s subject matter after the death of a youth in Florida by a neighborhood watch member. The film was originally titled Neighborhood Watch and was about a group of neighborhood watch members. Even the retitling of the movie and pushing it back a few months didn’t save it. For the relevance of the case in question was still very much a hot topic. 

After The Hunt. A film with a star-spangled cast of A-Listers and stars of the upcoming generation, still struggle to find its footing. This film is another one of those films that isn’t necessarily an arthouse film, however, still falls in a category of film that is hard to market. 

How do you market a film about sexual assault allegations and what appears to be siding with the accused. Bringing falsehoods and accusations as a serious issue? From the marketing alone, it appears that the film pushes back against the narrative of blindly siding with the victims and supporting them blindly. 

Although as I write this, I have yet to see the movie, I am speaking solely off the marketing in which I’ve seen and what it appears the film is trying to achieve or say. 

The reviews are not promising. There are two critics who give the film 100, and most give it a 60 or less. Which begs the question: is the movie bad, or is it simply something that is so controversial that it turns its viewers away due to the current atmosphere around the subject matter?

The real issue is with the expectations.  To think that movies which have a marketing disadvantage are going to perform simply by a cast alone isn’t going to work. Not when you have the star power pulling audiences in at home, and they have more options and choices than ever. 

Source : The Guardian

By: Dominic La-Viola

Paul Thomas Anderson’s new film One Battle After Another is bound to set a new box office record for the 11-time Oscar-nominated filmmaker. Grossing over 200 million at the box office, it’s his biggest film yet.

Yet with that being said, the film is still due to lose 100 million dollars at the box office, not only making it a box office failure but also ending the box office streak of its star Leonardo DiCaprio. 

Now, with that being said, that leaves one question to be answered: What happened? Why is a film that has a stellar cast such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Sean Penn, and Benicio del Toro. Set to lose so much money? Now, Penn doesn’t have the same hold over audiences as he once did during his peak, and Benicio del Toro is a fantastic actor, yet I wouldn’t consider him an A-list movie star. 

Of course, Chase Infinity is a newcomer, so there is no star power there to bring audiences in. Not to say that she didn’t give a career-changing performance. She held her own alongside some of the greatest performers working today. 

The problem, I think, isn’t with its stars but with its producers and the executives at WB. To sink 140 million in the budget along with another  70 million more in marketing for a 3-hour-long drama is just insane . Not to mention Anderson’s track record.

Paul Thomas Anderson is an amazing filmmaker, but he makes arthouse-style films. Ones that are not commercially marketable. His entire career has been that way.  His last film, Licorice Pizza, made only 33 million on a 40 million-dollar budget. 

Inherent Vice made 14.8 million on a 20 million-dollar budget. Punch-Drunk Love made 24.6 million on a 25 million-dollar budget.   Phantom  Thread made 52 million on a 35 million-dollar budget, which seems like a one-off.  You can go down the list of films he made and cross-reference the box office with estimated production costs.

Only a handful of his projects ever made money, not including the marketing that was spent on the film. So why is everyone pretending that this is a huge deal, when it really isn’t? His movies, his style of filmmaking, they’re not for everyone and they’re very much an acquired taste. 

 Even if we look over the fact that most of his movies lose money, even though they are critically acclaimed and are usually the talk of award season. This movie was doomed from the start. 

The budget was almost 4 times what he normally gets to produce a film. Which, in my opinion, was a rather large budget for a film of this nature. Not to mention that the film is coming in at just under 3 hours, which by any standards is long. Very long.

Taking that into consideration along with the fact that modern audiences don’t like and can’t sit through long movies. With TikTok and all the various platforms like it, modern audiences don’t have the attention spans of audience members in decades prior. 

Along with that, there is also the fact that the longer the film, the fewer times it can be screened in a theater at any given day. Taking it from, say, 9 screenings a day to 5. Cutting the amount of options by 4. Per day, per theater. Losing exponential ticket sales over the course of its theater run. 

