edited by Moisés Chiullan

The Third Man (Criterion Blu-ray)
This title in particular has been the subject of a good deal of controversy on Elsewhere (among other sites), message boards, and email lists across the web. No one seems to talk about much aside from the "Grain Issue." Since the grain (or overabundance thereof) is the obvious elephant in the room, I'm going to address it before getting on to the additional content on display here, of which there is much to see and thoroughly enjoy. (continued)

Upcoming

December 31

Defiance

Good

January 2

Cargo 200

January 7

Silent Light

January 9

After Dark Horrorfest 2009

Bride Wars

How About You

Not Easily Broken

The Unborn

Yonkers Joe

January 16

Chandni Chwok to China

Cherry Blossoms

Hotel for Dogs

My Bloody Valentine 3-D

Notorious

Paul Blart: Mall Cop

January 21

Of Time and the City

"A Mighty Heart" poster

email this story
read comments (27)
post a comment

The jungle drumbeat starts today for Paramount Vantage and Michael Winterbottom's A Mighty Heart, which will show at Cannes and open in the U.S. on 6.22.07.

Peter Sellars at the Kabuki 8<< previous | next >>Jones in the bayou

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on April 30, 2007 at 11:36 AM

comment #1

JD says ...

Is that a real poster? If it is, it may be the worst poster ever generated by a Hollywood studio for a credible film. It looks like a festival press kit for one of those zero budget independents that never gets distributed. Is there a law that says every movie about a journalist must use the courier typewriter font for its poster and/or credits?

Posted by JD at April 30, 2007 11:46 AM

comment #2

bachelorcool says ...

So this is the story of a guy who got decapitated, and they replicate that in the poster by putting Anjelina Jolie where his head would have been?

Posted by bachelorcool at April 30, 2007 11:53 AM

comment #3

Monument says ...

"Is there a law that says every movie about a journalist must use the courier typewriter font for its poster and/or credits?"

Yes

Posted by Monument at April 30, 2007 12:07 PM

comment #4

JD says ...

I thought so.

Posted by JD at April 30, 2007 12:09 PM

comment #5

Josh Massey says ...

What's the market for this movie? Is there any imaginable way this even approaches $20 million at the box office?

Posted by Josh Massey at April 30, 2007 12:12 PM

comment #6

JD says ...

That would be about $19 million more than any other Michael Winterbottom movie has made. But I don't think anyone's making this movie for the money, Josh. If it breaks even -- it didn't cost much to make -- and gets some good reviews, I'm sure everyone will be pleased. After coasting on dud-after-dud, Angelina Jolie could certainly use a respectable film on her filmography.

Posted by JD at April 30, 2007 12:35 PM

comment #7

James Leer says ...

If it doesn't, Lord knows it never should have been made!

Posted by James Leer at April 30, 2007 12:35 PM

comment #8

ROTC says ...

I have no idea whether or not this is a good film, but it sure screams "Oscar Bait." So why on earth is it being released during the escapist summer onslaught? I guess the studios haven't yet learned that this kind of summertime counter-programming almost never succeeds - and that the movie's awards prospects will likely suffer when year-end nominations are announced.

Posted by ROTC at April 30, 2007 1:10 PM

comment #9

ROTC says ...

Also, every single time I see the horrendous title, I confuse it with the Christopher Guest ensemble's "A Mighty Wind."

Posted by ROTC at April 30, 2007 1:15 PM

comment #10

jeffmcm says ...

ROTC, I think that there have been plenty of counter-programming successes. Plus there's the idea that if thismovie was released during awards season it might get swallowed in the glut of all the other awards-season movies that get released in that one-month span.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 30, 2007 2:32 PM

comment #11

D.Z. says ...

JD: "But I don't think anyone's making this movie for the money, Josh."

Yeah, just Oscar bait. Damn, ROTC beat me to it. Anyway, you'd think after United 93 tanked, Hollywood would realize that Americans don't really like patriotic snuff films. So who's worse at making money off their dead husbands now: Mariane Pearl or Courtney Love?

Posted by D.Z. at April 30, 2007 2:56 PM

comment #12

jeffmcm says ...

