Hat Tip, ONTD, First Showing
Sasha Stone has been around the Oscar scene since 1999. Almost everything on this website is her fault.
Better late than never! Barbie was placed in Adapted at the Oscars but is in the Original Screenplay category here,...
Read moreThe Academy should take a bow this morning for bringing back the Oscars, restoring them to their former glory in...
Read moreThe Golden Globes went off well enough this past year that CBS has signed a five-year deal with the Globes...
Read more
Can anybody invest in it from a bookstore?
Looks great. Love the cast and Amy Adams looks incredible in it, can’t wait to see it.
Big week with this and “Lone Survivor” trailers coming out. Surprised you guys haven’t posted Lone Survivor yet as I’m reading its got some Oscar buzz surrounding it.
Pending further footage and the final product, this looks like an Argo rip-off that suggests David O. Russell is really desperate to win an Academy Award right now.
Nailed it.
What makes this an Argo ripoff? Other than being set in the 70s did Argo have any females other than the hostages? Does this film take place in the Middle East and focus on an international crisis trying to be solved through a fake movie production? You’re better off comparing Happy Gilmore to The Legend of Bagger Vance.
And I’m not trying to be a dick but I genuinely LOL’d. The only reason for the Argo comparison is because of the decade it takes place in and because Argo was released last year. If American Hustle came out 5 years from now would you really compare it to Argo?
I get why some people might not like SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK but this is another level no? People sound genuinely mad. To be offended by other people liking it (because they liked it), and of course ya’ll are so brilliant that you know exactly why other people like it (and they like it for the exact same reasons you dislike it?). I mean for a movie that’s not being shoved down our throats, unlike that other movie that infamously lost Best Pic –I felt that one was shoved down my throat by literally everyone on planet earth, I was supposed to like it and ended up being just OK? And I’m not saying the arguments are invalid, I mean this is cinema so all arguments are valid as long as they explain how a movie made you feel/react and why did make you feel/react that way. That’s valid shit. From it bored me to if offended me because this and this, at least that’s honesty.
Also, Ryan, to compare David O. Russell’s style to the great visual masters -you pick the name- is too easy, and I don’t see the point. Why not compare SILVE LINGINS PLAYBOOK to some other great movies with visuals that are just merely adequate and serviceable to the story? Well I don’t know, I liked the movie. Didn’t read the book so maybe that’s what I’m missing. I don’t see right through the filmmaker’s reproachable and exploitative devices which required changing this and that from the book. Did anyone hailed this movie as the second coming of the 70’s masterpiece?
Just a joke, Bryce. Trying to lighten things up. The giant phallus aimed at the bumpin booty might have been a clue that I wasn’t shooting for deep analysis. Likewise inserting the syllables ‘shooting deep anal’ in the previous phrase.
“To be offended by other people liking it”
Not sure where you get that from anything I said. I don’t like the movie. I’m not offended if you do.
I got you. And no, my first paragraph was more of a general response to what I perceive is “everyone” else’s arguments against it and not you in particular.
By the way I only mentioned that other beloved film because I was sold the notion that through its razor-sharp observation you got to universal truths about this and that, and nah. I found that film to be IN THE BEDROOM or AMOUR -just to name some from recent times like that other movie. True masterpieces that you could hate without it being unacceptable.
Now I don’t even know what you’re talking about. People were commenting about Russell’s fondness for zooming in on the assess of his actresses. That’s the only reason I posted that screenshot. I think it’s crude.
Oh no, that wasn’t directed at you just more ramblings lol. I should follow you on twitter to get a better sense of where you’re coming from and how you’re coming at in the future!
All the same, I think I understand what you mean.
Many months ago, Bryce, I remember you wrote a really interesting appreciation of Russell’s aesthetic. I don’t personally see what you see but I thought your observations was a solid defense of his style, among the best I’ve ever read. (Sorry I can’t recall any specifics!)
yep, my attitude on Twitter is a lot goofier and rowdier than I usually let show on the site.
“40 years ago, the director’s branch of the Academy knew the difference between masterpiece and masturbatory.”
Amen!
“Framing schmaming. Who cares about those corny old-fashioned concepts of framing and composition anymore.”
