JERSEY BOYS Review

by     Posted 153 days ago

jersey-boys-review

Clint Eastwood is only making movies for himself at this point in his career.  Every artist should try to please him or herself first; pandering to the lowest common denominator may bring success, but rarely artistic satisfaction.  However, Eastwood doesn’t seem to be chasing some artistic muse.  For well over a decade now, he seems to make movies because it keeps him busy.  It’s a hobby, and studios pay for him to keep doing it regardless of diminishing returns or that it stops more invested filmmakers from tackling worthwhile stories.  Eastwood’s latest directorial shrug is his adaptation of the hit Broadway musical Jersey Boys.  For a director who barely seems interested in his own movies beyond giving them over to his actors and hoping for the best, he’s clearly unsuited to the vibrancy and effervescence a musical demands.  Instead, we’re left with a choppy, haphazard story that barely gives the relationships a chance to breathe and the acknowledgement that, yes, we too enjoy the music of The Four Seasons.

The film begins in Belleville, New Jersey in 1951 where see the macho Tommy DeVito (Vincent Piazza) hustle around his young friend and band mate Frankie Valli (John Lloyd Young) as they spend their nights engaging in criminal acts or playing smalltime music gigs.  DeVito plays the role of both protector and facilitator as he tries to keep Valli, who has a remarkable singing voice, out of the revolving door of prison.  Eventually, Valli, DeVito, their bass player Nick Massi (Michael Lomenda), and songwriter/keyboardist Bob Gaudio (Erich Bergen) discover that they make for a powerful quartet, and go on to become the legendary musical group The Four Seasons.  But behind the scenes, their conflicting personalities unravel the band and their personal ties.

jersey-boys-review

Eastwood has to capture both the power of the music and the intimacy of the personal conflicts, and fails to do either.  The director always manages to attract strong acting talent, and continues to do so here.  All four lead actors provide an intensity and chemistry to a picture that sorely needs it since the director certainly doesn’t bring those qualities.  Young and Piazza in particular give as much heart as the script will allow, but their performances are no match for a movie that’s all over the map when it comes to telling the story.  Jersey Boys constantly goes broad in its relationships so we’re left with Valli as the saint, DeVito as the stubborn screw-up, Gaudio as the brains, and Massi as a hybrid between an unbiased observer and a weirdo.

The whole point of even telling this story is to go behind the music and show us the complex loyalties where the brotherhood of the “old neighborhood” clashes against the typical selfishness of stardom.  DeVito tries to carve out his niche as a financial leader since he knows he’ll never have Valli’s musical talent (in case you didn’t know Valli’s a good singer, the movie feels the need to have characters constantly look at him in awe every time he starts to croon).  Valli feels indebted to DeVito for being the hard-charging leader at the beginning of their careers, but has to accept that DeVito’s negative qualities will rip the band apart.  This is a central conflict but it’s constantly being chipped away by supporting plotlines that are laughably executed.

jersey-boys-renee-marino-john-lloyd-young

Marshall Brickman and Rick Elice‘s script stumbles its way through the most tired of musician biopic tropes.  For example, there’s the shrew wife who is all for her husband’s dreams until his hard work on the road is too much for her to handle.  But by the time this resentment explodes in Jersey Boys, there’s been no build-up, so the scene is comically random.  It’s also the same chastisement we’ve seen time and time again of the starter wife who wasn’t supportive enough.  At least some movies have the courtesy of showing that the husband isn’t 100% faithful or gets consumed in other ways by the rock-and-roll lifestyle.  Here, Valli just works too damn hard because he loves his family so damn much.  In Jersey Boys, he and Guadio are the truly responsible members of the Four Seasons.  Coincidentally, Valli and Guadio also served as executive producers.

Left with shoddy storytelling, the film at least has its classic tunes, but Eastwood has no idea what to do with them.  Eastwood presumably knows music (he’s served as composer on seven on his movies), but he’s at a loss when it comes to some of the best rock-pop songs of the 20th century.  His approach extends no further than differentiating the stage play from the movie by using of close-ups.  Beyond that, he sways the camera a little bit and cuts between shots seemingly at random.  It’s hard to think of a musical as flat and lackadaisical with its music as Eastwood’s Jersey Boys.  You’d get more staying at home and listening to the soundtrack.

jersey-boys

I haven’t seen the Broadway musical, but it has to be better than the movie.  I understand a film has to make nips and tucks to accommodate its form and runtime, and I’m willing to accept that the group’s less famous songs were trimmed for brevity.  But it’s unacceptable to deliver a story this rushed and sloppy and presume it does justice to The Four Seasons.  It’s even more damning to do as little as possible with the songs, which is the entire hook.  We love the music, and it’s only during the end credits where Eastwood shows he has the slightest concept of how to make them come to life on screen.  By then it’s too late and we’re wondering why he didn’t take this approach towards the rest of the movie.  I assume it’s because he doesn’t care, and it won’t impact his legacy.  Clint Eastwood’s legend is fixed, so he’s free to churn out as many forgettable films as he wants.  Jersey Boys is nothing more than the latest casualty.

