Jersey Boys (and Clint Eastwood's career as director)

[Jim3k]

Just go see it. It's a kick. Clint Eastwood directs. 'Nuff said on that score; you know it's high quality and that he won't be bound by the musical, which is outstanding, too.

The stars are John Lloyd Young (Frankie Valli), Vincent Piazza (Tommy DeVito), Michael Lomenda (Nick Massi) and Erich Bergen (Bob Gaudio). Throw in a touch of Christopher Walken and you know this is headed in the right direction.

Both Gaudio and Valli (the real ones) get executive producer credits. Released June 20. Rated R for language.

[JasonEvans]

The reviews are very mediocre and it certainly did not connect with audiences over the weekend, getting just $13 mil in ticket sales in its opening weekend. I know some folks who saw it and said it wasn't nearly as good as the play. I also know folks who saw it and really liked it but it certainly does not seem to be a flick generating widespread acclaim.

Clint has been on a real cold streak lately when it comes to directing and producing. Hereafter, J Edgar, Trouble With The Curve, and now Jersey Boys... he hasn't had a "fresh" movie on Rotten Tomatoes since Gran Torino in 2009. That's 5 years since he last did something that most people liked.

-Jason "he's got a somewhat controversial movie coming out next -- American Sniper, the biography of Chris Kyle, the self-proclaimed most lethal sharpshooter in US Military history. Bradley Cooper will star" Evans

[weezie]

Bradley Cooper and Clint Eastwood (albeit behind the camera) two of my favorite hunky Hollywood guys.
Hope it's a winner.

[Jim3k]

The reviews are very mediocre and it certainly did not connect with audiences over the weekend, getting just $13 mil in ticket sales in its opening weekend. I know some folks who saw it and said it wasn't nearly as good as the play. I also know folks who saw it and really liked it but it certainly does not seem to be a flick generating widespread acclaim.

Clint has been on a real cold streak lately when it comes to directing and producing. Hereafter, J Edgar, Trouble With The Curve, and now Jersey Boys... he hasn't had a "fresh" movie on Rotten Tomatoes since Gran Torino in 2009. That's 5 years since he last did something that most people liked.

-Jason "he's got a somewhat controversial movie coming out next -- American Sniper, the biography of Chris Kyle, the self-proclaimed most lethal sharpshooter in US Military history. Bradley Cooper will star" Evans

So you're commenting on a movie you haven 't seen, Jason? And once again basing its quality on opening box office numbers? Or Rotten Tomatoes freshness? (As I write,the audience rating is 73%.)

And, judging by your disdain of Hereafter, Trouble with the Curve and J Edgar, I think you are missing Eastwood's approach: He's making small, artistic movies and needs to be judged that way. Both J Edgar and Trouble were outstanding movies on that level of judgment. I didn't see Hereafter, so can't comment, but the premise does not sound promising.

As far as Jersey Boys is concerned, you are missing out on the sheer enjoyability of the movie. Take a look. But don't forget, there is a generational divide between those of us who remember "Can't Take My Eyes Off of You" live in a smoky bar and those of you who came along a generation (or more), later.

[JasonEvans]

So you're commenting on a movie you haven 't seen, Jason?

I could have gone to the preview, but I was hearing some terrible buzz so I skipped it.

And once again basing its quality on opening box office numbers? Or Rotten Tomatoes freshness? (As I write,the audience rating is 73%.)

Opening boxoffice is often a good judge of buzz when a film is widely marketed and released, as Jersey Boys was. I mentioned the very poor boxoffice number to demonstrate that the film does not seem to be connecting well with audiences. We will see how much of a dip it sufers in week #2, which would be a good sign of whether the folks who saw it came out and told all their friends to go see it too.

Also, 73% is a pretty mediocre number for audience reaction on Flixter. Remember that people who go to see a movie opening weekend are already pretty biased toward liking that movie. So, the first weekend Flixter score is almost always pretty high for all but lousy movies.

But don't take my word for it. Lets compare the 73% score of Boys to other recently released films:
Think Like A Man Too (which got terrible reviews) is at 75%
22 Jump Street is 87%
Dragon 2 is 93%
Maleficent is 75%
Edge of Tomorrow is 92%
Fault in Our Stars is 91%
Xmen: DOFP is 94%

So, among the top 8 films at the boxoffice this past weekend, Jersey Boys had THE WORST audience score of any of them. Umm, that ain't good.

