I just love that these stories live in the same quirky-European-ladies-played-by-Dames-strange-bedfellow-buddy-dramedy multi-verse.
shareThis is what Hollywood does. They see something that worked and they try to replicate it until people finally get tired of it.
shareIdiots! The two movies are quite dissimilar.
shareI've watched both films and I enjoyed the two. It's doesn't really matter if you make the most innovative film or one with a plot similar to another as long as they don't suck.
shareIt is bound to be a massive box-office success.
share[deleted]
It's just a comment on the superficial similarities which no doubt crossed the marketers' minds when the time came to promote this. It's condescending to project simple-mindedness on anyone who rolls his or her eyes though when Hollywood pushes out another film about a wronged quirky elderly European lady who goes on a road trip with a male sidekick to find answers and justice. Obviously they are different, but did this require a rant like yours? Before you rant again, the answer is, "No."
shareIanDSmith is the one who is condescending. If he had actually SEEN these two excellent films, he would know just how "superficial" his comment is. Why does he call Maria and Philomena "quirky"? Because they are old? How dare a film tell inspiring, true stories about older women who are no longer sex objects! News flash: there are lots of people who don't run around in spandex as superheroes. There are a hundred mindless action and comic book movies out there and you have a problem with real, heartbreaking stories about brave, resilient women of a certain age. It's Mother's Day, show some respect. These movies have done well because they are about human beings searchinging for justice.
Calling everything a "Hollywood" film is just lazy. Both are more British than Hollywood. And lumping a Jewish, Austrian-American together with a Catholic woman from the UK is also just lazy thinking. A movie about crime fighting vigilantes...what film am I talking about?
Oh get over yourself. You don't know a damned thing about me, and your trying to insult me over this of all things is both tawdry and insufferably self-righteous.
I was raised watching PBS and my tastes were informed by my mother who adored British mysteries, drama and comedy. It's obvious you have no idea that I've been on these message boards lamenting how the great Penelope Keith is not being considered for roles of the type Judi Dench and Hellen Mirren are gobbling up. This is not a normal thing for a 30 year-old to do, but it also speaks to how ignorant and pointless assumptions like yours can be - thinking I must only like action and comic book movies without wondering why I'd even bother to visit this film's IMDb page in the first place.
I love all types of movies, Hollywood or otherwise, but let's not argue about whether or not these two films were bankrolled by Harvey Weinstein... because they were. I've seen both, thank you very much. Philomena is both wrenching and charming if a little trite and blunt, Woman in Gold has good performances but is predictable and uneven, IMO.
Please do not try to lecture someone about respect again until you learn to consider how voicing such specific assumptions about the people behind their handles is both pointless and insulting. And learn not to directly reply to someone's post and still refer to him in the third person.
Frankly I don't want to know anything about you. That's two minutes of my life I can't get back. If you want respect, show respect. Why did you bother to come to a board for a Holocaust-themed film only to make a sarcastic comment? You called the story of a Holocaust survivor going back to Austria for the first time in 60 years a "road trip". How exactly did I "insult" you? You complained that there were two movies about older women seeking justice. Have you complained about the hundreds of action films about fighting bad guys? At least these two movies are about something real from true stories.
You found Philomena "wrenching and charming", but "trite and blunt"? Do you know what those words mean?
The producers for this movie are Origin Pictures (UK), 2nd District Filmproduction (Austria) and BBC Films (UK). Weinstein is one of the distributors. Lecture over.
I have actually complained about all sorts of genres which blend together into one another, including comic book and action movies. Thank you for asking me! I think we are getting closer now, personally!
And yes, Philomena is wrenching in how it portrays her tragic circumstances and Dench's performance betrays pain, acceptance, forgiveness and steel all at once. Philomena is also a character who veers a little too far into an Irish simpleton cliche and Coogan's vitriolic attack upon the nun at the end of the film is a little too on the nose, so yes, "blunt." Both films were brightly marketed by the Weinstein Company very similarly, but if you need everyone to summarize any movie related to the Holocaust with solemnity then you must start a protest internationally!
Thank you for the lecture and I hope you'll consider that we might be fast friends in real life watching The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel and co-writing self-righteous letters to the heads of all the major studios! It's been a real privilege, but you really need to learn how to be calmer about these sorts of things, even when people stand up to you with pretty lazy sarcasm just because you might be being hysterical. Based on real life or not, they're just movies and not worth an aneurism.
Don't worry, I'm quite calm, I just like a good debate and I was sticking up for "better". Your word "rant" was a bit harsh for someone who simply disagreed with you. For the record trite doesn't mean what you think it does. I have never heard of another movie about a woman who had her child taken away and goes looking for that son late in life. If there were a dozen movies on the same subject that would be "trite" (overused, unoriginal). Your issue seems to be with the marketing (Weinstein) which really doesn't have anything to do with the subject matter itself. The Woman in Gold (from the excellent book Lady in Gold)was in the works before Philomena came out. Neither is a Hollywood film. In fact there are few Hollywood actors or directors in either film. Reynolds and Maslany are Canadian. Coogan, Mirren and Dench are from the U.K. etc. It is a bit insulting to other countries to call everything a Hollywood film (for better or worse). Thanks for the debate.
shareFunny enough, I just was at a party with someone who works regularly with Harvey Weinstein and he mentioned the marketing for Woman in Gold was specifically designed to appeal to the same crowd who flocked to Philomena. You're absolutely right TWC was only a distributor and the actual substance of the films is disparate (and this thread started only after the marketing campaign for this film began), but they really did advertise them both with the same key elements front and center and even made the tone of the films seem similarly balanced between comedy and drama.
shareIan, thank you for the thoughtful response. You have come a long way from a somewhat juvenile "Can't Wait for the Philomena crossover movie". I like humour, even dark sarcasm or The Life of Brian, but maybe a Holocaust-themed film is not the appropriate place for joking. Too soon? Maybe. (I once got an angry letter from a man who found out a dark family secret (from the 1890's!)in one of my articles on the Titanic. I felt badly for the man, but how was I to know?) There was some humour in both films, but the underlying theme was very serious. From what I have read, Maria did have a good sense of humour and could laugh at some of the absurdities of life. I can understand marketing the two films to appeal to "the same crowd" ...a more mature and, dare I say it, intelligent audience that is largely ignored by Hollywood. There is a big group of older (and younger) people out there who appreciate a true life drama about ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. Weinstein will always shoot for that Oscar, nothing wrong with that. Again, the "tone" of the film was not dictated by marketing or Weinstein, the distributor. If you read the book The Lady in Gold, you will see that Maria was very much like the feisty person portrayed by Helen Mirren (though not the feisty babe that glorious 71 year old Mirren still is). Did you know that Maria was still working at 85? I suspect you would have liked her and Philomena, honest, down-to-earth people who don't pretend to be something they are not.
shareThis is the most condescending comment I've seen on imdb. The comment above yours is hardly more of a rant than your initial post.
share
shareI thought exactly the same thing right away. I liked Philomena a lot more because of the acting and the story line and how it was presented to us with and food-for-though in the end. This one was just another movie showing some "justice".
share