Now, many people will have different takes on why the film lost money and was a financial failure. While others consider it to still be a success, regardless of its financial loss, due to the fact that it was critically acclaimed and is generating a lot of Oscar buzz.

The movie was a box office failure and will be no matter how many Oscars it wins. No matter how much it makes on VOD and physical media sales. Although with that being said, failing at the box office isn’t that big of a deal. Fight Club was a box office failure that became a cult classic and made its money back 3 times over in video sales. 

The real question remains, will WB’s investment pay off during award season, peaking interest to help recover its losses with VOD and physical media sales. 

By: Dominic La-Viola

Jonnie To, the legendary director of such films as Throw Down, Election, Election 2, PTU, The Heroic Trio comes the third film in the Election trilogy. 

Now all the details have yet to be announced, but the film is scheduled to begin filming in January of 2026, aiming for a 2027 release date. 

There has been a lot of talk about this project for the past several months, yet the title in question was never confirmed until now. 

Election 3 is currently in pre production, although as of now. There is still no casting announcements for the film, which could very much be due to contract issues, or a desire to keep everything under wraps including plot details until the camera’s start rolling.

    All we know for certain right now is that it’s going to be a Hong Kong gangster film, that will shot in Japan. Which raises some questions, but gives us no answers. 

The first two Election films were shot in Hong Kong. So with that being said, it does make me wonder is the film going to have a cross over with the criminal underworld of Japan.  A Triads vs Yakuza gangster film? 

In a world so connected and with everything being international, and the increased demand of imports and exports increasing over the years. This could be a very real possibly. Although, nothing is certain or confirmed, hopefully we will have some details soon. 

By:Dominic La-Viola

Mel Gibson has started production on his latest endeavor, The Resurrection of Christ, the follow-up film to his 2004 film, The Passion of Christ. One of the highest-grossing independent films of all time, coming in at over 610 million dollars. 

The film takes three days after Christ’s crucifixion on Good Friday. Given the time frame that has passed from the original film back in 2004, they have no choice but to recast everyone. 

Now, I use the words no choice; however, they do have a choice, one in which some filmmakers would have done. Although one I don’t agree with, and I don’t think many would agree with either.

Using CGI and the deaging program, in order to make all the actors look as they did back in 2004. Now, insiders say it was a smart thing to recast, due to the cost it would take to de-age everyone using the technology. Yet, I agree with his decision to recast for a different reason entirely. 

Recasting the film is what should be done, not only to help cut the cost of the budget but also to help stay true to the art of filmmaking. We are on the brink of AI invading the film industry in a very, very real way. 

What seemed harmless in The Irishman is becoming more and more threatening. The use of CGI and computer-generated images is going from a tool to a replacement. Although that is an outlook for another article within itself. 

Now, it’s not said why Gibson chose to recast and what the reason was behind that, since there are now very real ways to de-age and make them look as they once did. As we have seen in The Irishman. Personally, I think it’s the right choice, but only time will tell. 

The film is being broken up into two movies, both of which are going to be released in 2027. Another smart move, releasing the films close in proximity to keep viewers engaged and wanting more. Which prolonged sequels have seen a decline in success, due to the lack of anticipation and relevance, due to prolonged production.

As far as casting goes, the role of Mary  Magdalene  is going to be played by Mariela Garriga.  The role of Peter is being welded by Pier Luigi Pasino and the role do Pontius Pilate will be played by Ricardo Scamarcio. 

The film “The Resurrection of the Christ” is being produced by Gibson, Bruce Davey with Lionsgate as the studio partner.

Gibson has described the sequels   as an “acid trip,” adding that he “never read anything like” the scripts, which the filmmaker wrote alongside “Braveheart” screenwriter Randall Wallace. When asked about the film to which he and Randall Wallace co wrote together. 

Given that the original film is spoken in Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin which is said to create a more historical accuracy. I would imagine the sequel will follow suit. 

Beyond knowing a bite of information, give the tittle of the film and what little information we were given, from Mel Gipson himself. The details of the plot are being kept under wraps.