i've never heard of it. maybe that.
also, you'd pretty much have to pay me to go see a film in the theater. i can't think of something id enjoy less than sitting in an uncomfortable chair for 2 hours to endure other people talking, pulling out their phones, shitty kids making noise, sticky floors, etc... no thanks. it's 2024, and i don't have to go to a shitty theater and shell out $50 and sit around several dozen assholes just to watch a movie. I can sit comfortably at home in silence, with food and weed and pee breaks. FOR FREE.
The theaters certainly are not for everyone, but I haven't experienced your description of a theater in over 5 years. Everywhere I've been not has leather recliners and have been generally cleaner. It's not cheap, but concessions aren't a requirement and no home theater offers the same viewing between screen and sound like a theater. I think my local place is $15 for the ultra wide, heated leather, Atmos audio screenings. Not something to do all of the time, but the occasional late night watch of an adult rated film is a nice treat sometimes.
I'm with the other guy. The movie going experience was awful for a long time until I just stopped going. If they've made changes, they've made them too late for many people, especially when they are charging $20+ in my area. Additionally, regardless of what changes they've made to the seats, that doesn't change how shitty other people are. The noise, lights, running around, spilling food/drinks everywhere, etc creates an environment more akin to a wrestling match than a movie.
Alamo Drafthouse is the one exception because they 1) serve a full menu of food and booze right to your seat 2) don’t allow children 3) and will kick you out if you pull out your phone or make a sound louder than a whisper. But even then, I’m much more comfortable at home, and I haven’t been there in years. During Covid, I set myself up with all of the home theater I would ever need.
I have an Atmos home theater system at home that’s perfectly fine. And I don’t need a screen bigger than my field of vision.
This is the way.
True, it is 2024, and your theater probably has big cushy reclining leather chairs. And why would kids be at this movie?
I just learned that it's a four part film series.
3 hours each
It ls based on the westward expansion of America, a period that is covered to death in media already.
It presents no unique or compelling twist or angle on this in the trailers.
It presents not amazing visual that can only be enjoyed in a theater instead of watching this at home like the History Channel.
I like Kevin Costner, I like westerns, I like history. I pretty much am the target audience. But when I was it was going to be at least 12 hours of content spread over the next 2-3 years, and I still had no hook as to why I should watch this over The Last of the Mohicans or Tombstone or any number of narratives in similar settings. It all feels incredibly low energy.
And this isn't even mentioning being stuck in an expensive theatre for 3 hours, that the show in its full is perfectly bingeable over a weekend and that there is a high likelihood that it might get cancelled midway through, which will really sting with a 4 episode mini series.
The fact you described it as "the show" is absolutely the problem in a nutshell. This isn't a film, or a film series, it's a fucking commitment. At least with Avatar, they're years apart and the most visually stunning graphics on the planet. Or with LOTR these are epic stories and sagas.
What is the saga of the American rancher Mr. Costner? I need to understand.
I think the four part series called The West by Ken Burns is shorter and probably better.
No one cares about Westerns anymore unless it's by a Coen Brothers level talent
I was going to ask what it is, since I’m too lazy to look it up, but this answers sufficiently
I figured it was about the mobile company, similar to the Blackberry movie. This makes more sense. And from the comments, it doesn't sound terribly interesting.
I care, I've been waiting for this one.
*A statistically irrelevant number of people...
I was trying to remember whether the Coen brothers made Blazing Saddles. That's the level of talent we need.
It's made by a Coen brother just not the ones you think. Mel Brooks' real last name is Coen and he is the younger brother of the others. He adopted "Brooks" when he broke into directing so he wouldn't be accused of riding his brothers coattails to fame.
Because it's not that good? A reviewer I like said it felt like the first couple episodes of a TV show stitched together with not much of an ending beyond setting up the planned sequels
This is the first I've heard of it.
I don't like Kevin Costner.
I don't go to see movies much, but if I wanted to go see one now, I'd see Inside Out 2.
When I first saw the previews I thought it was a show on a cut rate streaming service. That doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the movie.
Is it going in the theaters?
The preview looked like shit.
It's not playing at my nearest movie theater.
On top of what everyone else has already said, I'd add that (for some reason) when it comes to Kevin Costner, movie-goers have long long memories about his "ego" projects like Waterworld and The Postman.
Costner went through a phase where he felt that he was big enough to direct, star, and write huge epic films because he was the "only one that could do them right". And that flopped his career...hard.
He went on from there to do a lot of smaller stuff that was really well regarded. But now he comes back with this, basically another ego-project, because he's convinced that Yellowstone has given him all of that old cred back. (It hasn't)
Dude is just Neil Breen with a budget, and people are rightfully still skeptical of any so-called epic that is written, directed, and starring him.
In short, Costner's epic movies have all pretty much been laughably bad with the exception of "Dances with Wolves". And Pepperidge Farms remembers that kind of thing.
It's made for people of a certain age, and those people don't go to the movies much I think.