Rating: D

jersey-boys-poster




Like Us


Comments:

FB Comments

  • TigerFIST

    Awww man a D. I haven’t read the review yet. I will after I finish writing mine. I loved the film though. Let me hurry cause I wanna read it…

    • Daniel Ronczkowski

      Collider was the 3rd review I read that said it was a horrible movie.

      • DeathoftheEndless7

        Most reviews say its not bad, but not great.

      • TigerFIST

        That’s perfectly fine. I saw it on Monday and really like it. The audience applauded where I was. I had NO expectations. People have different opinions…

  • milo

    Who in their right mind would think Eastman was a good choice to direct a musical? The man has directed incredible films but even out of his masterpieces what is there that would make someone pick him for a musical? Seems like this could have had a lot of potential if they gave it to the right filmmaker.

    • The Man With No East

      Who the f**k is ‘Eastman’?

      • zac

        Kodak?

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        Eastman! He came from the East to do battle with the Amazing RANDOOOO!

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        Eastman! He came from the East to do battle with the Amazing RANDOOOO!

      • zac

        Kodak?

      • milo

        Excellent point.

    • MJ

      Good point, because Kodak was always the one in their partnership who handled the musicals. Eastman typically concentrated on Freight New Wave films.

      Polariod, now that guy, he could make some great action movies! Much better than Vivitar’s B-action movies. Vivitar was really good looking, but she was a shitty director.

  • D

    Shut the fuck up Goldberg. You basically said he has been making shitty movies for well over a decade? He has had like two (three if Jersey Boys sucks as much as you say) major fails in the last decade or so but the rest have been good to great. Starting in 03: Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters From Iwo Jima, fucking Changeling,Gran Torino, Invictus, Hereafter, J. Edgar, and now Jersey Boys.
    So in REALITY, not in your Goldbergian alternate universe, he has had a couple of fails in the last FOUR years, not “well over a decade”. 7 good movies to 3 bad ones over 11 years is a pretty fucking good track record for any director. I know there are quite a few Oscar noms and wins in there too.That’s fine if you say Jersey Boys sucks, but attacking Eastwood’s credibility as a director is straight up BULLSHIT.

    • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

      Mystic River: A Law & Order episode with an unearned twist and a twitchy, overcooked performance from Tim Robbins.

      Million Dollar Baby: Beautifully shot but it’s Old Yeller with a person instead of a dog plus a pandering, simplistic view of people living in poverty.

      Flags of Our Fathers: Needed more Crying Native American.

      Letter From Iwo Jima: I’m surprised we even needed to drop the bomb considering how many Japanese soldiers were eagerly committing seppuku.

      Changeling: Men are awful…but they’re also the only ones who can save the day! Keep crying Ms. Jolie!

      Gran Torino: White guy saves minorities. Says “Get off my lawn” with straight face. Sings hilariously awful closing songs. Actually, Gran Torino is pretty good if you think of it as a comedy.

      Invictus: Admittedly well-directed, but also completely forgettable despite its best intentions.

      Hereafter: Horribly cobbled together plotlines adding up to a surprisingly bland meditation on grief.

      J. Edgar: A closeted homosexual and total douchebag who is the exact same at the beginning of the movie as he is at the end. Riveting.

      Want to turn the clock back further? Blood Work: Bad. True Crime: Bad. Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil: Criminally bad (with a little bit of nepotism thrown in for good measure).

      Unforgiven is a masterpiece. It was also over 20 years ago.

      I respect Eastwood’s overall career, but if any other director made as many misfires as constantly as Eastwood, they wouldn’t get to direct anymore.

      • Al

        But he didn’t make universally made misfires. He made Goldberg misfires. Its cool that this is your opinion, but you’re talking like its common knowledge these films were failures.

        You’re also smugly and purposefully looking past artistic merits and simplifying the synopsis of several of his films as though it serves your point to misread entire films.