And, judging by your disdain of Hereafter, Trouble with the Curve and J Edgar, I think you are missing Eastwood's approach: He's making small, artistic movies and needs to be judged that way. Both J Edgar and Trouble were outstanding movies on that level of judgment. I didn't see Hereafter, so can't comment, but the premise does not sound promising.

J Edgar and Trouble With The Curve were "small, artistic movies"?!??! Whaaaat? They both cost well over $75 million dollars in terms of production budget and marketing. No, that is not a lot of money by Hollywood production standards, but it is hardly what a "small, artistic" movie usually costs. They each had big stars and studio backing. Each film included many weeks of shooting, large production crews, and extended post-production costs. Granted, they were not special-effects driven sci-fi action films but I would hardly call them "small, artistic" flicks. Not even close.

And I did see both of those and they were both somewhere between mediocre and bad. Trouble With The Curve was awful. J Edgar was long and ambled around without really having a point much of the time. To use your Flixter measure of whether they were any good, Curve scored a poor 67% while J Edgar got an awful 45%. Gaack!

Like you I did not see Hereafter but it got a wretched 38% Flixter score.

Bottom line, Clint is in a major slump. That ain't me talking, that's the opinion of the folks who are paying money to see his films (and largely walking away disappointed).

As far as Jersey Boys is concerned, you are missing out on the sheer enjoyability of the movie. Take a look. But don't forget, there is a generational divide between those of us who remember "Can't Take My Eyes Off of You" live in a smoky bar and those of you who came along a generation (or more), later.

On this point I 100% agree with you. I suspect Jersey Boys is a generational movie that will appeal to folks who grew up on that music. I came along a little bit after the Four Seasons era (born in 1967, I am a child of the mid-late 70s Disco and then 80s music). I concede that it is very likely that people a bit older than I am are far more likely to enjoy this flick. It probably also helps if you are from the Northeast (not sure if you are, Jim). Familiarity and nostalgia are powerful forces to help us relate to entertainment.

-Jason "I'm glad you enjoyed it Jim and I suspect our conversation has educated many folks as to whether it is a good film for them. That's the goal when talking movies, IMO" Evans

[Indoor66]

Buzz or no buzz, I saw the film this afternoon and the theater was 80% full at the 2:20 showing. At the end there was a round of applause. It is a terrific film and mixes the music and the story quite well. The performances were excellent. I would strongly recommend Jersey Boys as an enjoyable and entertaining use of our time and entertainment dollars.

As an aside to some of the crusties who remember Benny Malanga (Batman): Frankie Valli grew up next door to Bat up in the Newark area. When in the RDU area, Frankie would visit Bat. I met Valli at Bat's in the 60's.

[Jim3k]

A couple of points, Jason, without using the quotes feature.

Gran Torino was made as, in my words, a small, art feature. It did far better than others, but falls in the same category.

Movies made based on real people, bios or quasi bios, are never as appealing as true fiction. The character's life can't pace a movie. Often there is no climax to build up to. And who is the character, anyway? J Edgar was a kind of exposé of a power-driven but flat and hidden personality. Bird was about the music. Iwo Jima and Flags about a terrible battle. Compare those with any one of his recent fiction stuff, starting with Gran Torino or Million Dollar Baby (also a hit from the same smaller genre). He controls the pace in one type, but can't in the other.

With the level of movie he is making, Eastwood can't always hit the financial mark. He hasn't tried an epic since 1992's classic Unforgiven. But he's generally making good movies. (We can disagree about Curve. Judge it as a movie about father-daughter. Or something bigger than a 'smaller' movie). Far from any award, it ain't as bad as you say.

What I think can be said about Eastwood the director is that he's making what he wants to make. He doesn't regard himself as driven by the numbers--money or critics' likes. Painters don't paint masterpieces every time. Nor do they try to. Often they are trying to present a point of view. Sometimes they are ahead of their times and other times fall short.

Look at it this way: When eyeballing a baseball player, who is the better player? One with a well-built powerful frame, like Mike Trout? Or a shrimpier, but quick and feisty Dustin Pedroia? Is the eyeball right? Heck, are the stats gurus always right? Do they look in the right places ? (See Tony Gwynn. Or in basketball, see Shane Battier.)

