I Love You Phillip Morris

[Dukefrukem]

XoFANivV44g


or the better trailer is here (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/iloveyouphillipmorris/).

[Lasse]

What? It's been out for ages? Maybe not in America, though?

I thought it was okay and it had a few funny moments, but it was sort of forgettable.

[Dukefrukem]

What's with the delay to the states?

[Henry Gale]

Even with them clearly being afraid of the gay aspect being so integral to it, you'd think that the studio (whoever it is) would have found a way to market it around whatever fear they seem to have that it would somehow be a loss to them to release it widely and have people actually pay to go see it based on Carrey's name alone, despite however they may feel about it afterwards.

Like honestly, if things like Yes Man and Fun With Dick & Jane can each make $200 million worldwide, I don't know what they see as a negative here. Critics have really liked it too.

[Irish]

Even with them clearly being afraid of the gay aspect being so integral to it, you'd think that the studio (whoever it is) would have found a way to market it around whatever fear they seem to have that it would somehow be a loss to them to release it widely and have people actually pay to go see it based on Carrey's name alone, despite however they may feel about it afterwards.

The major demo everybody wants is teen and young adult males. I don't know how you market a movie like this to that audience. Other audiences, okay, but they're much, much smaller. Given that, you won't throw big bucks into a marketing budget.


Like honestly, if things like Yes Man and Fun With Dick & Jane can each make $200 million worldwide, I don't know what they see as a negative here. Critics have really liked it too.

I haven't seen either, but from the promos they seemed, what's the euphemism? "Family friendly." It might be a sad state of affairs, but this movie is not.

You can't throw money into national campaigns when your product might be offensive or threatening to large numbers of people.

I'm a little surprised this movie got made at all.

[number8]

What's with the delay to the states?

Nobody wanted to buy it.

[number8]

I'm a little surprised this movie got made at all.

Why? It's an independent movie.

[Ezee E]

The thing with Yes Man and Fun with Dick and Jane is that they are intended for families. Philip Morris' aimed demographic will be the gay community/indie viewers. Millions will stay away from that movie for that reason alone. I figure there will be loads of Midwestern theaters that won't even bother putting it on their screens.

[MadMan]

I think it looks slightly amusing, but then Jim Carrey makes me laugh. Plus Ewan McGregor is usually good, as well.

[Irish]

Nobody wanted to buy it.


Why? It's an independent movie.

Because these two things are related? Especially in this case.

[Raiders]

Because these two things are related? Especially in this case.

Perhaps you meant you're surprised it was picked up by any distributor? Nobody wanting to buy it doesn't have that much to do with production financing. A lot of movies are made prior to signing any distribution deals.

[number8]

What Raiders said. Tons of movies get financing on star power. This one has Jim Carrey and McGregor backing it. Of course it got made. And it had no problems getting bought by foreign markets. It's only US distributors that avoided it like the plague before Roadside finally acquired it for a platform release model.

[Irish]

Perhaps you meant you're surprised it was picked up by any distributor? Nobody wanting to buy it doesn't have that much to do with production financing. A lot of movies are made prior to signing any distribution deals.

True. I know things work differently in the movie business, but part of me still chokes on the idea that anyone could spend millions of dollars developing something and not realize the obvious market limitations.

[number8]

True. I know things work differently in the movie business, but part of me still chokes on the idea that anyone could spend millions of dollars developing something and not realize the obvious market limitations.

Creative types think a bit differently. They just want to make the movie. As long as they get the budget to make it, the returns is the investors' problem.

[Irish]

Creative types think a bit differently. They just want to make the movie. As long as they get the budget to make it, the returns is the investors' problem.

Yeah, I know. But you'd think the investors would be asking, so, uh, hey, how, when and where are you going to bring your product to market?

[number8]

Independent movie financing is fascinating to me, because most of the stories you hear are almost indistinguishable from a con game. They just keep finding these newly rich entrepreneurs with spare change who want to become movie moguls for no other reason than because they want to rub elbows with celebrities, but they lack the knowledge of how the movie industry works. A lot of them won't even know which movies flopped and which didn't. So most of the time, the money comes easily with names, thinking that if a star is attached, then it's going to make money. It's absurd, but you can see how that would work 90% of the time.

I remember that Matthew Vaughn financed Kick-Ass by himself by roping some BBQ sauce tycoon from the midwest or something like that on the basis of Nic Cage.

This one, I think the sell is obvious. "Jim Carrey could win an Oscar with this movie, and you'd be a producer on it."

[Sven]

This looks rather enjoyable, actually. May go to the theaters for this one.

[Boner M]

Really liked this.

[Winston*]

Really liked this.

That you liked this and didn't like Four Lions is baffling to me.

[Boner M]

That you liked this and didn't like Four Lions is baffling to me.
British ppl are ugly.

[soitgoes...]

Four Lions is the better movie. I Love you Phillip Morris became way too tiring by the second half. Good performances by both Carrey and McGregor, but by the end I was just glad it was over.

[Boner M]

I Love you Phillip Morris became way too tiring by the second half.
This is my opinion of Four Lions. I thought Phillip Morris became funnier the more ridiculous Carrey's deception became.

