W./E. (2012)

written and directed by MADONNA?

that's all I need to know!

I am there, Madge!!

:cheers:

Cast:
Abbie Cornish, Natalie Dormer, Katie McGrath, Oscar Isaac, Annabelle Wallis, Andrea Riseborough, James D'Arcy, Richard Coyle, Laurence Fox, James Fox, David Harbour, Natalie Gal, Haluk Bilginer, Anna Skellern, Christina Chong, Charlotte Comer, Lola Leon, Leigh Zimmerman, Kevin Cahoon.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

The Film

Madonna's 'W.E.' is a beautifully crafted, passionate tale about the search for true love in the modern world, viewed through the prism of one of history's most fabled romances. The year is 1998, and Manhattan is abuzz with anticipation about the upcoming auction of the estate of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. But the auction is far more than a diversion for Wally Winthrop (Abbie Cornish), a transplanted Southerner trapped in an unhappy and abusive marriage. Transfixed by the exquisite artifacts of the Windsors' lives, Wally becomes obsessed with the love story of Wallis Simspon (Andrea Riseborough), the chic, charismatic American who captured the heart of King Edward VIII (James D'Arcy). As she learns more about the sacrifices Wallis made in choosing to be with Edward, Wally finds the courage to follow her own heart and create her own happiness.

Links

W.E. ** To Be Confirmed





Trailer(s) AOL/Moviefone HD Encode

QT Domestic Trailer HD 480p (43.2Mb)
QT Domestic Trailer HD 720p (77.9Mb)
QT Domestic Trailer HD 1080p (118.9Mb)

QT Domestic Trailer 1024X436 (27.1Mb)
QT Domestic Trailer 640X272 (27.2Mb) ** MultiUpload
QT Domestic Trailer 480X204 (12.6Mb) ** MultiUpload


YOUTUBE:

It looks horrific.

2 of those actresses could be Bond Girls

Andrea Riseborough and Annabelle Wallis

and they are both British

FourDot wrote:

It looks horrific.

Are you referring to Madge, or to the film?




Come to think of it, why can't both be true?

From what I've read the film is quite laughable. Cinema tickets should have 'at your peril' across the top.

With such forays into the cinematic world on Madonna's CV as Shanghai Surprise, Body Of Evidence, the DAD theme and Swept Away, this will obviously be excellent.

Oh, hang on ...

She worked with Schlesinger, damnit! That makes her competent by default.

you forgot EVITA

that was a good movie

EVITA was a great big steaming pile of shit. Fact.

Wait, how is this a Multiplex subject exactly?

Think it stems from the Catch 44 film thread which has likewise slipped into Multiplex.

Yeah, I don't get that either. I thought this was for the discussion of film franchises.

FourDot wrote:

Wait, how is this a Multiplex subject exactly?

I dumped it here because it's trash.

The Multiplex is a catch-all category for mainstream cinema, despite what the description says.

And yet Hitchcock and Westerns are items of discussion in the other forum.

FourDot wrote:

And yet Hitchcock and Westerns are items of discussion in the other forum.

Hitchcock and Westerns aren't as mainstream as Batman and Madge. It's all relative.

So basically, studio films aren't as mainstream as an independently financed arthouse flick.

Gotcha.

I know that this subforum was created because certain individuals didn't want to have to deal with the ghastly prospect of having to talk about things as ugly and commercial and "hip" as Star Wars and Indiana Jones (on a James Bond forum, of all things!) on a serious film forum for real cineastes and the one true cognoscenti. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it (despite a lot of those individuals being all to happy to drop in and make disparaging, useless non-comments about said material).

But if you've made that bed you've got to sleep in it. If someone makes a topic about a film that's got nothing to do with the kind of thing that this subforum is (supposedly) about, then surely the only other place it can go is the Film News and Discussion forum. Unless the true purpose of the Multiplex subforum is to serve as a dumping ground for "Shit we don't want to talk about in the main forum," even in spite of the fact that people are encouraged to talk about any film they most recently saw in that forum.

I'm locking this. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with this forum under any circumstance.

FourDot wrote:

So basically, studio films aren't as mainstream as an independently financed arthouse flick.

Gotcha.

Yes, now shaddeup.

Thank you.

-- Just for the record - the studio/indie dichotomy no longer exists. The defining factors are now star power, marketing, and demographic (mainly young, white and middle class) appeal. So yeah, an "independently financed arthosue flick" starring friggin' Madonna has got the upper hand over (in the general public's eyes) a bunch of stodgy old Westerns. We're not talking about Derek Jarman or Béla Tarr here.

I'm unlocking this topic, since it does bare relevance to this forum. BAB is a film forum, and W./E. is a film. Simple as that.

I originally posted this in the Film News and Discussion forum.

It's been moved to the Multiplex forum.

I was under the impression the Multiplex forum is ONLY for film franchises and series so I don't understand why this movie (and also my CATCH .44) thread has been moved to this forum!!

Then it was locked and unlocked!

I feel I originally posted this and CATCH .44 in the correct forum: Film News and Discussion!!

Anyone care to explain?

Sharky wrote:

The defining factors are now star power, marketing, and demographic (mainly young, white and middle class) appeal.

Right, so a film starring George Clooney and perhaps the guy who played Shaggy in those awful Scooby-Doo films would probably classify as "mainstream" right?

Or a film starring Brad Pitt and Sean Penn with dinosaurs in it? That sounds pretty mainstream to me.

So basically, the denomination between the two forums is... what? Demographic, how the film is marketed, and the amount of star power in it.

Which sees a film whose biggest stars are Andrea Riseborough, James D'Arcy, Abbie Cornish and Oscar Isaac, has done the film festival circuit, is aimed at primarily a female audience (and an older one at that, since it's the bastard child of The King's Speech and Julia & Julia), and will get a limited theatrical release at best put in the same forum for discussion with the likes of The Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers.

Makes sense. I'm looking forward to discussing The Descendants in the Multiplex forum too.

Well you can blame me - I generally thought the multiplex forum was for new releases and the film discussion one for certain genres and the like - lists and comparisons and stuff like that, rather than film-specific threads. Hence why I thought j7's continual threads on new releases should go in the multiplex board.

That said, I dont watch many films made after 1970 anyway, so forgive me if I'm not up to speed. ;)

FourDot wrote:

Which sees a film whose biggest stars are Andrea Riseborough, James D'Arcy, Abbie Cornish and Oscar Isaac, has done the film festival circuit, is aimed at primarily a female audience (and an older one at that, since it's the bastard child of The King's Speech and Julia & Julia), and will get a limited theatrical release at best put in the same forum for discussion with the likes of The Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers.

Sure, but written and directed by MADONNA!!!! (to quote j7)

That overrules everything. Or maybe not.

I will therefore move this back to the general film discussion forum to save any more aneurisms.

Madonna makes good movies.

Have you watched Truth or Dare?

Desperately Seeking Susan?

Who's That Girl?

A League of their Own?

Dick Tracy?

Yes. All of them rubbish.

Where's your manhood, Sharky?

I've only watched a few of them, but I know they're all rubbish.