Goldstein's "Rendition: anecdote

email this story
read comments (9)
post a comment

The only thing that pops through in Patrick Goldstein's damage-assessment piece about New Line Cinema -- what went right and wrong during the Russell Schwartz era, and what will be different now that he's out the door -- is a little morsel of information about Rendition, a Reese Witherspoon-Jake Gyllenhaal thriller due in October that "was so mystifying to preview audiences that its ending has been re-edited to allay audience confusion." A friend who saw it three weeks ago can't remember any confusing elements. Maybe the problem had been fixed by the time he saw it.

Too much lead<< previous | next >>"American Gangster"

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 10, 2007 at 12:30 PM

comment #1

AH says ...

It could not have been that bad. Gavin Hood got the "Wolverine" directing gig based on it.

Posted by AH at August 10, 2007 2:08 PM

comment #2

BurmaShave says ...

I find it hard to believe that the maker of TSOTSI could make a bad movie. I'll be crossing my fingers that this will be his CONSTANT GARDENER. I can however believe people needing hand-holding, which might explain Saarsgard's Basil Exposition role.

"Mommy, what's a rendition?"

Posted by BurmaShave at August 10, 2007 2:40 PM

comment #3

erniesouchak says ...

It was a chronology problem, and it didn't confuse me, but I thought it was pointless and served only to slow things down. In the cut I saw, one of the storylines was presented as though it was taking place at the same time as all the others, but it was eventually revealed to have taken place earlier. The effect of this revelation was nil.

Posted by erniesouchak at August 10, 2007 2:48 PM

comment #4

christian says ...

"We'd always been a very script-driven company," Emmerich says. "But now, with so much competitive pressure in the marketplace, we have to focus as much on marketing as on the script. If we'd had a vision of the one-sheet when we were hearing a pitch, not just after we've made the movie, maybe we wouldn't have suffered through so many of our mistakes."

nuff said.

Posted by christian at August 10, 2007 3:28 PM

comment #5

BurmaShave says ...

The son of a bitch wouldn't even market a film that co-starred his own fucking brother.

Posted by BurmaShave at August 10, 2007 3:53 PM

comment #6

Rothchild says ...

Dude, Noah stars in all of their movies. One of them had to fall by the wayside.

Posted by Rothchild at August 10, 2007 6:32 PM

comment #7

D.Z. says ...

What went wrong was paying $150 million for Rush Hour 3, because it's a jerk-off action comedy sequel with none of the heart of the last two films.

Posted by D.Z. at August 10, 2007 7:35 PM

comment #8

dawgzilla67 says ...

And here I was thinking the first two Rush Hours were jerk-off action comedies. Oh, for the days when New Line was releasing edgy stuff like Pink Flamingos and The Texas Chainsaaw Massacre. Once they got a taste of that Freddy Krueger franchise money, the train started jumping the rails.

The New Line story is the same sad story of every studio -- what you used to make for ten million, you now make for a hundred million and then you soil your pants when it only makes twenty-five million on opening weekend.

When you have to get back blockbuster grosses just to break even, you're stuck making films that can be easily followed by morons. Sad fact of life, Emmerich. You want to go back to being a "script company"? Then go back to investing in smaller movies.

Everybody is lamenting the fact that Once only made 6.5 million? Well, that's more than forty times what the movie cost. Brett Ratner in his wildest frickin' dreams couldn't achieve a budget to gross ratio like that.

Posted by dawgzilla67 at August 10, 2007 8:28 PM

comment #9