« Just Making Sure... | Main | Newssip »
September 30, 2007
Das Vaknifeya
In Eastern Promises, Cronenberg takes on Knightâs fairly-traditional-on-the-surface story of the Mafioso with a heart of gold, the Mafia family he works for and is working his way up through, and the blonde innocent who forces him to make decisions about doing the right thing. It gets more complicated than that, but that description will get you through the first half of the film. What makes it more than expected, initially, is Knight, who is so interested in the details of the lives into which he is looking. Story twists are all supported because, it seems, Knight twists only to push the characters into more complexity, not the other way around.
Cronenberg takes the story and up the ante.
Posted by poland at September 30, 2007 01:53 PM
Comments
I want to see Eastern Promises, if I can find it in Chicago. I think it's at 2 theatres in Chicago and one in Evanston. Just gotta find time to see it. But looking at the boxo, it dropped 50% and I"m thinking -- there was another good movie out there "Talk to Me" and it got lost and never resurfaced....and I'm thinking maybe Eastern Promises will be the Talk to Me - not enough theatres or not enough interest in the material, which to me Talk to me was a really good movie.
It just disappeared and don't know what happened; does anybody know what happened?
Posted by: Chicago48
at September 30, 2007 04:47 PM
i can't figure it out. i figured with a history of violence being enjoyed by critics and mainstream film fans, their next collaboration would build on that 30 million.
I think it has to be the material. History of Violence is about middle america. Maybe that contributed to the appeal where a story of Russian Mobsters doesn't really appeal to everyone.
Posted by: anghus
at September 30, 2007 06:35 PM
Or.... maybe a lot of folks who saw History of Violence didn't like the movie, and passed on what they thought might be a second helping?
Posted by: Joe Leydon
at September 30, 2007 06:47 PM
that's true too. though i thought History of violence was well received.
perhaps that is false.
Posted by: anghus
at September 30, 2007 06:49 PM
Hey, I liked it, and I know it got some great reviews (and some Oscar nom love). But... How many of the people who bought tickets actually liked what they got for their money?
I think we tend to overlook the possibility that some financially successful movies -- including some big hits -- really aren't enjoyed by huge percentages of the people who see them. Judging from the reader mail I got after my MSNBC.com review of it, I'd put The Blair Witch Project in that category.
I wish I could remember the exact wording of the quote, but years ago Jean-Luc Godard said something to the effect of, "Whenever an artistically accomplished film is also a box-office hit, it's because of a mistake." That is, it is a hit because audiences think the film is something other than what it really is, and may be very disappointed when they discover their "mistake."
Posted by: Joe Leydon
at September 30, 2007 07:01 PM
I understand that the New Line people were a little disappointed at the movie they got with A History of Violence - they thought they had a sure-fire commercial hit and instead it turned out to be an art movie.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at September 30, 2007 07:18 PM
The real reason why AHOV would do better than EP, though, is marketing. AHOV had a simple, memorable hook (is this family guy a mobster?) and EP is about...uh, something to do with Russian mobsters and the girl from King Kong gets involved somehow.
Posted by: jeffmcm
at September 30, 2007 07:25 PM
I'm gonna be skipping Eastern Promises. I was a fan of A History of Violence, but I wasn't blown away by it and this one just doesn't seem as interesting to me. Although I was a big fan of Stephen Knight's Dirty Pretty Things (also dealing with foreign subcultures in London) but I'm more a fan of Ejiofor than I am of Mortensen.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0
at September 30, 2007 11:55 PM
I'm not sure of the synapse connections in Kamikaze's thought process, but I've actually thought the exact same things:
1."I was a fan of A History of Violence, but I wasn't blown away by it."
2."I was a big fan of Stephen Knight's Dirty Pretty Things."
3."I'm more a fan of Ejiofor than I am of Mortensen."
I just never thought them all at same time.
Until now, that is.
Posted by: Ju-osh
at October 1, 2007 07:45 AM
Off topic (but there's no recent BYOB) BUT...
I read that link on the MCN homepage, about those piracy websites and I checked them out. They're pretty sweet. But I was literally dying of laughter when I clicked on THE KINGDOM.
It's a really crappy camcordered version of the film and that's just lame. But the kicker is, the guy who filmed it has the entire side of his buddies face in the movie. It looks like Mystery Science Theater or something. I only watched about a minute of it, but c'mon....if you're going to break the law, be a little more sneaky.
Posted by: PetalumaFilms
at October 1, 2007 09:56 AM
Ju-osh, I was saying that while I liked Knight's Dirty Pretty Things (directed by Stephen Frears, who I like more than David Cronenberg) I wasn't a big fan of A History of Violence nor am I a big fan of Viggo Mortensen either. I'm interested by Knight's ideas but, from what I've heard, Eastern Promises isn't even as good as A History of Violence so I'll probably skip it.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0
at October 2, 2007 12:23 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)