The hustle

[papalazarou]

First trailer is out for the hustle which is remake of dirty rotten scoundrels - I love the original michael cain and Steve Martin are brilliant in it.  

 

This on the other hand looks terrible :-( (what the hell is up with Hathaway’s accent) 

 

 

 

 

[kerraig UK]

This was edited by our forums own Pants McSkill 

[andygt]

Looks like he edited out all the funny bits

[kerraig UK]

5 minutes ago, andygt said:

Looks like he edited out all the funny bits

 

He didn't cut the trailer

[ZOK]

I don’t need to watch the trailer for this to be absolutely certain that everyone involved deserves jail time.

[Pants McSkill]

Cheers Zok, I'll make you trinket in the prison woodworking class.

 

I made this. I'm really proud of it and I think it's really funny. And our test audiences thought so too - It's a wonderful feeling to see a cinema full of Joe Public cracking up at something you've made.

 

But it'll get crucified in here, for two main reasons.
1) It's a remake. 

2) It's not for you.

 

By 'you', I mean the demographic that frequents this very fine board. And it's OK that it's not for you, there are plenty of films that are. 
I would love to be in here defending the movie too, and lord knows there's a lot about the Hollywood system I would love to see change, but as this is a public forum I'm sure you'll all understand if I don't slag off my paymasters, or go into too much detail about stuff before the film comes out.

 

But please know, I'm a cinema lover first and foremost, and I find it far better to try and make a Hollywood movie that has echoes of the great comedies of the 80s, than to be a filmmaker who sits on the sidelines and sneers that everything is shit.

[ZOK]

That's an interesting view, and I'm sure everyone understands you want to get paid. I'm sure you are personally hugely proud of your work, and I'm sure you've done a fine job.

 

But from my personal perspective it's an entirely unnecessary remake of one of the most wonderful 80s comedies there is. So for that reason it can fuck off as far as I'm concerned without me needing to give it even a nanosecond of consideration, let alone the time of day. 

 

You may find that an unpleasant and unfair reaction, but it's my honest one. I don't for a second expect you to slag the film off naturally, but I'm not being paid by them so I can say what I think.

[SeanR]

I like how rebel wilson appears to be sporting michael caines DRS moustache...

[Pants McSkill]

35 minutes ago, ZOK said:

That's an interesting view, and I'm sure everyone understands you want to get paid. I'm sure you are personally hugely proud of your work, and I'm sure you've done a fine job.

 

But from my personal perspective it's an entirely unnecessary remake of one of the most wonderful 80s comedies there is. So for that reason it can fuck off as far as I'm concerned without me needing to give it even a nanosecond of consideration, let alone the time of day. 

 

You may find that an unpleasant and unfair reaction, but it's my honest one. I don't for a second expect you to slag the film off naturally, but I'm not being paid by them so I can say what I think.

 

 

I don't find it unpleasant or unfair at all. It's not a million miles away from my opinion about the majority of Superhero movies. Entertainment is entirely subjective, and I'm certainly not going to try and convince you that it's a film you'll enjoy, because I don't know what you enjoy. If you're a regular poster in this sub-forum, chances are a broad female-led Hollywood comedy remake isn't top of your list.

 

'Unnecessary'... That's an interesting word. Of course, one could argue that no films are necessary, they are simple entertainment after all.

Not me though, I fucking love movies.
 

Unnecessary suggests the question; Why make this when Dirty Rotten Scoundrels exists?

DRS is a movie many of us love. Most of us saw it when we were kids or teenagers.

The thing is, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is a remake. The original telling was Bedtime Story, a 1964 flick starring Marlon Brando and David Niven.

 

The vast majority of kids/teenagers/young people back then didn't watch movies from 1964. They weren't even aware of films from 1964 (I'm using the pronoun 'they' as I suspect there's one or two peeps in here who absolutely did watch movies from the 50's and 60's, e.g. I watched the old Stagecoach westerns with my Granddad). 

And the same is true of young people today, they don't watch movies from the 80's. In our test screenings and research, we discovered that about 80% of people under 30 hadn't seen Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, and more than half hadn't even heard of it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would love it if the youth started watching 80's movies, they're missing out on some proper classics. Imagine discounting Beverly Hills Cop because it's 'old'.