Artists?
People who revere the art of motion pictures?
I hope you know that sentence of mine was the most facetious thing I’ve constructed all year.
If you click the link to the comparison I posted on Twitter to illustrate, I think provocative salaciousness is great — if it’s done with bold style and intellectual sophistication. I was trying to say that a mundane ass being shimmied in my face isn’t sexy and it’s certainly not cinematic. It’s not even effective porn. It’s just embarrassing and boring.
40 years ago, the director’s branch of the Academy knew the difference between masterpiece and masturbatory.
I’ll never stop being disgusted by the fact that David O. Russell read the novel Silver Linings Playbook and the first thing he thought he needed to “fix” to sex it up for multiplex consumption was to change Tiffany from a woman in her 40s (as Matthew Quick had written her) and throw in some bullshit tease to juice up the trailer about how she had slept with everybody in her office, including (*gasp! drool!*) some puerile hints about sloppy lesbian action. (none of which exists in the book).
So why would he do that? Because it’s not hot enough to Russell to watch a 40-something woman dancing in tights?
He changed the part because Lawrence blew away every other actress that auditioned.
What was she doing auditioning for the role of a 40-year-old woman?
No. He already knew he was going to cut Tiffany’s age in half before Lawrence auditioned.
My understand is that Angelina Joile and Rachel McAdams also auditioned. So the original idea seemed to be someone older than the then 21 year old Lawrence. The book was different on a number of levels.
I don’t get these kind of “trailers” anymore! Why do they have music over a few clips of the movie. To me, that is not a trailer. I’m guessing the editors do it so they don’t reveal too much of the plot….??
Anyway, movie still looks awesome though. I just wonder if this fall can handle both The Wolf of Wall Street AND American Hustle.
I really don’t get the hate O. Russell gets in these boards. as a person, I’d totally get it – he seems like an awful man to be around – but as a director, I really can’t see what he does that is so egregious.
as some readers here might know, I have struggled with mental illness (specifically, type 2 bipolar disorder; in which the depressive episodes are stronger than the manic ones) for quite a while. and, as some people here might also know, these struggles peaked last year, when my engagement was broken off.
I say this about myself because, in light of all this, I felt SLP portrayed bipolar quite accurately, if I may use my experience as a parameter. it’s not a perfect film by any means, and I don’t think Lawrence should have won Best Actress, but I can’t see why the film gets so much hate from most around here.
American Hustle was flying under my radar until now, but this trailer has upped my interest in it quite a bit.
The film itself doesn’t get hate. It’s the fact that it got nominated for so many awards, most of it undeservedly, that is the problem. For what it is, SLP isn’t about bipolar disorder, but rather a standard, cliched rom-com flick that wouldn’t have gotten any awards consideration if it weren’t for the fact that the two main characters happened to have bipolar disorder.
To me, Andre, SLP was a schizophrenic experience in itself, the fact that it furthermore tries to say something about people with bipolar disorder is kind of ironic given its own lack of consistency (or did it try to say something? I can’t think of what exactly, other than that very beautiful people fall in love with each other even if they are both fucked…?).
To me, the film fell flat for numerous reasons: The high school teacher that doesn’t know about Hemingway? HA, not funny. De Niro’s character ? What is he, comic relief or the crux of the film? Don’t get me started on the whole dance competition thing (just one question: Did Patrick Swayze win an Oscar when he was dedicated to win a dance competition in Dirty Dancing? Ok, neither should J-Law), the black friend who knows about rhythm and therefore is in a position to bring on the vibe to the two know-nothings (a lazy script conceit if there ever was any), the policeman who keeps turning up whenever Cooper shows his face around town (we all know that Philadelphia is a small town where you just happen to bump into the same people all the time, right?), the therapist who also happens to be at the same Eagles game at the most opportune of moments (and then becomes a friend of the house, because the two of them end up fighting some racist thugs together??). Oh, and ALL of the climactic final act? I found the whole thing just dumb, hysterical and depressing.
But what I dislike the most about Russell’s film is the way he tries to exploit a sense of quirkiness. Quirky people living quirky lives doing quirky stuff with other quirks. Yet, in reality, his movies are anything but quirky. They are straight, shiny, predictable and phony. He is the most insincere of directors.
