Rules Don't Apply : I was the only person in the theater

It looked like such a interesting film, great cast. I was surprised to watch it alone today. It was okay, but a little disappointing. Hope other crowd reports are more encouraging.

Me & my best friend were the only 2 people in the screening.

I experienced basically the same crowd count(4)and personal reaction to the filmdisappointing is the word.

I was the only person in my theater but really enjoyed the film.

Sadly, your User name should be BroBoner

Great f#$%^n' movie!

I was one of two who saw it in a local theater on opening day. Production values are outstanding, the cast is uniformly excellent and it is very well directed.

It's still a disappointment. A mildly interesting screenplay produced as well as possible can only be so involving. It just didn't seem to have any point, any reason to be, and I grew tired watching it.

I went on Wend. It was me and five other people.

I went on Wed. It was me and five other people.

Reminds me of what Paul Schroder said recently. The movies were not better in the 70s. The audiences were smarter.

This will not make money, but Bad Moms did

I was there in the 70s. This film would have been at best a mid hit even then.

The 1970s had a lot of dramedy movies, Woody Allen was a big turd then, and every big star did an action/cop movie and then five crappy drama movies. They were usually not major hits, but they won Oscars for middle-aged actors. That is what Warren Beatty remembers, and during the time when he should have been cranking out movies (1970s), he was drunk and getting laid with all the starlets, and now he is around 80 years old and should just crawl back under a rock and die.

Sorry but totally disagree and thats such a dumb thing for Schrader to say.

Overall the movies being made in the 70s were of a better standard due to a combination of stuff like the people who were making them being determined and inspired to make vital films and also the political climate at the time in America. You had stuff like Vietnam and Watergate which produced movies like Apocalypse Now and All The President's Men. There isnt really a modern equivalent to that I'd say.

Its not that the audiences are not smart enough but that the studios today insist on aiming for the lowest common denominator with their tent pole, franchise movies which lots of people seem to hate but which make lots of money.

I would actually agree more with what Jack Nicholson said on the matter, he basically said that back then more often than not they were making movies for adults. I'd agree with that.

On the subject of RDA Warren Beatty's days of box office success are long gone. How many of this generation even know who he his? None of the younger actors are exactly huge names either. He should probably have cast a more relevant actor instead of himself.

It smells like a Spin Doctors concert in here.

Paul Schroder? Is that Ricky Schroder's brother?

I've always wanted to see a movie by myself in a theater. I've come close a few times.

As for Rules, most people are having your reaction. Disappointing. Beatty hasn't been in a movie in 16 years. He's not a big star anymore. Maybe he should have cast someone else as Howard.

No, I don't think he needed to cast someone else as Howard. He's quite good. The problem is that the story of Frank and Marla doesn't really need the story of Howard Hughes, and vice versa. They get in each other's way. Oddly and unexpectedly, the story of Frank and Marla is more interesting, and the air eventually goes out of the film as it spends more time on Howard.

The parts outweigh the sum here.

---

He's quite good.

---

I'm sure he is. Beatty is still a great actor. But he's not a box office draw anymore. He hasn't starred in a movie since 2001, and that film was a massive bomb (Town and Country).

That's why I thought he should have went with a better known actor.

I feel the same way about this movie, and various critic reviews say the same thing.

I really enjoyed the movie overall, but even at slightly over 2 hours, it feels light; with not a lot of substance. I think the problem is it was billed as "Marla, Hollywood Newcomer, Meets Her Driver, and Fun Romance Ensues" and the plot isn't really that succinct. I kind of felt like it jumped all over the place, even with so little story to tell, and while I like movies that 'hide' parts of the plot from the trailer, I felt like the Marla/Howard story needed either more or better development. Also, many of the scenes toward the beginning felt especially rushed, for whatever reason which bothered me a little. But maybe that's just poor editing.

There were two people including me, in my showing, and the other guy fell asleep. I didn't think it was THAT bad.

Did that twice. Once on a date, since it was only the 2nd date I should have been really slick and said I bought out the theater.
The 2nd time was after that 4th Indiana Jones movie had been out for a month. Only went-by myself-since the power was off at home, after a thunderstorm, and it was 90+ degrees and no AC.
It is kind of interesting to experience that now that you mention it.