[Qrazy]

The major demo everybody wants is teen and young adult males. I don't know how you market a movie like this to that audience. Other audiences, okay, but they're much, much smaller. Given that, you won't throw big bucks into a marketing budget.



I haven't seen either, but from the promos they seemed, what's the euphemism? "Family friendly." It might be a sad state of affairs, but this movie is not.

You can't throw money into national campaigns when your product might be offensive or threatening to large numbers of people.

I'm a little surprised this movie got made at all.

Right. Because Milk and Brokeback Mountain never happened. And they didn't gross 54 and 178 million respectively. Or even Dog Day Afternoon FFS.

[soitgoes...]

Right. Because Milk and Brokeback Mountain never happened. And they didn't gross 54 and 178 million respectively. Or even Dog Day Afternoon FFS.Philadelphia?

[Qrazy]

Philadelphia?

Indeed. There's obviously a perfectly fine market for these types of films. They're not exactly going to be blockbusters but they'll make their money back plus some.

[Ezee E]

Three movies is all the genre has got to show? Philadelphia shouldn't even count because its main character, Denzel Washington, is straight, and its mostly about showing injustice.

[Winston*]

Gay is a genre?

[soitgoes...]

Gay is a genre?
A simply fabulous one at that.

[soitgoes...]

Three movies is all the genre has got to show? Philadelphia shouldn't even count because its main character, Denzel Washington, is straight, and its mostly about showing injustice.I think the point is that there is a precedent that LBGT films can be productive at the box office, especially if the casting features big named stars.

Also I'm not sure of the screen time breakdown of Philadelphia, but Tom Hanks was very much gay for Antonio Banderas, plus he won an Academy Award for Best Actor. The film is about injustice, but taking it a step further, it is the injustice of a gay man with AIDS. Take out that part and there's no film.

[Qrazy]

I think the point is that there is a precedent that LBGT films can be productive at the box office, especially if the casting features big named stars.

Also I'm not sure of the screen time breakdown of Philadelphia, but Tom Hanks was very much gay for Antonio Banderas, plus he won an Academy Award for Best Actor. The film is about injustice, but taking it a step further, it is the injustice of a gay man with AIDS. Take out that part and there's no film.

Indeed.

[Irish]

Good god. The relative success of 3-4 films over a forty year period doesn't make the subject matter viable at the box office.

We're living in a time that showing even hetero sex in an explicit fashion limits market viability (thanks largely to Blockbuster and Wal-mart).

Do you two you really think that a movie featuring explicit gay sex is going to play in the heartland? Or it is at all comparable to stuff like Dog Day Afternoon or Philadelphia, where gay characters barely touch each other?

[soitgoes...]

Good god. The relative success of 3-4 films over a forty year period doesn't make the subject matter viable at the box office.

We're living in a time that showing even hetero sex in an explicit fashion limits market viability (thanks largely to Blockbuster and Wal-mart).

Do you two you really think that a movie featuring explicit gay sex is going to play in the heartland? Or it is at all comparable to stuff like Dog Day Afternoon or Philadelphia, where gay characters barely touch each other?
Good god. Who said anything about explicit gay sex? The stuff in I Love You Phillip Morris is more tame than the stuff in Brokeback Mountain which did fairly well at the box office. No one is saying that gay themed films are on the verge of being at every theater. I'm just saying, and I believe Qrazy is in agreement, that if a gay themed film with a big named cast does get release, America isn't going to burn down the theaters in protest, in fact it might turn a profit. The New Right will protest, but fuck they'd protest about anything.

[Winston*]

Irish likes to argue.

[Irish]

Good god. Who said anything about explicit gay sex?

The movie contained "scenes of explicit gay sex" and had to be recut in order to find a distributor. This is about a full year after it was completed.

McGregor gay film too risque for cinema (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article5908016.ece)
I Love You Phillip Morris, which features a graphic homosexual romp, has failed to find a US distributor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_You_Phillip_Morris

So again, my reaction is mostly: What the hell were they thinking.

[Winston*]

FYI


Budget
$13,000,000 (estimated)


I Love You Phillip Morris has grossed $18,204,992 as of October 18, 2010.

[soitgoes...]

The movie contained "scenes of explicit gay sex" and had to be recut in order to find a distributor. This is about a full year after it was completed.

McGregor gay film too risque for cinema (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article5908016.ece)
I Love You Phillip Morris, which features a graphic homosexual romp, has failed to find a US distributor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_You_Phillip_Morris

So again, my reaction is mostly: What the hell were they thinking.I'm not sure I understand. You're arguing in here that they are wrong for wanting to portray homosexuals in acts that homosexuals are known to engage in, but in the 60's thread, you have a problem because women aren't portrayed well in Hollywood?

[Irish]

I'm not sure I understand. You're arguing in here that they are wrong for wanting to portray homosexuals in acts that homosexuals are known to engage in, but in the 60's thread, you have a problem because women aren't portrayed well in Hollywood?

I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong, and I'm not making any argument about the creative or social implications around this topic.

I'm arguing it's misguided at best and completely blind at worst to make a movie like that and think it had any commercial viability at all.