        I haven’t been on the “fuck you Goldberg” train in a long time. I thought you were doing pretty well as of late. But buddy, come on.

        P.S. Gran Torino IS a comedy.

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        Wait. What is a “universal misfire”? What is a film that every single person on the planet Earth does not like? Answer seriously.

        Yes, it serves my point to make the point I believe in. It was a quick summation because I’m not going to spend the rest of my evening write out full reviews for those movies.

        But if you want to be on the “Fuck You, Goldberg train” (thank you for supporting rail travel), go ahead. You assume I’m seeking your approval. Sadly, I’m not.

      • Al

        Oh come on, ‘universal misfire’ was a figure of speech. Near* universal. As in widely accepted. That is how you were referring to these films, more then a few of which are actually celebrated widely in the film community.

        I could care less if you don’t like Eastwood, but you’re definitively saying he’s bad as if its the gospel true. Thats what is irritating.

        In your review you made the assumption that Eastwood doesn’t care. If thats what you THINK, fine. Say the film makes it look like he doesn’t care. But to state it as fact? Thats harsh.

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        It doesn’t really matter what’s widely accepted. My personal opinions aren’t a democracy.

        It seems you’re a bit unfamiliar with rhetoric, so let me explain. I don’t need to put “I think” or “I believe” in my opinions because that’s inherent in the nature of an opinion, and therefore waters down the impact of the sentence. There’s obviously no scientific proof that Eastwood’s recent slate of films have been quite poor.

      • ZeroMustafa

        This is what Golberg does. He has this mis-placed sense of self importance and it comes through in all his reviews. He’s the kid growing up that always got picked and now he’s bitter at the world. But when you combine his petty, pretentious, absolutely condescending “voice” with a platform as far reaching as collider, it’s only a matter of time before people have enough and give him the finger. You want to know what I’m talking about? Just listen to one of the podcasts, any one of them lol. I guarantee within 5 minutes you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about. How is it that there are hundreds of film podcast yet his is the one that comes off as if it’s just a guy loving the sound of his smug voice and pretentious opinions? And this is who he is. It’s not like he’s putting on an act, no, that’s Goldberg…….warts and all.

        (And no that’s not some backhanded compliment Golberg, the fact that you are who you are isn’t admirable, not in this case at least. People have the power to change, if enough people call you out, they can’t all be wrong)

      • MJ

        Not quite sure why you feel the need to take this personal with Matt to this level. We disagree with him, and he is enough of a man to let us post here and give him shit about it. That makes him a pretty admirable dude in my book.

        Fine, we think he’s full of shit on Eastwood, and he defends his opinions about it. So, good for him. We call him on it, sure. But getting uncomfortably personal with him like you have here seems out of bounds and dishonorable to me. You should have enough confidence in your own views that you don’t need to personally attack him like you did in your post above.

      • ZeroMustafa

        What I said above isn’t uncomfortably personal, I got picked on growing up, doesn’t mean I’m going to have a shit attitude for the rest of my life. I can think of a million more things that are worse than me saying “now he’s bitter at the world”. If you write for a public forum, one that is visited by X number of people per day, you best have a thick skin. I stated my opinion of him, and from the looks of the comments above (and below) not many people disagree.

      • brNdon

        I think what happened to Goldberg is that he turned his love for films into a job, which has robbed him of the experience he once enjoyed.

      • ZeroMustafa

        And for the record Matty, you may not be seeking our approval (sadly), but in order for you to be a successful film critic and for collider to thrive in general, you do need our respect.

        Hope that’s going well for ya.

      • MJ

        You hit the key point here. Taking down basically most of the guys work..films that many love and some of which won shitloads of awards, just loses Matt credibility as a reviewer.

        If I was Matt, as I was brushing my teeth in the morning, I’d say to myself, “hold off today on Eastwood bashing…I can’t stand the guy, but it going to make me look less credible and juvenile if I rant against him today…don’t do it, Matt”…and repeat this over and over as he goes through his day. :-)

        I feel that Matt’s “wheels came off his wagon” when I read that silly rant on his movies above. Not what you you expect from a serious reviewer, even one you would disagree with.

      • Al

        We’re going in circles here. I have no problem with your opinions being stated. They were presented closer to declaration of facts.

      • Adam Hall

        I don’t care that you don’t like his recent movies – though I think many people would disagree – the problem is that because you didn’t like those movies, you accuse him of not trying? I think Mystic River is incredible… you didn’t though, so that means he phoned it in?

