A Star-Studded Miss: Unpacking the Failures of 'A Big Bold Beautiful Journey'
In this episode of *Movies First*, Chris and Jessica dissect the ambitious yet flawed romantic film *A Big, Bold, Beautiful Journey* starring Margot Robbie and Colin Farrell. Despite the star power and a hefty $40 million budget, the film struggles to deliver on its emotional promises, leaving audiences feeling detached and underwhelmed.
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
0
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.640
Chris: Star power in Hollywood is a fascinating
1
00:00:02.640 --> 00:00:05.080
illusion. Take this new film with Margot
2
00:00:05.080 --> 00:00:07.120
Robbie and Colin Farrell. That just proves
3
00:00:07.120 --> 00:00:09.680
how even $50 million worth of acting
4
00:00:09.680 --> 00:00:12.320
talent can't guarantee box office magic.
5
00:00:12.880 --> 00:00:14.600
Jessica: That's such an interesting point about the
6
00:00:14.600 --> 00:00:17.360
economics of star power. The industry keeps
7
00:00:17.360 --> 00:00:19.080
betting big on these pairings, but the
8
00:00:19.080 --> 00:00:20.800
success rate is surprisingly low.
9
00:00:21.360 --> 00:00:23.560
Chris: Well, let me break down this latest example.
10
00:00:23.560 --> 00:00:26.290
A big, bold, beautiful journey pairs these
11
00:00:26.290 --> 00:00:28.810
two A listers in what's essentially a $40
12
00:00:28.810 --> 00:00:31.650
million metaphysical romance. But somehow
13
00:00:31.650 --> 00:00:34.250
it manages to miss every emotional beat it's
14
00:00:34.250 --> 00:00:34.810
aiming for.
15
00:00:35.530 --> 00:00:37.970
Jessica: Hmm. Mhm. You know what's particularly
16
00:00:37.970 --> 00:00:40.450
striking about this film? The way they've
17
00:00:40.450 --> 00:00:42.290
taken this unconventional premise with the
18
00:00:42.290 --> 00:00:44.850
mysterious car rental company and somehow
19
00:00:44.850 --> 00:00:46.770
made it feel both over engineered and
20
00:00:46.770 --> 00:00:47.610
underwhelming.
21
00:00:48.410 --> 00:00:50.490
Chris: Right. And here's where it gets really
22
00:00:50.490 --> 00:00:53.350
interesting. The film uses this elaborate
23
00:00:53.350 --> 00:00:56.350
setup with magical doors as portals into
24
00:00:56.350 --> 00:00:58.710
the characters past relationships. But
25
00:00:58.710 --> 00:01:00.950
instead of feeling profound, it comes across
26
00:01:00.950 --> 00:01:03.030
like a therapy session with special effects.
27
00:01:03.590 --> 00:01:05.350
Jessica: The way they handle Sarah's character
28
00:01:05.350 --> 00:01:07.030
development really shows this problem.
29
00:01:07.750 --> 00:01:09.630
Instead of exploring why she's a serial
30
00:01:09.630 --> 00:01:11.550
cheater, they just use it as another plot
31
00:01:11.550 --> 00:01:11.990
device.
32
00:01:12.950 --> 00:01:15.310
Chris: You know what's fascinating? This film was
33
00:01:15.310 --> 00:01:18.070
directed by Kogonada, who did after Yang,
34
00:01:18.570 --> 00:01:21.050
and written by Seth Rice of the Menu fame.
35
00:01:21.530 --> 00:01:23.570
Both of those films were critically acclaimed
36
00:01:23.570 --> 00:01:25.970
for their unique storytelling. But something
37
00:01:25.970 --> 00:01:27.530
went seriously wrong here.
38
00:01:28.170 --> 00:01:30.490
Jessica: Well, that makes me wonder. What do you think
39
00:01:30.490 --> 00:01:32.330
happened in the development process that
40
00:01:32.330 --> 00:01:34.529
caused such talented creators to miss the
41
00:01:34.529 --> 00:01:34.810
mark?
42
00:01:35.610 --> 00:01:38.250
Chris: Looking at the industry patterns, my guess is
43
00:01:38.490 --> 00:01:40.330
there was too much focus on making it
44
00:01:40.490 --> 00:01:43.090
marketable. Statistics show that
45
00:01:43.090 --> 00:01:45.290
romantic fantasies with a list stars
46
00:01:45.850 --> 00:01:48.210
typically aim for a uh, $100 million box
47
00:01:48.210 --> 00:01:50.810
office, but that often leads to compromising
48
00:01:50.810 --> 00:01:51.770
the creative vision.
49
00:01:52.490 --> 00:01:53.690
Jessica: The HM, way they've structured these
50
00:01:53.690 --> 00:01:55.570
revelations through the doors reminds me of
51
00:01:55.570 --> 00:01:57.770
those classic psychological journey films,
52
00:01:58.010 --> 00:01:59.690
but without the emotional payoff.
53
00:02:00.570 --> 00:02:02.890
Chris: Exactly. And here's a telling detail. The
54
00:02:02.890 --> 00:02:05.650
film runs only 109 minutes, but early test
55
00:02:05.650 --> 00:02:07.770
screenings reportedly showed audiences
56
00:02:07.770 --> 00:02:10.490
finding it tedious. That's usually a sign
57
00:02:10.490 --> 00:02:12.170
that the emotional connection isn't working,
58
00:02:12.750 --> 00:02:14.270
no matter how short the runtime.
