Next time you're going to read (and quote) one of my posts, please read it properly, in this case, take stock of the term "I think" rather than confusing it with the radically different "I know for a fact".
Don't be snide. The point, which you clearly missed, is that in order for you to form an opinion, you have to have some backing. You cannot, for instance, say "I think that guy is Spanish." You would need a reason to believe he is Spanish, otherwise why would you make the presumption? Following me so far? Okay, so if you presume that a particular toy line sold better one place than in another, you would need some foundation for making that claim.
What am I not getting here?
You're not getting that 187 million was made ONLY in America, and the 269 million is the collected amount from EVERY other country in the world. Therefore, every country singularly put in less than America did.
Thus, Europe spent -less- money seeing this movie than America did.
Get what I mean now?
So what's the big difference between America and everywhere else? You named 'short attention spans' but I'm sure there's more to it than that.
Not really. Look at our schools. Look at our 'big draw' entertainment. America spends more money on movies with explosions that are an hour and a half or shorter than any other country. To be perfectly blunt, much of Europe (and the rest of the world) tends to be more sophisticated than Americans (as a general audience).
Americans have no attention span, as a collective group. Give them a long, involved plotline and you'll cut your target audience by a huge margin. Gladiator had explosions, quick plotline development, and gore. It did well in America. Kingdom of Heaven had long dialogue scenes, no real suspense or surprise, no gore, and only a few, very quick, battle scenes. It bombed (also due to the fact that America is on a wicked anti-Muslim trip).
Case in point.
*coughDeadMan'sChestcough*
Precisely.
300 may as well have been a fantasy movie for all the 'history' that was in it.
The theme was still history, I meant. It may have been very fantasy, but it was still very much the backdrop of history, however mangled it may have been.
Oh come on; look at that bit where he finds his wife and son's bodies and tell me he isn't a good actor.
He's not a good actor.
Every actor, at least almost, has had moments where they pull off dramatic moments. Even Keanu Reeves has done that a few times. But just because you can wail and cry on command doesn't mean you are, more generally, a good actor. There's more to it than that. Though one would be hardpressed to really explain what makes a good actor. It's just that 'something' that they have. Johnny Depp is a good actor. Christopher Lee is a good actor. Crowe is an overpaid shmuck that only got by because chicks thought he was 'dreamy' and he looked tough.
I think it's his lines - "A diversion!" (ROTK) - and his celebrity status; until he gets a bit older he won't be seen as much more than a chick magnet.
Definitely. He's still young. And he's still growing as an actor. But he gets way more negativity than he deserves because he's not actually a -bad- actor. He's just not full-grown into his career yet. Johnny Depp was a 'heart-throb' in his early years as well. Look how he turned out - one of the best Hollywood can get.
Yes, the DC is brilliant. Probably not a good 'main-stream' action movie, but for a historical movie it's great.
Agreed, completely. I've watched it plenty of times since it came out and am glad to own it. Terrific movie and so much better than the theatrical release that it's hard to grasp they are the same movie.
It's anti-church - remember that bit when the priest guy suggests he and Balian leave the people to be slaughtered to save their own skin? This is a fair point; many churches in the Middle Ages were corrupt, bloated and stole money from the poor.
Just in the Middle Ages?
But yes, the movie definitely has anti-church undertones. Personally, I don't think it's overt. And on the other hand, the Hospitaller is shown in an extremely positive light - a 'true Christian' in every way. No character like that could even exist in a film designed to be anti-Christian.
..And there you have it. The explanation of why I dislike Orlando and Hayden (the Anakin one). They seem like they were picked almost solely for their "sex appeal", rather than their acting.
I think that's an unfair statement. Some of the greatest actors of our time were originally chosen partially for their 'sex appeal.' Look at Sean Connery. Women -still- fall all over themselves for him. And Johnny Depp. Collin Farrel. Richard Gere. Gerard Butler. Great actors all, but were definitely handed some things along the way because women wanted to see them.
Doesn't make them bad actors. Their good looks certainly shouldn't be held against them. Nor should it be held against a movie company for wanting to get a male lead that the women in the crowd will want to look at for extended periods of time. Female leads are no different, you know. Keira Knightley didn't get her roles because she's the best female actor in all Hollywood.