You are right about the main thing--movies are to be enjoyed. And the audiences should decide whether they do or not. The question is whether critics and bean counters should be gatekeepers. I say no.

[BD80]

... I saw the film this afternoon and the theater was 80% full at the 2:20 showing. At the end there was a round of applause. ...

And then a line of people power-walking straight to Denny's for the 4:30 Dinner Special ...


Please note that I qualify for the senior discount, hopefully I am laughing with you on this ...

[FerryFor50]

A couple of points, Jason, without using the quotes feature.

Gran Torino was made as, in my words, a small, art feature. It did far better than others, but falls in the same category.

Movies made based on real people, bios or quasi bios, are never as appealing as true fiction. The character's life can't pace a movie. Often there is no climax to build up to. And who is the character, anyway? J Edgar was a kind of exposé of a power-driven but flat and hidden personality. Bird was about the music. Iwo Jima and Flags about a terrible battle. Compare those with any one of his recent fiction stuff, starting with Gran Torino or Million Dollar Baby (also a hit from the same smaller genre). He controls the pace in one type, but can't in the other.

With the level of movie he is making, Eastwood can't always hit the financial mark. He hasn't tried an epic since 1992's classic Unforgiven. But he's generally making good movies. (We can disagree about Curve. Judge it as a movie about father-daughter. Or something bigger than a 'smaller' movie). Far from any award, it ain't as bad as you say.

What I think can be said about Eastwood the director is that he's making what he wants to make. He doesn't regard himself as driven by the numbers--money or critics' likes. Painters don't paint masterpieces every time. Nor do they try to. Often they are trying to present a point of view. Sometimes they are ahead of their times and other times fall short.

Look at it this way: When eyeballing a baseball player, who is the better player? One with a well-built powerful frame, like Mike Trout? Or a shrimpier, but quick and feisty Dustin Pedroia? Is the eyeball right? Heck, are the stats gurus always right? Do they look in the right places ? (See Tony Gwynn. Or in basketball, see Shane Battier.)

You are right about the main thing--movies are to be enjoyed. And the audiences should decide whether they do or not. The question is whether critics and bean counters should be gatekeepers. I say no.

I don't think Gran Torino was a small art feature. It had a 33 million dollar budget. Eastwood doesn't do "art films" as much as he makes Americana films about stuff he wants to make films about. You said as much yourself:

What I think can be said about Eastwood the director is that he's making what he wants to make. He doesn't regard himself as driven by the numbers--money or critics' likes.

Sometimes that works. I personally didn't like Gran Torino, mostly because I thought the acting was pretty weak outside of Eastwood. Casting actual Hmongs over trained actors was a poor decision. I also felt the story was a little contrived. But most everyone else loved it. 90% of audiences, 79% of critics. Plus, it did well at the box office.

The reviews and buzz caused me to go see it, despite not thinking the trailer was all that interesting. It wasn't bad, but I didn't find it great.

As for Million Dollar Baby, it had a budget of around $30 million. I'm not seeing how Eastwood is making "small art films."

By contrast, let's look at the Oscar nominees in 2009 (when Gran Torino was made):

Slumdog Millionaire - 15 million
Frost/Nixon - 35 million
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - 150 million
Milk - 20 million
The Reader - 32 million

So Gran Torino was on the same budger scale as Frost/Nixon and The Reader... I wouldn't call either of those "small art films."

When I think small art films, I think of films that play Sundance and that only become famous there.

Films like "Precious," which became a hit after Sundance in 2009. Its budget? 10 million

Or these films:

Winter's Bone (2010) - 2 million
Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012) - 1.8 million
Fruitvale Station (2013) - 900k

Jason's point about box office numbers and critics' reviews is that those are what tells him if it's a movie he wants to see, and it's a formula he uses that generally works for him to decide if a movie is something he wants to see. Movie trailers, hype, etc... those are also things that can be factored in. As can recommendations on internet forums.

As for "Jersey Boys," it may very well be a good film. I think Eastwood is a decent enough director. But the subject matter doesn't really interest me. I don't care about Frankie Valli, nor his story. And I think the box office suggests that a large number of people don't care either. I tend to think that those who do care will be those who grew up with the music, or those who have a genuine interest in Valli, or those who think Eastwood is the bees knees.