United 93 grossed $76m worldwide on a budget of around $15m. I would love it if I had made a movie that tanked that badly (plus it was excellent).

Posted by jeffmcm at April 30, 2007 3:43 PM

comment #13

D.Z. says ...

Yeah, but it was supposed to make that kind of money here, not there.

Posted by D.Z. at April 30, 2007 3:49 PM

comment #14

jeffmcm says ...

So?

Posted by jeffmcm at April 30, 2007 4:21 PM

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

So it's still a disappointment.

Posted by D.Z. at April 30, 2007 4:52 PM

comment #16

ROTC says ...

"I think that there have been plenty of counter-programming successes." Like what? Outside of the occasional straight romance, rom-com or low-budget comedy that breaks through, when has a movie as depressingly serious as this fared well in the current summer theatrical culture?

"...if thismovie was released during awards season it might get swallowed in the glut of all the other awards-season movies that get released in that one-month span." So why not release it in August or September, right after all the summer blockbusters, instead of smack-dab in the middle?

Keep in mind that virtually none of Jolie's dramas have made money. Jolie remains infinitely more of a tabloid superstar than a box-office one.

Posted by ROTC at April 30, 2007 4:59 PM

comment #17

jeffmcm says ...

"So it's still a disappointment."

No it's not. It did as well as a grim, ultra-serious movie about a topic that most people would prefer to avoid thinking about, with no stars, possibly could (and it's an excellent film).

Plus it did better than...oh wait, I can't compare it to some film that DZ liked, because DZ doesn't actually like films, preferring to define himself only by those films/filmmakers/political figures that he hates.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 30, 2007 5:02 PM

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

It did better than Apocalypto, but that's not saying a lot, since both films left theaters pretty fast.

Posted by D.Z. at April 30, 2007 6:24 PM

comment #19

Ju-osh says ...

Back to the poster:
Is the white half supposed to represent Jolie's skin color and the black half Mariane Pearl's?
Or is it just a good/evil, reporter/terrorist thing?

(Al Jolson won an Oscar doing blackface, too, didn't he?)

Posted by Ju-osh at April 30, 2007 6:32 PM

comment #20

jeffmcm says ...

Apocalypto grossed $118m worldwide. 118 > 76.

Wrong again.

The white half is the good times (writing on a typewriter) and the black half is the bad times (being kidnapped and murdered).

Al Jolson never won an Oscar, but Larry Parks got an Oscar nomination for playing him in The Jolson Story.

Posted by jeffmcm at April 30, 2007 6:43 PM

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

Apocalypto cost more than United, though.

Posted by D.Z. at April 30, 2007 7:05 PM

comment #22

cjKennedy says ...

Imagine my embarrassment over the fact that my first thought besides "Meh, I don't need to see this movie" was "Hmm, kind of a cool poster though" only to have my bubble burst by JDs very first comment! The question now is, do I pretend it never happened or do I admit it and click "post"?

Posted by cjKennedy at April 30, 2007 8:14 PM

comment #23

D.Z. says ...

Pics are up at http://www.darkhorizons.com/2007/amightyheart.php .

Posted by D.Z. at May 1, 2007 1:04 AM

comment #24

jeffmcm says ...

"Apocalypto cost more than United, though."

This is correct.

What was your point again? These movies have nothing in common with each other.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 1, 2007 12:54 PM

comment #25

D.Z. says ...

No, my point is that they did about the same, in spite of them both being high-profile for the wrong reasons.

Posted by D.Z. at May 1, 2007 4:12 PM

comment #26

jeffmcm says ...

One made $40m more than the other. Those aren't 'about the same'. Apocalypto was high-profile because of Gibson and because of its unusual setting. U93 was noticed because of its subject matter and its exquisite execution. Those are good reasons to be high-profile.

So what's your _real_ point?

Posted by jeffmcm at May 1, 2007 4:24 PM

comment #27

D.Z. says ...

One cost $40 million more, but both grossed about the same. And both were quickly forgotten, which is what I imagine would happen with A Mighty Heart.

Posted by D.Z. at May 1, 2007 7:39 PM