Not sure if audiences want or need another 70’s vibe period film. Argo just did that and this seems similar. But maybe this is not as audience friendly? Who knows from a trailer. Amy Adams is hot and Jennifer Lawrence is seeming frozen. She is so untested as an actress, and she may not have the great range or talent that people now expect. This is a giant question mark but as always, we hope for a good film.
She has a heck of a resume fora 22 year old. One challenging role after another.
No doubt about that. Her resume is not in question.
David O Russell’s framing is absolutely horrendous; many television films/dramas have much better cinematography than this.
David O Russell’s framing is absolutely horrendous
Framing schmaming. Who cares about those corny old-fashioned concepts of framing and composition anymore.
What is it about bad 70s clothes that always make me want to run out and buy some? 😀
I love this cast so much it hurts. The trailer does not disappoint. This should be a winner. *boogies*
So much about David O. Russell and his films just seems smug and irritating. I still can’t believe he got nominated over Katherine Bigelow.
Merci for embedding, Madame. Been waiting for the trailer (this film) pour longtemps! : )
This film looks really promising thanks to the trailer.
For some reason Amy Adams, in this trailer save dialogue notwithstanding, really stood out, potentially quite promising as a contender as well. Good for her.
Sidenote: All said and done for Gone Girl’s female protagonist aside, just for kicks I’m hoping David Fincher would see this trailer and realize what he possibly missed re his own choice in Amy Dunne….
Yes, Amy Adams stood out. You know why? Because you are a guy… and Russell knows exactly how guys react when he puts a beautiful actress’ ass in their face.
You can’t spell Tiffany without ‘fanny.”
Oh gosh, a woman’s butt. You didn’t faint in the theater, did you?
faint? no. just yawn.
Julian,
Thanks for your response.
[Just want to set the record straight; I know you just wanted to point it out matter-of-factly, and I appreciate the response.]
The baby-got-back elements on this trailer was quite obvious; that said, in all honesty, and please believe me s’il vous plait, … when I’ve said that she *stood out*, I sincerely meant: in terms of the air of someone who could possibly steal the show — primarily with her performance as a good/great actress, not a Playmate (the baby-got-back elements are, to me, a bonus; but honestly, somehow her derriere was the last thing on my hetero-mind when I wrote my first comment).
I really have : ) butt good feelings for Amy Adams as a talented thesp; the fact that she’s beauteous is a great bonus. All the best to her.
Well, I am glad that we agree on the fact that Amy is both a talented thesp as well as sporting a pretty derriere;)
My problem is neither with your comment or with the gracious Amy Adams, who I adore, but with the man behind the camera, the ogre David O. Russell.
If Amy Adams doesn’t have a problem showing her ass why should anybody else? After all it is her choice to show.
“So now we can’t objectify women in movies anymore unless we objectify men? I hate this mentality.”-M1
Okay you have a point and to be fair I can see Bond undress Bond girl #237 without a problem at all. I just think sexuality tends to sway male voters. When Jessica Chastian’s Maya says she doesn’t screw co-workers it probably wasn’t the biggest turn on for some of the male voters.
For me Lawrence’s Tiffany gets off scott free after lying to Pat whereas any normal man in the real world would be immensely pissed off for her manipulation(fake letters), but the movie seems to think her actions were right because…..well he’s uncharacteristically okay with it. I wonder if she would lie again within their relationship. After all she didn’t have to pay any consequences.
That being said yes usually when Pat did something the police weren’t far behind. The characters in Perks don’t really take any drastic actions that would lead to them needing to pay for it. Still that’s a movie where characters drive the story rather than contrived plot points that involve dance competitions, letter exchange promises to get someone involved in dance practice, gambling without it’s real horrors, lady luck in the form of a love interest, the most convenient wedding song, etc. I don’t see how Perks coddles it’s characters anymore than SLP, but that’s me.
As I fan of both films I think Perks easily sugarcoats things. The film skips nearly all of Charlie’s stay in the hospital and speaking of letters, that exposition is the only way we know how he feels about it. And unlike SLP, Charlie’s hospital stay happens nearly 3/4 into the movie. Anyways, I don’t see the comparison between the two films unless you are saying that undiagnosed bipolar and child molestation are equivalent.