This argument, in this thread, is about the money.

Edit: You could make the argument that the basis of gender representation in American movies is about the money too, which I think would be an interesting one. But also big and difficult to manage.

[soitgoes...]

How about this then: Since 2000 these films have all been made in the US. They all have varying degrees of homosexuality depicted. All contain something that would probably offend Mid-America (an assumption since I'm not one of those people). All have made money domestically, some more than others, but enough where I think with the right people behind it, and the right marketing, a LBGT film shouldn't be neglected because of "controversial themes." This leaves out films like Wonder Boys, Capote and the like; films where the gayness of the characters is not "threatening."

The Kids Are All Right - Budget: $4M Revenue:$25M
Bruno (More man-on-man contact here than any other film listed outside of Shortbus) - B: $42M R: $139M
Milk - B: $20M R: $54M
Shortbus - B: $2M R: $5.5M <---Unsimulated gayness
Transamerica - B: $1M R: $15M
Brokeback Mountain - B: $14M R: $178M (3 wins, 5 noms)
Monster - B: $8M R: $60M (1win)
Elephant - B: 3M R: $10M
Far From Heaven - $13.5M R: $29M
Mulholland Dr. - B: $15M R: $20M

Add in Carrey's film too. Personally I don't think the scene they supposedly cut needed to be cut. It was no worse than Borat's scene, much tamer actually, and was used for a laugh just the same.

A Single Man also? I don't remember if there was anything too explicitly gay.

[B-side]

I enjoyed this. I welled up during the big phone call near the end. I gotta admit, it was fun watching a gay man game the hetero-normative system like he did.

[NickGlass]

Yeah, I enjoyed this as well. I can understand the claims that his cons become a bit tiring in the second half, but I think some of the most clever and funny material takes place in the second and third acts. It doesn't always hit its mark, but I'm surprised and pleased that the tones were even moderately balanced here. It's an odd little film that manages to be audacious yet so matter-of-fact.

[B-side]

Yeah, I enjoyed this as well. I can understand the claims that his cons become a bit tiring in the second half, but I think some of the most clever and funny material takes place in the second and third acts. It doesn't always hit its mark, but I'm surprised and pleased that the tones were even moderately balanced here. It's an odd little film that manages to be audacious yet so matter-of-fact.

I'm not usually this type of person at all, but I'm curious what people make of the depiction of homosexuality in the film. How do you think the fact that the central romance is a gay one feeds into the themes of the film?

The fact that he pretended to be dying of AIDS of all diseases?

The central romance definitely seems to play on the sub/dom cliche of the homosexual relationship.

I was also surprised at how little homophobia played a part in opposing their romance. That was probably for the better, really.

[NickGlass]

I'm not usually this type of person at all, but I'm curious what people make of the depiction of homosexuality in the film. How do you think the fact that the central romance is a gay one feeds into the themes of the film?

The fact that he pretended to be dying of AIDS of all diseases?

The central romance definitely seems to play on the sub/dom cliche of the homosexual relationship.

I was also surprised at how little homophobia played a part in opposing their romance. That was probably for the better, really.

Well, I am usually this type of person and I didn't find it necessary to analyze because the film does a rather fine job of underplaying the idea--except when Steven tends to sneak back into his repression when working as a CFO (which, inherently, is an easy yet interesting comment on corporate America and its executives).

It does play into the top (Carrey)/bottom (McGregor) idea, but it seemed plausible considering how these characters can be described--the (unconventional) breadwinner/housewife. Plus, the main theme of the film is what you will do to support the ones you love. I really enjoyed McGregor's performance as he slid into bored housewife, actually. That chocolate wrapper bit was hysterical.

I like that no one was a martyr, really. Also, the fake AIDS death subplot could even be read as a subversive interpretation of how Hollywood tends to depict homosexuals.

[B-side]

Thanks for that. Very sensible.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm sure you're both aware that this is based on a true story, and that the scene you are referencing in spoilers actually happened, but just in case I thought I'd post this to clarify.

[NickGlass]

I'm sure you're both aware that this is based on a true story, and that the scene you are referencing in spoilers actually happened, but just in case I thought I'd post this to clarify.

Yup, indeed. I just found the representation of the reality pretty inspired on top of that.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Yup, indeed. I just found the representation of the reality pretty inspired on top of that.

Cool. Haven't seen the film yet, but I'm looking forward to it.

[B-side]

I'm sure you're both aware that this is based on a true story, and that the scene you are referencing in spoilers actually happened, but just in case I thought I'd post this to clarify.

Right. I just don't wanna spoil it for those who aren't privy to the real story like myself.

[baby doll]

This is what Hollywood movies about gay relationships should look like. None of that The Kids Are All Right "we're so enlightened" bullshit.

[number8]

It's the best since I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry.

[Winston*]

That chocolate wrapper bit was hysterical.
Definitely my favourite part of the movie.

[MadMan]

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang had a gay character, and its a great film. Not sure how it did at the box office, though. Although Val Kilmer's character at one point stated "I'm not gay, I just like the name" :lol:

[number8]

Madman, how often do you get drunk?

[MadMan]

Madman, how often do you get drunk?Not enough.