As for me, if I want to see a movie that portrays a singer who may have mob ties (as the trailer suggests Jersey Boys portrays), then I'd rather see Johnny Fontane in the Godfather, not so loosely based on Sinatra.

[JasonEvans]

With the level of movie he is making, Eastwood can't always hit the financial mark. He hasn't tried an epic since 1992's classic Unforgiven. But he's generally making good movies. (We can disagree about Curve. Judge it as a movie about father-daughter. Or something bigger than a 'smaller' movie). Far from any award, it ain't as bad as you say.

What I think can be said about Eastwood the director is that he's making what he wants to make. He doesn't regard himself as driven by the numbers--money or critics' likes. Painters don't paint masterpieces every time. Nor do they try to. Often they are trying to present a point of view. Sometimes they are ahead of their times and other times fall short.

I fully agree with you about Eastwood making what he wants and not really caring about boxoffice or critics. He has most assuredly earned the right to do that.

However, I think the place we are disagreeing is on the quality of his recent films. As I mentioned earlier, in the past half decade, all the films he has directed or played a large role in producing/acting have been not only critical disappointments, but also largely been disappointing to moviegoers as well. Like I said, the Rotten Tomatoes user scores of 38, 45, 67, and 73 are not good. The first two are just awful and the last two are only mediocre. Those scores tend to go down after the first weekend (most rabid fans see movies first weekend, casual fans go after that and casual fans are more likely to register a negative score), so it is a decent bet that Jersey Boys will also end up in the 60s. This is not a critic or a boxoffice thing, it is the ratings of movie fans... and they are pretty loudly saying that Clint is not making movies they like anymore.

Look, I think Clint did some remarkable work for a long time as a director. He's made three of the best westerns in movie history in Outlaw Josey Wales, Unforgiven, and High Plains Drifter. I liked Pale Rider a lot too. In more recent years, Mystic River, Invictus, Gran Torino, Letters from Iwo Gima, Flags of our Fathers, and especially Million Dollar Baby were all wonderfully directed film. There is a reason he has won two Oscars for directing and been nominated another two times. But, his past 4 films (only three of which he directed) have been a major step down in quality from where he was for a long, long time. There was a time where I made sure to see everything Clint Eastwood did because I knew I would be seeing high-quality filmmaking and compelling movies. Now, I'm not so sure. That makes me kinda sad...

Lastly, your assertion that "Movies made based on real people, bios or quasi bios, are never as appealing as true fiction." is something with which I furiously disagree. There are many, many powerful films based on real life stories. Off the top of my head (and this is not meant to be a complete list) -- Schindler's List, Ghandi, The Social Network, Moneyball, Twelve Years A Slave, Lincoln, Amadeus, Catch Me If You Can, The King's Speech, Dallas Buyers Club, American Hustle, Goodfellas, Capote, Braveheart, A Beautiful Mind, The Elephant Man, Raging Bull, Bonnie And Clyde, Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, Milk, Walk The Line, Born on the Fourth of July, Erin Brokovich, Into the Wild, 127 Hours... I could go on and on. I am of the belief that true stories, real-life biographies, are often the best films. Truth is more amazing than fiction in many cases.

I think you were maybe making an excuse for J Edgar or Jersey Boys not being a more compelling story but the litany of amazing true-life stories that have been made into fabulous movies shows that to be a poor excuse.

-Jason "I think we've worn this debate out at this point " Evans

[sue71, esq]

Alright, so I saw Jersey Boys on Tuesday night. I was SUPER excited to go see it. I was no longer super excited when I left.

I saw the show in Vegas, and I'm quite familiar with all the music (thanks, Dad). Loved, loved, LOVED the show. I mean, we were on our feet dancing by the end. People clapped a bit for the movie, but it wasn't the roar that the show got.

The movie felt really dark to me. Not just in storytelling, and yes I realize it's not a happy fun-time story, but in the overall look of the movie. I recall the show being dark-ish but it had moments of brightness both in storytelling and visually.

Also, I feel like the music helped to tell the story in the show, and in the movie... not so much. The music seemed to me to be "fit" into the movie rather than an integral part of the story the way it came across in the show. I was also disappointed that the back story to "Oh, What A Night" was left out. Even though it was a small piece of the show, it was funny and really lightened the mood. I felt that the movie could've used more of that.