On the trailer, I think this movie will be a hit across the board. Still am curious about Monuments Men though. I think that is last big unseen contender.
Perks easily sugarcoats things
I wouldn’t say “easily”, but I agree it sugarcoats some stuff, especially for Charlie and Patrick (that was his name right?). Also the sugarcoating doesn’t consist of things not shown in the movie. In fact I thought it was very skillful how they gave you a sense of Charlie’s peril at the hospital without having Logan Lerman pull a FACE TO FACE for 10 minutes of the movie. The cutesiness, adorableness, and humor of PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER are all essential, and they work within the film’s rules (i.e. universe). They give you a break because it’s all heavy stuff. I only have very minor issues with the movie; I though Patrick’s love interest is really miscast, and I didn’t completely buy how their situation came about in the first place. I don’t know maybe next time I see it I’ll discover it works within the cute rules I was referring to. I’m not saying every movie needs to be like this, there’s a space and a necessity for the unflinching gritty realism of a HALF NELSON or ENTRE LES MURS, some idiots also wish every movie was like these two great films, but that’s stupidity apart. There is sugarcoating in both PERKS and PLAYBOOK, and that’s ok because it works seamlessly in both movies. PERKS was in my top 10 last year. Cheers!
the movie seems to think her actions were right because…..well he’s uncharacteristically okay with it.
We learn that Bradley Cooper found out about the letter a week before he actually told her. I would think that over the course of that week he came to the (rational) belief that his relationship with Nikki would never work again and that she was the better partner. But that’s just my interpretation.
The characters in Perks don’t really take any drastic actions that would lead to them needing to pay for it.
But that’s part of the problem with that film. Whenever those three kids do something wrong (the fight, getting drunk, etc.) we never see the consequences of those actions, and as PJ mentions, we hardly see how the hospital visit at the end changes Charlie in that moment. It was a very good film but it had its flaws. That’s why I think SLP is better, even if both are great.
“We learn that Bradley Cooper found out about the letter a week before he actually told her. I would think that over the course of that week he came to the (rational) belief that his relationship with Nikki would never work again and that she was the better partner. But that’s just my interpretation.”
I gotta say though this opens another problem for me. Is Tiffany really a better substitute? Both we the audience and Pat know that she lies and manipulates. Hell she’s even kind of a hypocrite giving Pat crap for not holding up to his promise he made while secretly she hasn’t been keeping her promise(forging letters). She probably never even gave Pat’s letters to Nikki. We don’t know and that’s one problem with this film as it shouldn’t rely on important narrative plot threads that could go either way. Characters should dictate this story. Now it’s up in the air if she ever gave the letters or not.
I will say I do like it when the first taste my family gets of the woman I’ve been talking to is her emasculating me in front of the family.
Tiffany: WHERE WERE YOU?!
Pat: My dad was crying. I had to go to the game. Please don’t hit me!
Tiffany: I don’t give a damn if he was crying.
Pat: But what if he was suicidal and took his own life away after betting so much?
Tiffany: Tough!
Pat: What? I thought women had an incredibly capacity to be compassionate.
In any case just by the sheer sight of Nikki(a lie now backfiring on Tiffany), Tiffany hits the bar ready to hook up with someone creating a character who is very needy. What happens when Pat doesn’t give her appropriate attention on day 1 of their relationship? She just gonna go the next available man? What if she had actually left the competition with another man after Pat had trained hard for the last few weekends? What about the bet? There’s a lot riding on this bet. I know she’s probably thinking she has nothing to do with the bet so it’s not her problem. Wait……SHE PROPOSED THE BET! I can’t even begin to go into how selfish she is, but hey it’s all good cause she’s like…..really pretty or something and she looks like America’s new sweet heart movie star/it girl.
Pat’s no saint either. For the first hour I just wanted this delusional woman to forget about this jerk after he was so cruel to her for no reason. The movie doesn’t only depict a man getting woman in a negative light, but it sets women back 30 years by having one with little to no confidence. I don’t even like her, but it’s heartbreaking to see her take his crap. You just want one of her girlfriends to show up and tell her to forget about Pat. I wanted to the film to be over by the 35 minute point where their both on that walk together where she shows some balls.
