No special effects, no action scenes, no exotic locales, no expensive sets.
This movie doesn't look any more expensive than your typical Lifetime Specials.
[deleted]
Do NOT blame "hollywood" for this shameless exercise in self indulgence. Dozens and dozens of very good small movies are made every year. Ten times that number of imaginative scripts are optioned in the hopes that they will someday be produced. You can read the comments on some of those films that ARE made right here on IMDb: that they will never earn an Oscar or they didn't make a lot of money. That seems to be the standard so many op's use. So who can blame the powers that be to think if you mix in some otherwise terrific award winning actors with an award winning writer/director that you will produce gold no matter what the cost.
This film cost so much because each actor took top pay, as did the director/script writer and probably the cinematographer, the art director, the costume maker, etc. But they didn't deliver top performance to justify it with this tired, tired uninspired movie which was meant to be a Reese Witherspoon vehicle. Well, she got 0 mileage from it. And frankly, since I judge her performance to be one of the worst things about the film, that's karma.
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
Yes with an A list cast you'll pay them A list money ... and what a waste of money. I watched the movie to the end once. I believe the movie made 30 mil so it lost some dollars. Although the title says it all, "How do you know". Witherspoon finally realizes she loves Rudd's character ... I waited the entire movie for her to realize that. And then the final scene at the bus stop. That was funny ... made me want to rewind and watch again ... NOT!
Unfortunately this movie was dry as toast.
[deleted]
Jack Nicholson probably took half of the entire budget for his salary.
shareI had to comment when I saw the budget for this film. I'd recently tried (emphasis on the word "tried") to watch this movie on Starz cable and was bored to death. Then I looked up the movie and saw the 120M estimated budget. WTF?
How could this crap romantic-com movie cost that much to make?
There are a ton of romantic comedy films out there that much better produced with only a fraction of the cost in comparison to this film and achieved higher success. Major Hollywood studios have lost their minds with these film budgets, even when factoring inflation.
If the reason for this film's massive budget was because of the actors salaries (i.e. Jack Nicholson, Resse Witherspoon, Paul Rudd) then they should've found other actors.
No actor/actress is worth that much to inflate a budget for a film well beyond its own production levels. Maybe that's why the film bombed in theaters.
James Brooks was paid $10 million to direct the film. Reese Witherspoon was paid $15 million to star. Jack Nicholson was paid $12 million, Owen Wilson $10 million and Paul Rudd got paid the least with $3 million. I think it is also said that the slow production and post production was the reason why the film's budget was so high at $120 million.
share"James Brooks was paid $10 million to direct the film. Reese Witherspoon was paid $15 million to star. Jack Nicholson was paid $12 million, Owen Wilson $10 million and Paul Rudd got paid the least with $3 million."
And yet Tony Shaloub as the psychiatrist and Kathryn Hahn as the slightly neurotic secretary were the best performers in the movie.
the bottle of galliano in paul rudd's kitchen?
We're not soldiers and he's not the enemy. He's a pizza man.
And yet Tony Shaloub as the psychiatrist and Kathryn Hahn as the slightly neurotic secretary were the best performers in the movie.