Close Menu
    Unterhaltung

    Warum Kinogänger „Die Braut!“ verließen „At The Altar: High Art Monster Pic könnte 90 Millionen US-Dollar verlieren“

    Share.
    View 25 Comments

    25 Kommentare

    1. GabeDef on

      Because nobody asked for this. This wasn’t scratching an audience itch. You knew this would bomb. Read the room next time.

    3. yahblahdah420 on

      Sounds like the executives fault. The movie was always going to be niche. If they couldn’t make it for under 20 million they shouldn’t have made it

    6. s_oakleyart on

      I’ve seen multiple articles this weekend acting surprised this didn’t make money. It’s a quirky art house movie…it was never going to be a box office hit. Like others have said, they probably shouldn’t have spent nearly as much as they did.

    7. Ludo_Fraaaaaannddd on

      I found the trailer annoying and the fact that I saw it over and over before seeing new movies really put me off. I think it was the terrible music and the way the trailer was edited. It pmo

      I’ve also seen the trailer for the next Colleen Hoover movie just as much and it wasn’t even close to how annoying the bride! trailer was. Although that looks just as bad if not worse. But I still might see it

    8. Wpgwatch on

      But it’s the audience’s fault I’m sure for not understanding the director’s genius.

    9. Tibbaryllis2 on

      > I understand that Gyllenhaal had a slew of ideas for what Bride! was — female empowerment movie, Bonnie & Clyde tragic love story, punk rock monster movie, all of which testing indicated needed to be stripped back. Exactly who this event was aimed at was also not taken into consideration.

      I find it interesting the article wants to compare this movie with Nosferatu and GDTs Frankenstein, but fails to mention this description is basically covered by Lisa Frankenstein (2024) that at least came close to breaking even (before advertisement) with a ~9 mil box office on a ~13 mil budget.

      At least LF understood it needed a niche budget for a niche film. How did this get greenlit for $90 million following LF?

    10. huntforhire on

      I went to the movie being reasonably excited for it and it’s an absolute mess.

    11. Honey-Badger on

      Honestly I was hyped reading about it but the trailer they put out looks awful.

    12. minicooperbrr on

      It’s a great movie – completely bonkers but Jess and Christian are phenomenal

    14. LoudNoises89 on

      I watched Hamnet and loved her in it and I love Christian Bale. I haven’t seen this so I wonder if it’s really that bad? There has been a lot of Frankenstein movies in the past few years. I think they should wait another 10 years.

    17. Afwife1992 on

      We’ve had a ton of Frankenstein movies but Bride of Frankenstein hasn’t been really be done since the 1930s. It could’ve stood out but doesn’t seem to have distinguished itself in its own right.

      They really needed a smaller budget too. This was only Maggie’s second movie. She had her brother and husband, they could’ve worked for less. Plus Buckley was in her debut directorial film and she had a prior working relationship with Bale, who’s known to take indie movies, from Dark Knight. I’m sure they would’ve been willing to take a smaller pay day.

      I mean, Poor Things was made for $35 and had Emma stone, Willem Dafoe and Mark Ruffalo. And had crazy good costumes, art and set direction. If this had that budget then even an opening like this wouldn’t have been a disaster.

    18. PositiveGuard4639 on

      Idk maybe bc we have real ish going on in America. I don’t think movies are even a thought to spend money on. I read review saying this movie was all over the place tho.

    19. stratguy1957 on

      The early trailers were so ambiguous and dark looking, you couldn’t get a feel for the tone of the movie

    20. Brilliant_Lettuce_14 on

      Classic best actor winner having a crappy next movie. Exhibit A: Ariana Debose and Ke Huy Quan

    21. PoliticalHitJob on

      Maggie Gyllenhaal has directed two movies before this with very little fanfare. I’m not sure what they expected this time around.

    22. BlondeBorednBaked on

      Hot take: I don’t care if a movie makes money or not. We aren’t the executives or movie studio. As an audience, we still get to see a cool looking 90 million dollar movie.

    23. Fuzzy-Butterscotch86 on

      I adore the Universal monster movies. Like the actual classics. I signed back up for Netflix after years just to see GDT’s Frankenstein. I reread Frankenstein, The Invisible Man, and Dracula every October. 

      Love Bale and Gyllenhaal. 

      This movie should’ve been like bait on the line for me, but I couldn’t be less interested in seeing it. I think hearing it described as a punk rock monster movie just destroyed my desire. I’ll wait the month it takes to end up on streaming. 

    24. KateGr88 on

      This is an art house movie at best and they spent $90mill just on the making of it? Where did they think they’d make that back? There’s no marquee value. No reason in the world it would make that back. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a brand new director / ex arty actress. Jesse Buckley is too new as a recognizable name. Did they do any ads? regardless this was never going to make any money. Was this a tax break movie? Sounds like it.

    25. TastyYogurtDrink on

      idk but I think it might have worked if they got someone else for young cop

    Leave A Reply