Pat: Get away from me you whore!
Tiffany: Okay forget it asshole. I was just trying to be your friend. I deserve better. You just had to say “Hey Tiffany if you don’t mind I would like to do some jog alone. It clears the mind.” Screw you.
Of course I guess she does show some balls, but then the next day she is the one to follow him again.
There done. Movie’s over. I could go on and on about this flick. You like it…hey…more power to ya. That’s just one more enjoyable film in year where a lot of films are not enjoyable. It also couldn’t be more evident that I’m in the minority considering box office success and even critical reception. I still feel that if this film starred…I don’t know….Katherine Heigl and Adam Scott directed by…Garry Marshall released in…April of 2012 no one would have made a fuss about it. That being said I’m starting to question my opinion of it since so many damn people like it.
David O. Russell doesn’t give a shit anymore, does he? I mean that in a bad way.
I disagree that Silver Linings Playbook deemed its characters’ behavior as acceptable. When you see how many times the police officer busts Bradley Cooper’s character in the beginning I don’t see how this is true. I would say the movie provides more of an explanation for how the characters act. And that’s why I like it. The movie is compassionate towards its characters but it’s willing to call them out for their flaws as well. To me, that’s what made it far superior to The Perks of Being a Wallflower, a movie that coddles its characters to death to the point that we don’t see the consequences to almost many of their actions. The relationships between the characters in SLP were also much better developed than those in Perks.
“When you see how many times the police officer busts Bradley Cooper’s character in the beginning I don’t see how this is true.”
Because cops who hound troubled people are portrayed as assholes (and they are), that’s how.
Most excited about Jeremy Renner, an absolute force of nature judging from “The Town” & “The Hurt Locker”.
Amy Adams looks hot, bitchy and ready to kill.
Having said that, I don’t think she would stand a chance in the Lead Actress department this year. If she goes supporting she should easily win. If she doesn’t win, we will be able to call her the female Peter O’Toole and stop hoping for anything anymore.
But, hmmm… do you think she might do a Faye Dunaway “Network” kinda thing here? And actually end up winning Best Actress?
I also think Jennifer Lawrence looks out of place, but we need to wait and see the film.
Overall, I find myself enjoying David O. Russell productions.
This looks like fun. Amy Adams dominates the screen, completely, but the vibe seems lightweight. Jennifer Lawrence, on the other hand, is wildly distracting. She looks like an 18 year old cheerleader playing dress-up. Can we not?
comes off as pulp fiction if it were directed by robert altman and had no actual screenwriter. it’s intriguing, but i have no idea what the story is or why i should care from the trailer. the first vignette is cool and should set the tone for the rest, but then the montage doesn’t seem to comment on real v. fake, people’s perceptions, and what exactly a master is.
Also, where are Robert De Niro and Louis CK? Are they in this movie too?
Not complaining, but I can’t help but notice that almost half the shots in the trailer are aimed at Amy Adam’s ass. Now, it is lovely and eye-catching, but can’t O. Russell point the camera ever point the camera somewhere else? It feels a bit juvenile.
“…notice that almost half the shots in the trailer are aimed at Amy Adam’s ass.”
What are you trying to say?? That’s Russell’s signature.
I’ll have to see American Hustle for myself, but I don’t think it will leave me as annoyed as Lawrence shaking her booty. Something about that didn’t sit well with me. As a guy it did, but as a moviegoer it didn’t. Maybe it was just the idea she was clearly flaunting for a guy who seemed oblivious to her. She was so desperate she took off her top and just stood there like she forgot the next part in how to change or get dressed. I’m surprised she didn’t do a 5 minute pencil drop.
Pat: Alright Tiffany how long does it take to pick up a pencil? I know what you’re doing.
Tiffany: I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Seduction is fine, but come on. Maybe it was that this relationship started on the basis of looks(“I loved you the moment I saw you”, kill me) rather getting to know each other. Ugh why must I be that guy that still doesn’t like SLP.
