Man About Town with Ben Affleck!

C

c.g._eads

Veteran
Man About Town is a flick directed by Mike Binder, the man who directed "Upside Of Anger" with Kevin Costner. The film (Man About Town) was sent straight to DVD without a theatrical release. I can't say I disagree with the decision. I think Mike Binder is a lousy director and that The Upside Of Anger was badly directed, badly paced, and in most of the film, badly written (where in the world did that strange ending come from??). I read a couple of interviews he gave to try and find out why the movie went straight to DVD. He seemed very miffed by the act, as if the film deserved more. In reality, the combination of Ben Affleck's falling star, and the fact that the movie wasn't any good, secured a straight-to-DVD ticket.

But it got me thinking. Had they promoted this film and put some effort into getting people to talk about it, would this film have opened well? In other words, could marketing have saved this film? I mean, The Upside Of Anger was a pretty mediocre movie, yet that film got a ton of press and ended up doing pretty well. Is all you need a good marketing push? And if so, why arbitrarily back one movie (Upside) instead of another (Man About Town), when the other actually had more star power (falling Affleck is still bigger than aging Costner)?

With these two movies being about equal in their execution, why is that I believe The Upside Of Anger was a better movie? I think it's solely because it was released in the theatres and some critics said it was good. In other words, I was manipulated into thinking it was more important.

Do we have any thoughts for ourselves anymore?
 
i'm sure that realizing you're opinion had been manipulated by the circumstance of this film's release will prevent it from happening in the future. having worked in motion picture marketing, i see everything from posters and trailers, to the dvd cover art very transparently. it doesn't get in the way of my appreciation for what a film truly has to offer, the way it did when i was younger.
 
True, there are many movies with stars both current and aging that are sent straight to video. The reason is that studios can release only so many films per year in a theatrical run. Otherwise you get a glut of movies and not enough theatres to show them.

I also noticed this film at Hollywood Video the other night and I too thought, "Wow, why didn't that come out?". It's just the way it goes, plus as you've said, maybe it really was badly directed and the quality wasn't there or the studio behind it was hesitant to let it out when the Binder's last film didn't do very big numbers. Who knows their exact reasoning?

Ben Affleck, in my opinion, is a really good actor at times and he's really trying to get back to being himself after that whole J. Lo business. Since he's been out of action for a while, maybe the studios haven't regained the confidence they used to have in him yet.
 
There are actually a staggering amount of films shot and in the can that never see the light of day. I once saw a rough cut a few years ago of a remake of The Devil and Daniel Webster starring Alec Baldwin, Anthony Hopkins and Jennifer Love Hewitt, that Alec Baldwin directed. It has still not been released, and for good reason. It's so bad it would probably end Alec Baldwin's career, or at least his filmmaking aspirations.
 
The filmmakers are always mad at the studio when their movie doesn't get a theatrical release (obviously, since they worked so hard on the movie). But I think there's only a handful of examples where a good film went straight to video. So they can argue all they want. Chances are their movie was just bad.
 
And people make fun of Uwe Boll! At least his films make it to theatres.

I saw this movie at the rental store and asked the guy at the counter if anyone had rented it, he checked the computer system for the three compies that were out and it had only been rented once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top