      • MJ

        Mystic River is a bonifed CLASSIC.

      • MJ

        Gran Torino is of course dark comedy and satire. That’s the whole point of it. And it was refreshingly great and original – one of my favorite movies of the last decade.

        Duh! Sheesh, how does anyone not get this?

      • Al

        But he didn’t make universally made misfires. He made Goldberg misfires. Its cool that this is your opinion, but you’re talking like its common knowledge these films were failures.

        You’re also smugly and purposefully looking past artistic merits and simplifying the synopsis of several of his films as though it serves your point to misread entire films.

        I haven’t been on the “fuck you Goldberg” train in a long time. I thought you were doing pretty well as of late. But buddy, come on.

        P.S. Gran Torino IS a comedy.

      • Fahad Ali

        A Perfect World is borderline great, though.

      • MJ

        Great, great movie.

      • Fahad Ali

        So few seem to have seen it, however. But it was a near perfect experience. Costner and Eastwood at the top of their games, even the little kid acted brilliantly.

        They rarely make movies like this anymore.

      • The Flobbit

        It is terribly sad to see a professional film critic reduce films to juvenile little stereotypes and catch-phrases. Makes me wonder why on earth you even bother reviewing movies when you could post a little catchphrase instead. Saves you time.

        And what the hell are you saying about misfires? What are the careers of Dennis Dugan, Uwe Boll, Paul Anderson (the bad one), and M. Night Shyamalan if not constant misfires? And don’t give me the financial aspect, either, because Eastwood’s films almost always perform solidly at the box office.

      • MJ

        This could represent your low point here on Collider, dude. You lose a lot of credibility here with your rant.

        You don’t like Eastwood, and so you go on a rant that you probably actually think is based on your opinion, but it’s really just juvenile animosity towards him. I don’t think you are fooling many of us here?

        You remind me of Eagles fans throwing snowballs at Santa Claus. Eastwood is a NATIONAL TREASURE.

      • The Flobbit

        Absolutely. I am shocked that a film reviewer – a man who sees more movies and better movies than the rest of us, would have such juvenile, misguided animosity towards a great, but uneven body of work. His rants against Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, and the two WWII movies are utterly embarrassing.

      • MJ

        This could represent your low point here on Collider, dude. You lose a lot of credibility here with your rant.

        You don’t like Eastwood, and so you go on a rant that you probably actually think is based on your opinion, but it’s really just juvenile animosity towards him. I don’t think you are fooling many of us here?

        You remind me of Eagles fans throwing snowballs at Santa Claus. Eastwood is a NATIONAL TREASURE.

    • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

      Mystic River: A Law & Order episode with an unearned twist and a twitchy, overcooked performance from Tim Robbins.

      Million Dollar Baby: Beautifully shot but it’s Old Yeller with a person instead of a dog plus a pandering, simplistic view of people living in poverty.

      Flags of Our Fathers: Needed more Crying Native American.

      Letter From Iwo Jima: I’m surprised we even needed to drop the bomb considering how many Japanese soldiers were eagerly committing seppuku.

      Changeling: Men are awful…but they’re also the only ones who can save the day! Keep crying Ms. Jolie!

      Gran Torino: White guy saves minorities. Says “Get off my lawn” with straight face. Sings hilariously awful closing songs. Actually, Gran Torino is pretty good if you think of it as a comedy.

      Invictus: Admittedly well-directed, but also completely forgettable despite its best intentions.

      Hereafter: Horribly cobbled together plotlines adding up to a surprisingly bland meditation on grief.

      J. Edgar: A closeted homosexual and total douchebag who is the exact same at the beginning of the movie as he is at the end. Riveting.

      Want to turn the clock back further? Blood Work: Bad. True Crime: Bad. Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil: Criminally bad (with a little bit of nepotism thrown in for good measure).

      Unforgiven is a masterpiece. It was also over 20 years ago.

      I respect Eastwood’s overall career, but if any other director made as many misfires as constantly as Eastwood, they wouldn’t get to direct anymore.

  • opinionated asshole

    Just by listening to the recent Collision podcasts, you went into this already hating it.

    • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

      Yep. That’s me. I want to go spend two hours feeling miserable. Had nothing to do with me being skeptical of the last ten Clint Eastwood movies I’ve seen.

      • MJ

        While you are trying to be sarcastic here, I actually think this is how it played out.

