Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Road House (Remake / Reboot)

Options
24

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 764 ✭✭✭Big Gerry



    I think Schwarzenegger did fall out with John McTiernan during Last Action Hero.



  • Registered Users Posts: 60,294 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    Drops on Amazon on March 21st.

    Someone is lying...

    Amazon gave Gyllenhaal and the producers two choices a $60m budget and a cinema release or an $85m budget and straight to streaming Gyllenhaal and the producers chose straight to streaming.

    Gyllenhaal seemingly confirmed Variety’s report about “Road House” always being intended for a global streaming release. Sources familiar with the negotiations told Variety that Liman, Gyllenhaal and producer Joel Silver were given a choice: Make the film for $60 million and get a theatrical release or take $85 million and go streaming only. They opted for the latter.


    “They all took the money,” one knowledgeable source said.


    Doug Liman say Amazon have no interest in supporting cinemas.

    “Amazon has no interest in supporting cinemas,” Liman wrote. “Amazon will exclusively stream ‘Road House’ on Amazon’s Prime. Amazon asked me and the film community to trust them and their public statements about supporting cinemas, and then they turned around and are using Road House to sell plumbing fixtures.”





  • Registered Users Posts: 31,849 ✭✭✭✭gmisk




  • Registered Users Posts: 60,294 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    This one made me laugh

    . McGregor’s character gets it the worst. He has the cartoonish silliness of Yosemite Sam, with none of the charisma. 




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,010 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    Do think that's a great example of how the rotten tomato system is a bit misrepresentative. Checking the actual reviews and they're largely not positive. Most reviews are working out at 6/10 so it's more that it's not absolutely **** rather than being pretty good. Personally speaking, I will not watch a movie with McGregor in it...



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 31,849 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    Ah I only actually read a couple of them (there arent many) rotten tomatoes isnt the best overall but usually a decent indicator.

    Metacritic probably a better measure (7/10 ish)

    Yeah McGregor makes my skin crawl as well tbh.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,348 ✭✭✭Homelander


    Not sure why you'd be going out of your way to try and discredit the movie? Rotten Tomatoes isn't misrepresentative.

    So far, 79% of critics considered it decent enough, hence the score.

    To say that means it's "not absolutely ****" is in itself completely misrepresentative.

    If the majority of critics consider it a 6/10, and considering that critics view things through a pretty different lens than the average person, I would say it's probably a perfectly decent movie for what it is.

    "absolutely ****" would be 2 or 3/10. 6/10 indicates a bit above average, I don't think anyone would expect a Road House remake to be anything but, at best. If anything personally I'm surprised that the reviews are as positive as they are.

    Some people take a very weird stance on rating movies. 6/10 is what I'd give something that was entertaining, fun, decent, but forgettable. You seem to be lumping 6/10 with something being bad, in which case I would ask, what's the point then of the numbers 1 through 5.

    I see it a lot on different websites. There'll be a review on IMDB that'll say X movie is terrible and hard to sit through but the rating given will be 4 or 5 out of 10.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,010 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    My point around why rt scoring isn't exactly a great representation is that 90% movie only means, it's an okay movie. It doesn't mean that it's a superb movie or anything like that. I just think the 90 or whatever can make it come across as far better than it is, meanwhile something like Triangle of Sadness has around 70% cause it's divisive. So 90% just indicates a movie is decent and is viewed as decent by most critics, so that's pretty much why I'm not a general fan of how their scoring works, cause the reviews can be a very different picture.


    And I'll be entirely clear, I thoroughly dislike McGregor so I'd absolutely love for this movie to be a disaster for him. I'm sure it'll end up doing reasonably primarily for the MMA crowd.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,749 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    guardian saying he's the best thing about it, didn't see that coming!



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,322 ✭✭✭Heckler


    Thats a shame what with him being an odious prick. Will give it a skip even though the original has great nostalgic value and I like Gyllenhaal.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    In slim defence, by the trailer it looks like McGregor's character is also an odious prick, so I'm guessing he didn't have to go too Method to find the role.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,081 ✭✭✭Man Vs ManUre


    For all the dislike here towards McGregor, since his run in with PJ Fallagher he has been on his best behavior. He stands up for the working class Dub, his pub is a Mecca for locals young girls and boys they idolise him and get to mingle with him. He puts political viewpoints out there for all to see, for the good of the average Joe excuse the pun, and gets bullied online by hardline lefties like Joe Brolly as a result. He hasn’t been that bad a fella fir the past year.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,749 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    he was encouraging people to burn down buildings ffs



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,657 ✭✭✭El Gato De Negocios


    A scumbag with money and influence is still a scumbag.



  • Registered Users Posts: 60,294 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    Drops at 07:00am GMT on Thursday.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,900 ✭✭✭Sugarlumps


    Jake Gyllenhaal is a D list actor at best, and compared to his sister shesh.

    McGregor to steal the show. 



  • Registered Users Posts: 31,849 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    D list, naw.

    Maybe look up the definition.

    He has made some really odd/bad choices recently, but he has had some terrific films and performances nightcrawler, prisoners, southpaw. For something more recent I thought he was terrific in The Guilty, he tends to be watchable even in bad films imo.

    No idea about McGregor when it comes to acting, but he makes my skin crawl.

    I agree Maggie Gyllenhaal is an excellent actress.



