Superstar

ads_wz_txt;

Revival 570 stupidly chose 　　 "Different sky..." As expected, it became the focus of reports in major newspapers and media the next day, and the reporters who attended the premiere immediately raised their eyebrows. As Hugo expected, the focus of the news was all on Hugo, and Hugo and Uma’s exaggeration once again became the focus of hype, and both of them are about to star in "Pulp Fiction", which makes this topic very hot. .

However, Paramount Pictures obviously has a very wide network of contacts. Although the focus of the media has been misplaced, almost all reports deliberately mentioned that Hugo attended the premiere to cheer for his friend Leonardo, "Different sky. ......" The exposure index soared, which also attracted the attention of many viewers.

At the same time, Miramax's pre-publicity took the opportunity to fully unfold, and the news that the "Pulp Fiction" crew officially confirmed has attracted a lot of attention.

There are many topics worth discussing in "Pulp Fiction". The first collaboration between Hugo and Uma since "No More Dating" is obviously full of the expected tension. However, due to the friendly signals released by Uma, the media are generally in Guess how likely it is for the two to reunite.

Quentin Tarantino, since his debut "Falling Water Dog" won a good applause, and immediately after shooting the second work, what level will he contribute? We must know that after the first shot, the success or failure of the second work often maintains the director's future development prospects. Whether it is a short-lived or real material, the second work can obviously give people a glimpse of many clues.

Bruce Willis can also be seen in the cast. People will never forget the competitive relationship between Hugo and Bruce. Hugo also reported disagreements during the collaboration with Bruce’s wife Demi Moore in "Yihai Xiongfeng". Rumor has it that it’s Hugo and Bruce’s turn to work together, so what will happen?

However, compared to these interesting topics, a professional film review in the "New York Times" triggered even more heated discussions. As the largest daily newspaper in the United States, although the "New York Times" is not an industry media such as "Variety Show" and "Hollywood Report", its influence is beyond the reach of any other media.

In the 1940s and 1960s, the film reviews of the "New York Times" had an incomparable influence on the whole of the United States. At that time, the appeal of the film reviews of the "New York Times" hosted by Persley Crosser (.) reached its peak, and it was at his peak. During the period, it was impossible to win Oscars for films that did not make it to his annual top ten rankings, and foreign language films that did not get his approval were also difficult to achieve box office success in the United States. In those years, except for Los Angeles and New York. City newspapers did not even dare to publish their own professional film reviews before they saw the "New York Times" film reviews.

This shows the brilliance of the "New York Times" back then.

However, Posley was too rigid and too old to change. Faced with such an epoch-making work as "Male and Female Thief (. and. clyde, he failed to accept such a change and could only end up sadly.

After that, Hollywood’s attention to the box office of the first week gradually increased, which gradually weakened the importance of less time-sensitive film reviews. In the 1970s, the American film review industry entered a prosperous era. Everyone can speak. The strict system is gone forever. Except for the "New York Times" and the "Los Angeles Times" and other large daily newspapers, industry magazines such as "Variety Show" and "Hollywood Report" have won the qualification to write film reviews for the first time, and even take precedence over them. Large daily newspapers have completely changed the development of the entire film review industry.

Of course, even so, the "New York Times" today is still the same as the "Los Angeles Times", "Variety Show", and "Hollywood Report" are regarded as media that have decisive opinions on movie box office and word-of-mouth. Among them, the "New York Times" even more. It is because of a long history and a wide range of readers who have a very profound influence.

Unlike other newspapers, the "New York Times" based in New York represents the self-esteem of the cultural strength of the East Coast of the United States, so they will always be more demanding when it comes to Hollywood works-or strictly speaking, works of greater Los Angeles descent. Vision.

&ond. The article written by canby) apparently set off a storm across the United States. At present, Almond is the chief film critic of the "New York Times". He also continues the newspaper’s New York descent and East Coast cultural descent that has brought the United States from the east to the west. The cultural battle continued.

"This will be another wrong choice made by Hugo Lancaster. It is different from the mistake of the ‘Hudson’s Eagle’ genre, but a terrible mistake in all directions, which may cause catastrophic destruction.

After dedicating four outstanding works in a row, Lancaster has gradually become the most prominent representative of the baby boomer in Hollywood. His appearance advantage has been fully demonstrated in acting, unlike Cruise being tied by his appearance. Lancaster made full use of his appearance in "Yihai Xiongfeng", "Sleepless in Seattle", and "Schindler's List", turning the disadvantage of this vase image into an amazing advantage. Then he contributed an amazing performance.