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        If I thought I would be miserable for two hours, I wouldn’t have gone to the movie. There’s a reason there’s no BLENDED review on the site.

    • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

      Yep. That’s me. I want to go spend two hours feeling miserable. Had nothing to do with me being skeptical of the last ten Clint Eastwood movies I’ve seen.

  • LittleLeadmen

    THIS IS RIDICULOUS FROM MATT GOLDBERG:

    Where does Matt Goldberg get off harshly disparaging Eastwood’s career and choice of films? This is in poor taste, even if Goldberg dislikes Jersey Boys

    Warners is not in the business of giving him an enviable deal just to dabble as a “hobby”. Eastwood is a consistently SOLID storyteller, who produces great films and always delivers. His films are enjoyed and MAKE MONEY. That’s why he has his WB deal. Eastwood has an incredible track record.

    GRAN TORINO is not your usual blockbuster- it’s slower paced and methodical, and it grossed $145M US and $262M (Worldwide). That’s unheard of for a film like that. That was just 2 years ago

    J Edgar. $66M (World), $37M (USA)
    Hereafter $104M (World), $33M (USA)
    Invictus $124M (World), $37M (USA)
    Changeling $112M (World), $36M (USA)
    Letters from Iwo Jima $66M (World), $14M (USA) (on a 19m budget, and in all Japanese, no less)
    Million Dollar Baby $207M (World), $100M (USA)

    Name anybody that consistent. Anybody. Over 40 years…… Still waiting….

    • Matt1

      Scorsese.

      • LittleLeadmen

        Exactly. And Scorsese, for the most part only makes a film every two years, not every year like Eastwood does.

        Can you imagine if Goldberg were to write of Scorsese’s stature and track record and said he’s “only making movies for himself at this point in his career” or ” pandering to the lowest common denominator may bring success, but rarely artistic satisfaction”, or that he “doesn’t seem to be chasing some artistic muse” or worse that his career is now a “Hobby”?

        Were Goldberg to say something like that about Scorsese, he would rightfully, upset a lot of people in the film industry who know better. Yet he does it of Eastwood, and Goldberg’s statements are demonstrably untrue.

        It’s poor behavior and low character.

      • LittleLeadmen

        Exactly. And Scorsese, for the most part only makes a film every two years, not every year like Eastwood does.

        Can you imagine if Goldberg were to write of Scorsese’s stature and track record and said he’s “only making movies for himself at this point in his career” or ” pandering to the lowest common denominator may bring success, but rarely artistic satisfaction”, or that he “doesn’t seem to be chasing some artistic muse” or worse that his career is now a “Hobby”?

        Were Goldberg to say something like that about Scorsese, he would rightfully, upset a lot of people in the film industry who know better. Yet he does it of Eastwood, and Goldberg’s statements are demonstrably untrue.

        It’s poor behavior and low character.

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        The fact that you’re putting Eastwood on the same level as Martin Scorsese is jaw-dropping. Scorsese continues to takes risks, which is particularly admirable when you consider how many talented directors drop off in their old age.

        But please keep assuming what my opinions are. It’s cute.

      • MJ

        Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino, Mystic River, Letters from Iwo Jima, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, A Perfect World, Heartbreak Ridge, Pale Rider, The Gauntlet, High Plains Drifter — all of these are bonfied classics in my Blu-Ray collection.

        I’d argue that Eastwood’s body of work significantly surpasses Scorsese. With Scorsese, the only body of his work that I have enjoyed watching have been The Departed, The Aviator Cape Fear, Goodfellows, and The Last Tempation of Christ.

        So I count Eastwook with 11 classics to date and Scorsee with 5. That’s a rout in Eastwood’s favor.

        It is what it is.

      • The Flobbit

        Well, I have to disagree with you here. Scorsese is pretty much second to none, with masterpiece after masterpiece in his collection, from Taxi Driver to Goodfellas to The Departed. Eastwood has great movies under his belt (Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby), but he doesn’t rank up there with Scorsese.

        If we bring in Eastwood’s acting, however, we get the three greatest spaghetti westerns of all time, the greatest cop movie ever (Dirty Harry), and some excellent westerns and thrillers.

      • MJ

        Those three are great movie classics, but I found Hugo, Gangs of New York, and Shutter Island to be rather mediocre films. And Wolf of Wall Street was simply awful.

        You want to talk about a director who is slipping a bit — Shutter Island (2010) was just a bit above average, Hugo (2011) was just OK and frankly a rather boring film, and Wolf of Wall Street (2013) was inexplicably bad.