59
00:02:14.830 --> 00:02:16.710
Jessica: So what you're saying is they've essentially
60
00:02:16.710 --> 00:02:19.310
created a hollow experience despite having
61
00:02:19.310 --> 00:02:21.630
all these premium elements at their disposal.
62
00:02:22.510 --> 00:02:24.910
Chris: Well, let me put it this way. Industry
63
00:02:24.990 --> 00:02:27.350
insiders suggest that when films like this
64
00:02:27.350 --> 00:02:29.830
fail to connect, it's often because they're
65
00:02:29.830 --> 00:02:32.470
trying to serve too many masters. They want
66
00:02:32.470 --> 00:02:34.710
the commercial appeal of a romance, the
67
00:02:34.710 --> 00:02:36.990
critical respect of an art film, and the
68
00:02:36.990 --> 00:02:39.900
viral potential of a quirky indie, but
69
00:02:39.900 --> 00:02:41.340
end up achieving none of these.
70
00:02:42.060 --> 00:02:44.140
Jessica: That's fascinating how trying to appeal to
71
00:02:44.140 --> 00:02:46.180
Everyone often results in connecting with no
72
00:02:46.180 --> 00:02:46.460
one.
73
00:02:47.420 --> 00:02:49.860
Chris: And here's another crucial factor, the
74
00:02:49.860 --> 00:02:52.860
chemistry between Robbie and Farrell. Both
75
00:02:52.860 --> 00:02:55.139
are incredibly talented actors with proven
76
00:02:55.139 --> 00:02:57.780
track records, but without a strong emotional
77
00:02:57.780 --> 00:03:00.180
foundation in the script. They're essentially
78
00:03:00.180 --> 00:03:02.220
trying to create sparks with wet matches.
79
00:03:02.780 --> 00:03:04.860
Jessica: The way they underutilize such talented
80
00:03:04.860 --> 00:03:06.900
performers really shows how even the best
81
00:03:06.900 --> 00:03:08.860
actors can't elevate weak material.
82
00:03:10.050 --> 00:03:12.330
Chris: You know what's particularly telling? Recent
83
00:03:12.330 --> 00:03:14.890
studies show that audience engagement drops
84
00:03:14.890 --> 00:03:17.530
significantly when films prioritize high
85
00:03:17.530 --> 00:03:19.330
concept ideas over character development.
86
00:03:20.050 --> 00:03:22.290
This film seems to be a perfect case study of
87
00:03:22.290 --> 00:03:23.970
that phenomenon that really.
88
00:03:23.970 --> 00:03:25.770
Jessica: Captures why this film falls short of its
89
00:03:25.770 --> 00:03:28.370
ambitious goals. It's all concept and no
90
00:03:28.370 --> 00:03:30.050
heart looking.
91
00:03:30.050 --> 00:03:32.490
Chris: At the bigger picture. This film represents a
92
00:03:32.490 --> 00:03:35.170
concerning trend in Hollywood where studios
93
00:03:35.170 --> 00:03:37.650
are trying to create prestige pictures
94
00:03:38.050 --> 00:03:40.210
by throwing together prestigious elements,
95
00:03:40.690 --> 00:03:43.050
acclaimed, uh, directors, award winning
96
00:03:43.050 --> 00:03:46.050
writers, a list stars, without
97
00:03:46.050 --> 00:03:48.530
ensuring the fundamental storytelling works.
98
00:03:49.170 --> 00:03:50.810
Jessica: So what do you think this means for the
99
00:03:50.810 --> 00:03:52.890
future of these types of ambitious romantic
100
00:03:52.890 --> 00:03:53.490
fantasies?
101
00:03:54.450 --> 00:03:57.250
Chris: Well, based on industry trends, we're likely
102
00:03:57.250 --> 00:03:59.850
to see a correction. Studios might start
103
00:03:59.850 --> 00:04:01.970
focusing more on character driven stories
104
00:04:02.490 --> 00:04:04.650
with smaller budgets rather than these big
105
00:04:04.650 --> 00:04:07.530
swing metaphysical romances. After
106
00:04:07.530 --> 00:04:09.970
all, some of the most successful romantic
107
00:04:09.970 --> 00:04:12.250
films of the past decade have been more
108
00:04:12.250 --> 00:04:14.936
grounded affairs with budgets under $20
109
00:04:15.044 --> 00:04:15.530
million.
110
00:04:16.250 --> 00:04:19.010
Jessica: That makes so much sense. Sometimes less
111
00:04:19.010 --> 00:04:21.450
really is more when it comes to telling
112
00:04:21.450 --> 00:04:22.410
emotional stories.
113
00:04:23.130 --> 00:04:25.370
Chris: Let me leave you with this thought. In trying
114
00:04:25.370 --> 00:04:27.930
to create something big, bold and beautiful,
115
00:04:28.600 --> 00:04:30.920
this film ironically proves that true movie
116
00:04:30.920 --> 00:04:33.760
magic comes not from elaborate conceits or
117
00:04:33.760 --> 00:04:36.120
star power, but from authentic emotional
118
00:04:36.120 --> 00:04:37.880
connections that resonate with audiences.
119
00:04:38.440 --> 00:04:40.720
Score wise, a big, bold, beautiful journey
120
00:04:40.720 --> 00:04:41.960
gets a five out of ten.