I have to admit that Lancaster already has the potential to achieve greatness. Look at his opponent actors: Pacino and Nellierson. Obviously, Lancaster is on the way.

But now, Lancaster apparently made the old mistakes after the "Death Poetry Society" again. He chose a work that was not suitable for him from any angle.

First of all, from the perspective of the actors themselves, Quentin Tarantino is not a suitable director for Lancaster.

Through Tarantino's debut work "Falling Water Dog", we can see that he is a very good director, but he is also a director with a very strong personal style. In Tarantino's works, the personal style has surpassed the actor's performance. The success of "Falling Water Dog" does not lie in the role played by the actor, but in Tarantino's enough characteristic of the story, and it can even be said , "Falling Water Dog" will not affect the success of the work even if a group of actors is changed. The actors are just simple chess pieces in Tarantino's hands. From this perspective, Tarantino is an excellent director, but only limited to the action of'directing', it can't give the actor more vitality.

In other words, Tarantino's work is truly outstanding in the two links of director and screenwriter, and the space that actors can play is very limited.

Lancaster is an excellent actor. He is constantly breaking through himself and is in a stage of rapid improvement in acting skills. A director like Tarantino should obviously not be his partner. If this cooperation is placed after last year's "Yihai Xiongfeng", or one year later, it may achieve Tarantino and Lancaster at the same time, but now, "Schindler's list" is brilliant After that, this will only overwhelm the talents of Lancaster's actors.

After experiencing the breakthrough of four works, Lancaster is now at a critical moment. Choosing'Pulp Fiction' is obviously a stupid and bad choice. Leaving aside acting breakthroughs, Pulp Fiction as an ordinary film would not be a qualified choice for Lancaster.

As an actor who can get 10 million U.S. dollars in pay and can even hit the 15 million U.S. dollar mark, Lancaster chose an independent work with an investment of 8 million and only took 250,000 U.S. dollars. Remuneration starred, this is already considered the category of friendship starring, but is it really the right choice?

When Lancaster finally relied on the accumulation of four works to leave behind the negative impact of the Golden Raspberry Award, now he chooses an independent film at a juncture where there is hope to go further? Is this adventure worth it? Is this adventure correct? Is this adventure sensible?

Maybe Lancaster has lost himself in the world of rock and roll, and I really hope he can wake up and end this fatal and terrible mistake before it begins. "

Almond analyzed Hugo's choice from both business and professional perspectives. Obviously, he completely disagrees with Hugo's choice and believes that this will be the beginning of another terrible cycle.

Indeed, many professionals in the industry find it incredible. Hugo can now choose to be among the 10 million salary club, but he has chosen 300,000 dollars. The salary is not a core factor, but just a measure. The point is that all Everyone thinks that Hugo is now at a rising point in his career, but he does not advance and retreat. This is really puzzling.

If "Pulp Fiction" has failed-as an independent film, this is almost a certainty, and the probability is even more than 80%, then Hugo's previous accumulation of momentum from the four films will be wiped out, and perhaps no better. After the Golden Raspberry Awards, it was even worse, but it would be difficult to make it into the 10 million piece club again.

It is indeed very interesting to take a risk with one's own career and make a choice that everyone does not understand. Almond believes that if Hugo chooses "Pulp Fiction" earlier or later, then there is still a trace to follow~www.readwn.com~ After all, independent films also often have excellent works, but they are placed in "Pulp Fiction". After Schindler's list won its glory, it was really stunned.

After the publication of the "New York Times" review, it has almost been recognized by nearly two-thirds of the media. Although everyone has great expectations for Quentin’s new work, no one can agree with Hugo’s choice, not only Professional media, as well as industry practitioners, including brokers, find this ridiculous. Many people agree with Almond’s statement and feel that Hugo is ruining his career with his own hands. This is really dumbfounding, but it also makes people look forward to the performance of this good show: watching an actor with his own eyes. Towards destruction? Such opportunities are not common.

Joseph originally thought he would applaud when he saw this comment in the "New York Times" because Almond spoke his heart completely, but unexpectedly, Joseph not only did not gloat, he did not even have a bit of joy, but instead It is the heart that is occupied by deep worries: stupid choice, is this really the case?

Joseph could not help sighing out a long sigh, trying to make his mood brisk, and then told himself, believe in Hugo, believe in Hugo's choice, believe that Hugo will create another miracle again, believe that Hugo will take actual action to the media Answered questions and ridicule. . )

Early access to member privileges..