        We have a trend here — Scorsese is the one that seems to be slipping the last few years.

    • Matt1

      Scorsese.

    • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

      By your reasoning, Michael Bay is goddamn genius.

      • straight arrow

        I guess this is Matt’s BIG moment to finally stick it to the low intelligent readers out there who are beneath him. Good for you Matt. Now time for me to read a REAL unbiased critique from a REAL movie critic like Richard Roeper.

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        Have fun with that.

      • milo

        If you read the other reviews there are plenty along the same lines as this one. Currently 57% on RT.

        You would think he’s panning a movie that is otherwise getting raves.

      • MJ

        Michael Bay didn’t win multiple Oscars, unless I missed something?

        Gran Torino is a GREAT movie, period, exclamation point.

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        Titanic: Tied for most Oscar wins of all-time. What’s your point?

      • MJ

        You have a point there. That would be like giving you a Pulitzer.

      • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

        Sooo…my articles get billions of hits?

    • milo

      Say what you want about Eastwood’s quality, but for the most part those movies aren’t particularly impressive at the box office. And you conveniently left out Flags which was one his most expensive and lowest grossing.

      Better off sticking with the quality argument, there are plenty of other filmmakers with a better track record at the BO (including some who have made plenty of movies that were poorly reviewed but still made plenty of cash).

      • MJ

        LOL. Those are huge numbers for drama flims, Einstein.

      • MJ

        LOL. Those are huge numbers for drama flims, Einstein.

  • Bloost

    Matt, you think Transformers 3 is better than The Dark Knight Rises. You are an idiot and I don’t find your opinions anything special.

  • Bloost

    Matt, you think Transformers 3 is better than The Dark Knight Rises. You are an idiot and I don’t find your opinions anything special.

    • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

      Oh no!

      To be fair, they’re both pretty awful.

      • Fahad Ali

        That they are. At least Transformers 3 provided the visuals.

      • The Flobbit

        But TDKR was a misfire: an ambitious, sweeping, sporadically-powerful misfire.

        Transformers 3 was an insult to movies. It was nothing but CGI garbage, loud noises, and juvenile, cliched Michael Bay-isms. And worse, it wasn’t even entertaining.

      • http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/ abbeysbooks

        TDKR was deliberate by Nolan to expose the difference in the Discourse between Batman and Bane. Bane’s aphoristic comments were not made in the dialectic Discourse. Bane folded opposites into one another for us to consider certain philosophical “absolutes” in our political philosophy. The neo-liberal position was revealed as well as the capitalistic one so favored by conservatives. Nolan wrote it for an intelligent audience. He is trying to reach huge masses of people with the choices he makes. My fingers are crossed for him. Haven’t seen Transformers. Didn’t even read them0vieblog’s review on it.

      • MJ

        I don’t care what anybody else thinks, TDKR was the freakest greatest superhero movie of all time. I watch it about every three months.

      • milo

        I wouldn’t even rate it in the top three Batman movies. Not that that’s a big insult, considering the ones that are better.

      • Whoopdidoo Goldberg

        HAHAHAHA TDKR awful, and Transformers 3 is better? Give me a f*cking break. Anyone who finds those Transformers movies entertaining was probably dropped multiple times as a child.

  • Strong Enough

    who actually thought this would be anything other than shit? It’s stale Eastwood directing a fucking musical. That’s like Paul W.S. Anderson directing a MLK biopic. da fuk?

    • Cog

      Both the people you mentioned…are successful.
      Am sure you are too.
      Who are you again?
      .

      • Strong Enough

        What does that have to do with eastwood making a crappy movie? lmao.

  • MJ

    No thank you. When I heard that Michael Bay was going to direct Jersey Boys, I immediately crossed that movie on my list.

    Michael Bay is a horrible director, and I will not see his Jersey Boys film.

    Michael Bay sucks!!!

    • The Flobbit

      What is that supposed to mean?

      • MJ

        Flobbit, you should realize by now that you have to work a bit sometimes to see my veiled humor/jokes in my posts. It was meant to be satire on all the Michael Bay hate here of late from so many people…I blame Michael Bay now for movies that he didn’t even make…get it?

  • The Flobbit

    No, he has taste. Just bad taste.

    • http://collider.com Matt Goldberg

      Yes, because we feel differently about movies, I’m the one with “bad taste”.

  • Marc

    Where does Space Cowboys fit into this debate?

Click Here