"It's the system, Lara. People will be different after the Revolution."

I wanted to see the movie with a fat girl so we could have sloppy sex on the recliner chairs and nobody would notice.

Don't tell me. I had the same feeling when I walked into the theater (Union Square, NYC) last night.
8 people. That's it.
I doubt the movie will break any box office records BUT, my hope is for RDA to get plenty of Oscar Nominations in late January. If that happens then people will go see it (check out "Million Dollar Baby". It was a bomb, before the Oscar Nom came out).
Fingers crossed.

GREAT MOVIE BTW! I LOVED IT!

There will not be any Oscar nominations. The movie is only high 50's on Rotten Tomatoes and absolutely bombed at the Box Office with something like $2 million over 5 days. Moreover, the movie has been fading heavily. The initial reviews were much higher, while the later reviews were much lower. That actually makes sense, since Beatty schmoozed up the initial critics with tales of Hollywood in the 50's and 60's which led to higher reviews (which is basically the same strategy that he and Towne did with Pauline Kael and other critics back in the 70's). But now there are way too many critics to schmooze up. Thus, the later reviews have been terrible. Fox will start pulling Theaters ASAP and this movie will be gone and forgotten by next week.

Ok. Maybe it won't be around to make any theatrical profit, but it'll make it across the world (it's a Fox movie) and in VOD.
And - hey, it's one man's humble opinion - it'll be nominated for some Academy Awards (it's just a matter of how many).

It won't make one penny across the world! Beatty is not an international draw, and neither is anyone in the cast. But even if he was, it is not the kind of movie that does well internationally. It is an American period movie, not a European one. And a movie that is sitting in the high 50's on Rotten Tomatoes is not going to be nominated for Academy Awards, especially in a year where there are so many better movies. Moreover, the fact that you and Eddie Cantor are arguing so vigorously for this dog of a movie leads me to believe that you are either friends of family of Beatty or someone else involved in the production.

"Moreover, the fact that you and Eddie Cantor are arguing so vigorously for this dog of a movie leads me to believe that you are either friends of family of Beatty or someone else involved in the production."


HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, I wish! No, buddy. I'm just a Warren Beatty fan and a guy who doesn't give a *beep* about rotten tomato.

But I find it amusing how certain you are that it won't get nothing. I mean set design? cinematography? Nothing! Not even 1 Nomination?

Are you a member of the Academy, by any chance? Just kiddin'.


BTW

plenty of theaters are still showing the movie in NYC.

https://www.google.com/#q=rules+don%27t+apply+nyc

ALSO

Rules Don't Apply is screened in plenty of countries. Check out the IMDb page:

http://www.imdb.com/board/11974420/releaseinfo?ref_=ttfc_ql_2

I usually go to a late screening and am often the only person in the theater. It's a welcome break from the jerks who insist on using their cell phones during the movie.

LOL. I'm not surprised. Warren Beatty began fading in the early 80s and eventually just completely fell off the map. That's why his name brand isn't a big draw at the box office, not even with older viewers.

Dick Tracy made 103 Millions in US box office. Budget was 40 M. You call that fading?

That was more than a quarter century ago. Most Hollywood careers don't last that long; it's a LONG time to go without a hit.

Fair enough.

That was 25 years ago. Are you kidding me? Are you some of kind of Beatty fanboy?

It opened here on Fri. and I saw it on Satur. Maybe 6-8 people in theater which doesn't bode well for a financial success butit was an adorable little film rather than an overblown extravaganza. Beatty near Oscar-worthy or at least Golden Globes for his performance. Lily Collins a young Liz Taylorwow.

HELL YEAH!

I saw in a lot of chat rooms that people were encouraging a boycott of Moana because Lin Manuel of Hamilton was in it. Moana has already been declared a hit. Maybe folks got confused and thought Lin had something to do with Warren's great film.

There will be no one watching on Monday.

It's that man again!!

I looked in a showing today and not one person was in there. 100% empty

Went last night - we were the only two there.

Did you, uh

you know