You've ruined my weekend, Luther! I'm not griping about the real Martin Luther, lest offended Lutherans are thinking about posting 95 theses on my door. I'm talking about the alleged snore of a movie starring the uber-lesser Fiennes, Joe. Don't trust me, just ask the New York Times whose Rotten Tomatoes quote is" As the film veers uncertainly between meticulous historical recapitulation and shameless hokum, it brings enough characters to populate a mini-series. When the historical details become too clogged, the movie shamelessly overcompensates by wallowing in cheap sentimentality."
Sounds like a winner, no?
Normally, I don't mind when some Pax-type movie comes to my local theater; I'm quite used to it by now. I'm sure Left Behind 9: Still Forgot A Couple will be front and center at my Regal upon its release. But Luther was in less than 500 theaters nationwide. And so was Lost In Translation, the sophomore effort by Sofia Coppola who knocked my socks off with The Virgin Suicides. Lost In Translation, which is making oodles of dough in limited release and opened to rave reviews. Lost in Translation, the movie I've been dying to see since I first read about it eons ago.
So which movie comes to my 'burb?
Yeah, that's right. Lucky me. The thing that really aggravates me that it doesn't even make sense from a business standpoint. I guarantee Lost In Translation will make at least triple the amount of money Luther does this weekend. It already made the highest per-screen average last week, blowing everybody else out of the water. Luther, on the other hand, will fizzle into Marci X-type box office. So why, pray tell, did they screen Luther and not Lost In Translation? Masochism? Guilt? Enron economics?
I think I'm going to go post 95 reasons why Lost In Translation would have been a better movie to screen this weekend on the door of my multiplex. Worked for Marty...
posted by drew on 9/27/2003
Back to drew's blog-o-rama?