But they won't. So to bring them a great story in a medium they would enjoy, in the same way Dirty Rotten Scoundrels brought us a remake of a story we could fall in love with... I'm gonna push back against the term 'Unnecessary'.

 

I'm also not naive. This movie exists solely because MGM think they can make money from it. Unfortunately that is true of all Hollywood, and always has been. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels only ever existed because MGM thought they could make money from it. 

 

[ZOK]

1 minute ago, Pants McSkill said:

 

 

I don't find it unpleasant or unfair at all. It's not a million miles away from my opinion about the majority of Superhero movies. Entertainment is entirely subjective, and I'm certainly not going to try and convince you that it's a film you'll enjoy, because I don't know what you enjoy. If you're a regular poster in this sub-forum, chances are a broad female-led Hollywood comedy remake isn't top of your list.

 

'Unnecessary'... That's an interesting word. Of course, one could argue that no films are necessary, they are simple entertainment after all.

Not me though, I fucking love movies.
 

Unnecessary suggests the question; Why make this when Dirty Rotten Scoundrels exists?

DRS is a movie many of us love. Most of us saw it when we were kids or teenagers.

The thing is, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is a remake. The original telling was Bedtime Story, a 1964 flick starring Marlon Brando and David Niven.

 

The vast majority of kids/teenagers/young people back then didn't watch movies from 1964. They weren't even aware of films from 1964 (I'm using the pronoun 'they' as I suspect there's one or two peeps in here who absolutely did watch movies from the 50's and 60's, e.g. I watched the old Stagecoach westerns with my Granddad). 

And the same is true of young people today, they don't watch movies from the 80's. In our test screenings and research, we discovered that about 80% of people under 30 hadn't seen Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, and more than half hadn't even heard of it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would love it if the youth started watching 80's movies, they're missing out on some proper classics. Imagine discounting Beverly Hills Cop because it's 'old'.

But they won't. So to bring them a great story in a medium they would enjoy, in the same way Dirty Rotten Scoundrels brought us a remake of a story we could fall in love with... I'm gonna push back against the term 'Unnecessary'.

 

I'm also not naive. This movie exists solely because MGM think they can make money from it. Unfortunately that is true of all Hollywood, and always has been. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels only ever existed because MGM thought they could make money from it. 

 

 

I've bolded the pertinent part, because that's exactly why I use the word.

 

To your response, I agree with where you go, but entirely disagree with the 'research' reasoning. No-one here is trying to bring back the spirit of DRS to a new audience! I think a much more honest answer would be that the majority of people funding films are creatively bankrupt, and they believe ripping off an old and proven classic will make them money. The research was conducted to ascertain the likelihood of that belief being true, and mitigate risk.

[catinthehat]

6 minutes ago, ZOK said:

I think a much more honest answer would be that the majority of people funding films are creatively bankrupt, and they believe ripping off an old and proven classic will make them money. The research was conducted to ascertain the likelihood of that belief being true, and mitigate risk.

 

Which explains exactly why Dirty Rotten Scoundrels was made. 

 

[Pants McSkill]

4 minutes ago, ZOK said:

 

I've bolded the pertinent part, because that's exactly why I use the word.

 

To your response, I agree with where you go, but entirely disagree with the 'research' reasoning. No-one here is trying to bring back the spirit of DRS to a new audience!

 

I am! As is the Director, the Director of Photography, the Producer and Rebel herself. Not just the spirit of DRS, but the spirit of 80s comedies in general. They had style and wonderful soundtracks, great camera work and nuanced performances. I want more of that in my comedies, and I want to bring more of that to audiences.

Case in point - I spent fucking MONTHS with the director working out the soundtrack to this film. We absolutely did not want 'generic current RnB star' all over it. And I love the soundtrack, it's different and quirky, and mixes contemporary tracks that aren't what you hear everywhere else with an amazing score - which came from us working with a genius composer who also wanted to bring the spirit of 80's comedies to audiences.

