Listeners will be intrigued by the hosts' analysis of the film's unconventional premise involving a mystical car rental company and magical doors that serve as portals into the characters' pasts. However, instead of offering profound insights, the narrative feels more like a therapy session adorned with special effects, failing to explore the deeper issues surrounding Sarah's character and her serial cheating.
The episode delves into the film's creative pedigree, directed by Kogonada and written by Seth Rice, both known for their unique storytelling capabilities. Yet, the hosts ponder how such talent could miss the mark, suggesting that a focus on marketability may have compromised the film's artistic vision. They discuss how the film's structure mirrors classic psychological journeys but lacks the emotional payoff that audiences crave.
With a runtime of only 109 minutes, early test screenings revealed audience fatigue, indicating a disconnect that even the star-studded cast couldn't bridge. The hosts emphasize that the chemistry between Robbie and Farrell falters without a strong emotional foundation, illustrating how even the best actors can’t salvage weak material.
As the conversation unfolds, Chris and Jessica highlight a troubling trend in Hollywood where studios prioritize high-concept ideas over character development, leading to hollow experiences. They speculate on the future of romantic fantasies, suggesting a shift towards more character-driven stories with smaller budgets, echoing the success of grounded films in recent years.
Ultimately, *A Big, Bold, Beautiful Journey* serves as a cautionary tale that true movie magic lies in authentic emotional connections rather than star power or elaborate concepts. With a rating of 5 out of 10, the film exemplifies the challenges of balancing ambition with heartfelt storytelling.
https://www.bitesz.com/podcast/movies-first
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/movies-first.
To access the Movies First reviews archive visit our website at www.bitesz.com/podcast/movies-first
To access the Movies First reviews archive visit our website at www.bitesz.com/podcast/movies-first
00:00:00 --> 00:00:02 Chris: Star power in Hollywood is a fascinating
00:00:02 --> 00:00:05 illusion. Take this new film with Margot
00:00:05 --> 00:00:07 Robbie and Colin Farrell. That just proves
00:00:07 --> 00:00:09 how even $50 million worth of acting
00:00:09 --> 00:00:12 talent can't guarantee box office magic.
00:00:12 --> 00:00:14 Jessica: That's such an interesting point about the
00:00:14 --> 00:00:17 economics of star power. The industry keeps
00:00:17 --> 00:00:19 betting big on these pairings, but the
00:00:19 --> 00:00:20 success rate is surprisingly low.
00:00:21 --> 00:00:23 Chris: Well, let me break down this latest example.
00:00:23 --> 00:00:26 A big, bold, beautiful journey pairs these
00:00:26 --> 00:00:28 two A listers in what's essentially a $40
00:00:28 --> 00:00:31 million metaphysical romance. But somehow
00:00:31 --> 00:00:34 it manages to miss every emotional beat it's
00:00:34 --> 00:00:34 aiming for.
00:00:35 --> 00:00:37 Jessica: Hmm. Mhm. You know what's particularly
00:00:37 --> 00:00:40 striking about this film? The way they've
00:00:40 --> 00:00:42 taken this unconventional premise with the
00:00:42 --> 00:00:44 mysterious car rental company and somehow
00:00:44 --> 00:00:46 made it feel both over engineered and
00:00:46 --> 00:00:47 underwhelming.
00:00:48 --> 00:00:50 Chris: Right. And here's where it gets really
00:00:50 --> 00:00:53 interesting. The film uses this elaborate
00:00:53 --> 00:00:56 setup with magical doors as portals into
00:00:56 --> 00:00:58 the characters past relationships. But
00:00:58 --> 00:01:00 instead of feeling profound, it comes across
00:01:00 --> 00:01:03 like a therapy session with special effects.
00:01:03 --> 00:01:05 Jessica: The way they handle Sarah's character
00:01:05 --> 00:01:07 development really shows this problem.
00:01:07 --> 00:01:09 Instead of exploring why she's a serial
00:01:09 --> 00:01:11 cheater, they just use it as another plot
00:01:11 --> 00:01:11 device.
00:01:12 --> 00:01:15 Chris: You know what's fascinating? This film was
00:01:15 --> 00:01:18 directed by Kogonada, who did after Yang,
00:01:18 --> 00:01:21 and written by Seth Rice of the Menu fame.
00:01:21 --> 00:01:23 Both of those films were critically acclaimed
00:01:23 --> 00:01:25 for their unique storytelling. But something
00:01:25 --> 00:01:27 went seriously wrong here.
00:01:28 --> 00:01:30 Jessica: Well, that makes me wonder. What do you think
00:01:30 --> 00:01:32 happened in the development process that
00:01:32 --> 00:01:34 caused such talented creators to miss the
00:01:34 --> 00:01:34 mark?
00:01:35 --> 00:01:38 Chris: Looking at the industry patterns, my guess is
00:01:38 --> 00:01:40 there was too much focus on making it
00:01:40 --> 00:01:43 marketable. Statistics show that
00:01:43 --> 00:01:45 romantic fantasies with a list stars
00:01:45 --> 00:01:48 typically aim for a uh, $100 million box
00:01:48 --> 00:01:50 office, but that often leads to compromising
00:01:50 --> 00:01:51 the creative vision.