Am I glad I saw the movie? Yes. But I'm also glad I saw it for $7 rather than $15 or whatever full price movies go for in LA these days. (Helpful hint for those of you in LA: LA Live does ALL movies for $7 every Tuesday.) However, the movie left me wanting to see the stage show again.

[devildeac]

Loved the show when we saw it in Raleigh a couple years ago, but then again, I'm kind of a geezer now. One of my Dad's army friends lived down the street from one of the Four Seasons many years ago in Nutley, NJ, IIRC. Never got to meet him but the "connection" was still there. Didn't like their music that much growing up because I was more of a R&R fan but, after having bought a couple old CDs and the sound track and seeing the show, I have a much greater appreciation for their story and their music. Not sure I'll see the movie as we rarely go out on movie dates, but, if Sue is buying a $7 ticket, I might reconsider.

I have similar feelings about Movin' Out. Loved the music but there wasn't that much of a plot (Brenda/Brender and Eddie) and doubt I'd see it if it ever was made into a movie.

Now, if someone produces a 3-3.5 hour movie (the typical length of one of his concerts) about Bruce Springsteen's music and life, then I might buy that $7 matinee ticket and even treat my wife.

[sue71, esq]

Loved the show when we saw it in Raleigh a couple years ago, but then again, I'm kind of a geezer now. One of my Dad's army friends lived down the street from one of the Four Seasons many years ago in Nutley, NJ, IIRC. Never got to meet him but the "connection" was still there. Didn't like their music that much growing up because I was more of a R&R fan but, after having bought a couple old CDs and the sound track and seeing the show, I have a much greater appreciation for their story and their music. Not sure I'll see the movie as we rarely go out on movie dates, but, if Sue is buying a $7 ticket, I might reconsider.

I have similar feelings about Movin' Out. Loved the music but there wasn't that much of a plot (Brenda/Brender and Eddie) and doubt I'd see it if it ever was made into a movie.

Now, if someone produces a 3-3.5 hour movie (the typical length of one of his concerts) about Bruce Springsteen's music and life, then I might buy that $7 matinee ticket and even treat my wife.

Of course I would buy both you and Mrs. DD a $7 ticket.

And being a Jersey girl, I guess I do have something of a connection to the story & music, especially when you throw in that my parents also grew up in NJ and always played this "genre" of music.

Further, I would also buy a $7 ticket to a Bruce movie, concert, or even tribute band (actually did that one a few weeks ago- a show with a GREAT Bon Jovi tribute band and a meh Bruce tribute band). I would also pay more for the movie and/or concert. A good deal more.

[Mike Corey]

Eastwood's career is endlessly fascinating to me. As someone whose understanding of film, and of Eastwood's career, is entirely pedestrian and amateur in nature, his career arc is something I'd love to study someday.

I became a fan during his incredible run of creative brilliance:

Mystic River. Million Dollar Baby. Flags of our Fathers. And his most perfect film: Letters from Iwo Jima.

Since then? Good movies. But no heavy hitters, IMO.

[Jim3k]

This diarist over at dKos loved it.

Here's what he said about the critics' complaints:

The film has real problems that the critics have enjoyed listing but I did not care. The energy of the music and the performers, the quality of the sound emerging from my youth as well as numerous unexpected moments of wit, carries it along and that carried me along. Oh, what a night.

Yeah. What he said.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Of course I would buy both you and Mrs. DD a $7 ticket.

And being a Jersey girl, I guess I do have something of a connection to the story & music, especially when you throw in that my parents also grew up in NJ and always played this "genre" of music.

Further, I would also buy a $7 ticket to a Bruce movie, concert, or even tribute band (actually did that one a few weeks ago- a show with a GREAT Bon Jovi tribute band and a meh Bruce tribute band). I would also pay more for the movie and/or concert. A good deal more.

Saw the show in London last month and absolutely loved it. We plan on seeing the movie soon. I'm more concerned about what I'll pay tomorrow when I buy McCartney tickets for his October 30th show in Greensboro. I've never been to a Beatle concert before!

[devildeac]

Saw the show in London last month and absolutely loved it. We plan on seeing the movie soon. I'm more concerned about what I'll pay tomorrow when I buy McCartney tickets for his October 30th show in Greensboro. I've never been to a Beatle concert before!

I'll bet $100 each. Minimum. At least I think there's no 3rd level there like at the PNC Center in Raleigh. Or is there?