 

 

[DukeOfEarlsfield]

If I remember correctly, DRS was about the tension between the two trying to work together whilst simultaneously trying to con each other. With the plot twisting this way and that as their plans and back stabbing unfurled (it’s been a long while since I saw it).

 

 I didn’t get that at all from the trailer. It seemed solely focused on the ‘female solidarity’ angle.

 

Is that an accurate of the film as a whole or does it also see them trying to outsmart each other?

 

I love a good twisty-turny comedy and last years Game Night set a high bar for that.

 

The trailer did make my laugh a few times so I’m cautiously optimistic.

[Pants McSkill]

It's far more in the twisty-turny world. Sorry, I wish I could be more specific!

[DukeOfEarlsfield]

Just now, Pants McSkill said:

It's far more in the twisty-turny world. Sorry, I wish I could be more specific!

No, that’s fine, I’m sure nobody wants any spoilers. Optimism levels raised significantly.

[ZOK]

21 minutes ago, Pants McSkill said:

 

I am! As is the Director, the Director of Photography, the Producer and Rebel herself. Not just the spirit of DRS, but the spirit of 80s comedies in general. They had style and wonderful soundtracks, great camera work and nuanced performances. I want more of that in my comedies, and I want to bring more of that to audiences.

Case in point - I spent fucking MONTHS with the director working out the soundtrack to this film. We absolutely did not want 'generic current RnB star' all over it. And I love the soundtrack, it's different and quirky, and mixes contemporary tracks that aren't what you hear everywhere else with an amazing score - which came from us working with a genius composer who also wanted to bring the spirit of 80's comedies to audiences.

 

 

 

That's fair enough then - I hope you succeeded in your efforts, and I apologise for being so dismissive.

[Pants McSkill]

Cheers Zok! It'll be for the audiences to decide if we managed it. 

And no need to apologise. like I said earlier, I really doubt this is a film for you, or that many people in here. While I'd love as many people as people to watch it, life's short and there's a fuckton of amazing things to watch out there that you already know you're more likely to love. When I'm two seasons behind on Better Call Saul, it's tough to get excited about Fast and Furious 8.

[schmojo]

1 hour ago, DukeOfEarlsfield said:

If I remember correctly, DRS was about the tension between the two trying to work together whilst simultaneously trying to con each other. With the plot twisting this way and that as their plans and back stabbing unfurled (it’s been a long while since I saw it).

 

 I didn’t get that at all from the trailer. It seemed solely focused on the ‘female solidarity’ angle.

 

Is that an accurate of the film as a whole or does it also see them trying to outsmart each other?

 

 

I saw Rebel trying to take over in the trailer. It's pretty much a guaranteed staple of any film with con artists in.

 

Still one of my favourite stories to tell though.

[papalazarou]

so my wife insisted on watching this last night - AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!   its basically a shot for shot remake of dirty rotten scoundrels  - they use the same jokes, but then crass then up rebel Wilson style.  there is nothing original in the movie it lacks the charm and wit of the original.    this is just a pure money grab excuse with the "where flipping the sexes of the roles to make it modern and edgy"

[jonamok]

Well that brought the growing positivity from February crashing back to Earth.

[Eighthours]

1 star in Empire, 14% on RT. Ouch.

[Pants McSkill]

Good job we didn't make it for the critics then.

 

$95m worldwide box office. The film is a huge success.

 

Of course box office is no indication of whether or not a film is great/art/worth a high score on Rotten Tomatoes.

But box office is a pretty good indicator of entertainment. Films don't make 3x their budget in cinema ticket sales if no-one is entertained by it. And swathes of young women across both the US and the world were entertained by it. They said so on Twitter and Instagram.

 

 

Sidenote: I'm genuinely proud to have a movie that's scored 14% on RT AND almost scraped $100m worldwide box office. It's almost impossible to do either, let alone both together!

 

 

 

[Pants McSkill]

Just now, Pants McSkill said:

 

But box office is a pretty good indicator of entertainment.

 

 

I should clarify that this is true only for high-grossing movies. There are plenty of films that are wonderfully entertaining that never find an audience for reasons far out of their control.