  • Registered Users Posts: 30,834 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    Y'know what, this was decent fun. Jake Gyllenhaal was such a great choice, his performance ties the whole thing together. As a movie it's got just the right balance of cheesy campiness and sincerity to make this sort of 80s remake work on its own terms, and Gyllenhaal's casual nothing-to-lose uber-confidence is a big part of that. Plenty of straight-faced little comedic beats throughout, and some solid action set pieces too, with some interesting fight cinematography.

    Billy Magnussen's a great choice for a heightened smarmy nepo baddie-wannabe - not a million miles away from Josh Hutcherson's similar role in The Beekeeper.

    McGregor is... ok. When it comes to any actual acting required, his performance is unsurprisingly pretty bad - but it's just blustery and loud and unhinged enough to get by, in small doses.

    There is one henchman who steals every scene he's in though - 'broken arm' guy.

    Sure look, it's not gonna win any awards, but it's a good time while you're watching it.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,248 CMod ✭✭✭✭Ten of Swords


    Liked it, pacing was good and the fight scenes were solid.

    Billy Magnussen played his part to perfection, as did Sheriff 'Big Dick'

    Conor McGregor had presence but his dialogue delivery wasn't great imo and broke the immersion for me. Also, whoever told him to do that demented smile in every scene probably thought it would give his character more menace - it absolutely did not 🤣

    Not bad overall, a good remake



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,523 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    He's off his trolley most of the time,

    He's had about 5 alleged assault cases,lets not speak of his antics around women ,If anything his life look like its becoming increasingly unhinged & he looks likes like he has addiction problems in almost every interview, Money aside things look far form picture perfect,

    He will get ko'd in his MMA return & things will spiral further, Reminds me of De La Hoya at the minute



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,523 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    I do wonder is it because we are Irish that his dialogue just seem off,

    its like his own accent but slightly changed & its very off putting



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,977 ✭✭✭✭Giblet


    He drove a car into a big wall, he's had his fun and that's all that matters.


    A Fr. Ted Prequel showing Fr. Stack (played by McGregor) as a young scoundrel. 5/5



  • Registered Users Posts: 30,834 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    I think it's not just the Irish aspect (though i know what you mean with his accent)... but the main thing is there just isn't belief in his lines. There's definitely confidence in his physical performance, but when he has to say things - particularly his more mundane functional lines - he's just saying them rather than 'meaning/believing' them. To be expected with non-actor athletes really... on the scale of such performances, he's actually probably better than most - but it still jars in a movie. They helped him out by keeping it to short bursts rather than needing any sustained performance beats.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,248 CMod ✭✭✭✭Ten of Swords


    Did anyone see the post credit scene? Kind of stretches belief a little bit given the injuries involved - jus sayin!



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Just watched it there now after watching the original again the other night..

    The only things the movies have in common are the character names and the movie name..same kind premise but loosely..

    Jake Gyllenhaal just doesn't have the same charisma as Patrick Swayze in the original, probably should have just cast some unknown..

    As for the supporting cast.. they didn't make much impact... Just what is Joaquim de Almeida doing playing a small part in a movie like this.. mad!

    As for McGregor.. he just looks like he was on holidays in Florida and was on too much of the nose powder when he walked into a movie set he stumbles across and just starts being himself.. awful!



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,248 CMod ✭✭✭✭Ten of Swords


    Just what is Joaquim de Almeida doing playing a small part in a movie like this.. mad!


    Not gonna lie, the scene where he was introduced and his face is obscured and blurred for several minutes, I was convinced it was Stellan Skarsgard. The nose, forehead and accent had me almost certain!



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,198 ✭✭✭artvanderlay


    Just watched/fastforwarded through it there. Absolutely woeful. The original was a B movie but at least Swayze had star power and the supporting cast were good. Gyllenhaal is totally miscast. No charisma, no spark, nothing. A nepo baby who wouldn't be in Hollywood if it wasn't for his parents connections. McGregor gave a one-note performance but I didn't expect much from his stunt-casting. Still though, if he had half a brain, he could have actually tried to bring a tiny bit of nuance to his performance but it was beyond him. It was a nothing performance: not funny, not scary, just stupid. The worst thing though was the boring setting and especially the non-entity supporting cast. Hollywood DEI at its worst. The young black female bar owner, the precocious young black girl, running a roadside bookstore with her dad (!), and a Latina doctor love interest, were so bland and underwritten that they sucked the life out of their scenes and I can't remember anything about them except wanting them to get out of the way and let us get to the action. But the action was shite too! I didn't like the way it was filmed: too much like superhero fights. The bad guy was useless too. Doug Liman is a hit and miss director. He directed three of my favourites ( Edge of Tomorrow, Swingers, Go) but he also directed Jumper which I walked out of after a few minutes, so I guess this is another turkey for him. 0/10.



  • Registered Users Posts: 360 ✭✭dockysher


    Oh jaysus us irish do love begrudging others 😂.



  • Registered Users Posts: 85,058 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    I do not get the hate and dislike for Jake Gyllenhaal, he is a decent actor who picks good roles

    I cannot judge this as I have not seen yet but in other roles he was great and despite being an ex of Taylor Swift he is likeable 😊



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 30,834 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    I dunno how much one can tell from fast-forwarding through a movie (much less writing a review after?) but generally speaking I couldn't disagree with you more on Gyllenhaal. The fella has no shortage of strong performances behind him (Enemy, Nightcrawler, Brokeback, Prisoners, The Guilty, End of Watch, Zodiac, Demolition etc).

    Also, super weird racial focus. If you want to complain about performances, then, like, do that... their race is pretty irrelevant.

    Can't say I had the same extreme issues as yourself, when just settling in and watching it at the intended regular speed anyway.



Advertisement