No complaints about Adams’ booty though. I’m a hypocrite.
ahaha! best laugh of the day so far. thank you, James.
If Exhibit A wasn’t enough, here’s more evidence.
Tiffany always reminds me of Sulene Gay singing “I Never Get Enough” in Nashville.
That be a little more okay if they panned on Cooper’s butt for the ladies too. No surprise it never does. I’ve never seen a movie in recent memory where it asks “Don’t you just love these people?” “Uh I guess so….wait…no. Their awful. I can like movies about awful people and sometimes sympathize or at least empathize with them, but this movie deems their inappropriate behavior acceptable because we’re all just a little crazy, right? No….just no.”
That would be a little more okay if they panned on Cooper’s butt for the ladies too.
So now we can’t objectify women in movies anymore unless we objectify men? I hate this mentality.
We’re being punked. Michael Bay shot this.
Interesting they hide Robert and he is not in the trailer. Does that mean his role is that small or it to avoid given away a major twist?
All I can think about is Amy Adams after watching this. She gets to slink, slap and scream in this quick trailer. Would love to see her get some notices.
I’m getting a Sharon Stone in Casino-esque vibe from Lawrence.
Can’t stand Silver Linings, but I’m hoping this is more along the lines of Flirting with Disaster, The Fighter(arguably sentimental, but never overtly so and it worked for me. Certainly more authentic and less Hollywood than the trailer made it appear), and Three Kings. Cast, period detail, and concept look spot on. We will see.
Immediate reaction—> David O. Russell present’s GOODFELLAS. Seems like it’ll be well worth seeing, though. As someone who was lukewarm on both SLP and THE FIGHTER, I hope this is more of a return to form for Russell.
looks like amy adams show….
Amy Adams for the win if it’s supporting
This looks really good. I’m going to guess that Amy Adams is going lead from the plot synopsis and the amount of time she’s featured in the trailer. For me, she and Lawrence steal the trailer. Both look fantastic. And Bale and Cooper look great too. Can David O. Russell get 4 actors in all 4 categories AGAIN (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Lawrence)? That would be crazy.
I was thinking along the same lines about the four actors!
Gonna say this yet again. Even if the music is great…another shitty trailer. Now that’s out of the way and from the glimpses you get from the trailer which are pretty darn strong, it does look like David O. Russell has hit out of the park again. I predict this is quite the crowd-pleaser with pretty good box-office potential (thanks in great part to movie star and talented actress Jennifer Lawrence) and will be on par with the director’s two last efforts in terms of critics’ approval that is more than enough to make it an awards player.
Now in terms of Academy Awards:
-All 5 actors featured in the trailer are well in the club, so I don’t think predicting 3 acting nominations is far fetched at all!
-Looks like we can put down another couple of nominations for the ever impressive David O. Russell. Director + Screenplay.
-The period looks like quite a few tech noms too!
All in all, do feel confident in predicting success in all spheres and Academy Awards nominations across the board for David O. Russell’s AMERICAN HUSLE!
Well, not sure about the film, but Bale steals the trailer.
Amy Fucking Adams.
Bale, Adams, and Lawrence all look splendid.
To hell with the wigs and the clothes and beards. What I want to know is… how did they get Led Zeppelin to agree to the use of their song? If it was only a matter of money, I can only guess that Sony Pictures parted with a very large fortune.
I was wondering that very thing. Actually shocked me when the trailer started to play!
Amy Adams Looks perfect!…. Cant wait!
There is youtube one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhB6o3Dtwjs
This looks really good. Crossing my fingers that Amy Adams finally gets her Oscar (hopefully they will place her in supporting and not lead).
Jennifer looks kinda out of place. She looks too young. Like a kid playing dress up to go out with the adults, but maybe that is how it is supposed to be.
I’m not agree with you, I’m really impressed with how much older Jennifer Lawrence looks…
JLaw looks older for her age but she doesn’t match up in the talent department. She’s getting too famous, we know too much of her “real lfe persona” to not notice that she is not as mature as her counterparts.
Also, Amy looks really hot. I never thought she had it in her and JLaw crawling in bed was totally made for Academy members. Using her sexuality in roles at 22 even if she has an Oscar… I don’t know, man. She doen’t need that.