• procrastitron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    10 hours ago

    This is literally the first I’ve ever heard of it.

    I doubt I’m the only one and I’m sure that at least contributed to the problem.

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    This is the first I’ve ever heard of it, so that might be a factor.

  • Mobiuthuselah@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I loved it! Was so glad it came to the small theater in my little mountain town. Saw it on the big screen and later watched it at home. I’m sure I’ll watch it again.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    It flopped for the same reasons any box office movie flops:

    1. Never even heard of it before it hit theatres

    2. Niche genre oversaturation

  • rauls4@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 hours ago

    It wasn’t half as good as it thought it was. That’s the problem.

      • rauls4@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        It really tries too hard to be shocking, outrageous and the end all love letter to movie making, but it’s just trying to do way too much. It’s worth seeing, just for the visuals and the effort.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

    the Hollywood epic centered on silent movie stars in the 1920s as they struggle to adapt during the industry’s transition to talkies.

    Not a premise I’m even slightly interested in. Then again, I’m not even close to an average moviegoer.

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      That was basically the premise for Singing in the Rain and that movie was absolutely excellent.

      • fireweed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Something tells me audiences in 1952 had slightly different tastes. Also the 1920s probably felt a lot more relevant; hardly anyone alive today remembers the silent-to-talkie transition, but it would have been an experience that many folks had personally witnessed back then.

    • Steve
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      It is quite good.
      I never saw it as a wide audience kind of movie. It’s absolutely for movie lovers. More than a little inside baseball, history. If you’re into movies and old Hollywood. It’s absolutely for you.

  • Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I enjoyed it. It did drag on a bit and the ending was feel good to the point of being nauseating, but there’s some great scenes and some of the dialogues I absolutely loved.

    I also liked how the underlining society in the movie just felt drab. Part of me wanted more debauchery to push the envelope but at the same time I think it was better as is.