00:01:52 --> 00:01:53 Jessica: The HM, way they've structured these
00:01:53 --> 00:01:55 revelations through the doors reminds me of
00:01:55 --> 00:01:57 those classic psychological journey films,
00:01:58 --> 00:01:59 but without the emotional payoff.
00:02:00 --> 00:02:02 Chris: Exactly. And here's a telling detail. The
00:02:02 --> 00:02:05 film runs only 109 minutes, but early test
00:02:05 --> 00:02:07 screenings reportedly showed audiences
00:02:07 --> 00:02:10 finding it tedious. That's usually a sign
00:02:10 --> 00:02:12 that the emotional connection isn't working,
00:02:12 --> 00:02:14 no matter how short the runtime.
00:02:14 --> 00:02:16 Jessica: So what you're saying is they've essentially
00:02:16 --> 00:02:19 created a hollow experience despite having
00:02:19 --> 00:02:21 all these premium elements at their disposal.
00:02:22 --> 00:02:24 Chris: Well, let me put it this way. Industry
00:02:24 --> 00:02:27 insiders suggest that when films like this
00:02:27 --> 00:02:29 fail to connect, it's often because they're
00:02:29 --> 00:02:32 trying to serve too many masters. They want
00:02:32 --> 00:02:34 the commercial appeal of a romance, the
00:02:34 --> 00:02:36 critical respect of an art film, and the
00:02:36 --> 00:02:39 viral potential of a quirky indie, but
00:02:39 --> 00:02:41 end up achieving none of these.
00:02:42 --> 00:02:44 Jessica: That's fascinating how trying to appeal to
00:02:44 --> 00:02:46 Everyone often results in connecting with no
00:02:46 --> 00:02:46 one.
00:02:47 --> 00:02:49 Chris: And here's another crucial factor, the
00:02:49 --> 00:02:52 chemistry between Robbie and Farrell. Both
00:02:52 --> 00:02:55 are incredibly talented actors with proven
00:02:55 --> 00:02:57 track records, but without a strong emotional
00:02:57 --> 00:03:00 foundation in the script. They're essentially
00:03:00 --> 00:03:02 trying to create sparks with wet matches.
00:03:02 --> 00:03:04 Jessica: The way they underutilize such talented
00:03:04 --> 00:03:06 performers really shows how even the best
00:03:06 --> 00:03:08 actors can't elevate weak material.
00:03:10 --> 00:03:12 Chris: You know what's particularly telling? Recent
00:03:12 --> 00:03:14 studies show that audience engagement drops
00:03:14 --> 00:03:17 significantly when films prioritize high
00:03:17 --> 00:03:19 concept ideas over character development.
00:03:20 --> 00:03:22 This film seems to be a perfect case study of
00:03:22 --> 00:03:23 that phenomenon that really.
00:03:23 --> 00:03:25 Jessica: Captures why this film falls short of its
00:03:25 --> 00:03:28 ambitious goals. It's all concept and no
00:03:28 --> 00:03:30 heart looking.
00:03:30 --> 00:03:32 Chris: At the bigger picture. This film represents a
00:03:32 --> 00:03:35 concerning trend in Hollywood where studios
00:03:35 --> 00:03:37 are trying to create prestige pictures
00:03:38 --> 00:03:40 by throwing together prestigious elements,
00:03:40 --> 00:03:43 acclaimed, uh, directors, award winning
00:03:43 --> 00:03:46 writers, a list stars, without
00:03:46 --> 00:03:48 ensuring the fundamental storytelling works.
00:03:49 --> 00:03:50 Jessica: So what do you think this means for the
00:03:50 --> 00:03:52 future of these types of ambitious romantic
00:03:52 --> 00:03:53 fantasies?
00:03:54 --> 00:03:57 Chris: Well, based on industry trends, we're likely
00:03:57 --> 00:03:59 to see a correction. Studios might start
00:03:59 --> 00:04:01 focusing more on character driven stories
00:04:02 --> 00:04:04 with smaller budgets rather than these big
00:04:04 --> 00:04:07 swing metaphysical romances. After
00:04:07 --> 00:04:09 all, some of the most successful romantic
00:04:09 --> 00:04:12 films of the past decade have been more
00:04:12 --> 00:04:14 grounded affairs with budgets under $20
00:04:15 --> 00:04:15 million.
00:04:16 --> 00:04:19 Jessica: That makes so much sense. Sometimes less
00:04:19 --> 00:04:21 really is more when it comes to telling
00:04:21 --> 00:04:22 emotional stories.
00:04:23 --> 00:04:25 Chris: Let me leave you with this thought. In trying
00:04:25 --> 00:04:27 to create something big, bold and beautiful,
00:04:28 --> 00:04:30 this film ironically proves that true movie
00:04:30 --> 00:04:33 magic comes not from elaborate conceits or
00:04:33 --> 00:04:36 star power, but from authentic emotional
00:04:36 --> 00:04:37 connections that resonate with audiences.
00:04:38 --> 00:04:40 Score wise, a big, bold, beautiful journey
00:04:40 --> 00:04:41 gets a five out of ten.