Jennifer Lopez Pulls Out of Savannah Film Festival After ‘Kiss of the Spider Woman’ Fumbles- Page 2

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/30/25 at 10:38am

Bette's Turban said: "joevitus said: "DAME said: "Well; yesterday I received my "for your consideration" screener. And for the life of me I just do not understand why they send out this media in such poor form. These screeners are always in 2 channel sound and without proper mixing. It also has airline quality feel to the image. How is anyone even going to consider voting for this? And that is the way most screeners come. I don't get it. Spend a little money. Have a little pride in your product. Glad I got a chance to catch it at the academy screening."

Does this mean screeners are usually of higher quality? I don't know why I had the impression that, as a rule, they are poor so as to deflect attempts at pirating them. While I don't think the visuals are amazing or anything, the look of the fantasy sequences are clearly central to the movie's appeal. Too bad that won't really register. Also sucks that sound isn't good for, you know, a musical."

Screeners have in the past been of poor quality. Unless the film already has a home release by the time campaigning begins, you usually get the cheapest thing they can make. Even the digital offerings are just as bad. I don't think pirating is as much the concern it used to be. I hate screeners. I Usually only watch them if I am 100% sure I won't be able to get to the theater or if a home commercial streaming opportunity is not around the corner."

Thank you for this!

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 10/30/25 at 3:11pm

George in DC said: "EricMontreal22 said: "MerchMan said: ""Fumbles"? That's a nice way of saying bomb!!! Lopez is box office poison! Failed movies, failed albums, failed tour and a failed marriage!!! Her delusional arrogance is a turn off to audiences for a movie that really didn't have an audience to start off with!"

She's not to blame here though--well except for the fact that she didn't bring in audiences like they had hoped."



Hmm. She can't act. Her singing now is questionable. And now her name has no impact. Yes, this is on the untalented Jello



"

Her acting and singing weren't really bad at all. It's not the stand out performance she was really hoping for, but she was very serviceable in the role. I can't really complain about her. She was just fine.

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 10/30/25 at 3:59pm

MerchMan said: ""Fumbles"? That's a nice way of saying bomb!!! Lopez is box office poison! Failed movies, failed albums, failed tour and a failed marriage!!! Her delusional arrogance is a turn off to audiences for a movie that really didn't have an audience to start off with!"

Her last two theatrically released movies were Marry Me, which made $50 million against a $23 million budget (so… fine considering the theatrical landscape for romcoms) and Hustlers which made $150 million against a $20 million budget and garnered her quite a few major award nominations. Hardly poison if you ask me. 

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 10/30/25 at 4:14pm

EricMontreal22 said: "Scarywarhol said: "She did pretty well with what she had. It was completely misconceived on a creative level as an adaptation and as a film, and it alienated what little existing audience there was without courting a new one. The obsessive vitriol aimed like a laser at Lopez is getting weird all over the place. Or got weird years ago."

It is weird, although I didn't find it completely misconceived (and I haven't noticed that it particularly alienated any existing audience but I may have missed that.)"

Yeah I'm probably being too hyperbolic off my own disappointment and the echo chamber of theater people in my feeds. I don't mean to speak for everyone. But given the BO performance and tepid reception in general I do feel like there was at least a missed opportunity to create something that would be ecstatically embraced by theater fans and it was not taken, in favor of once again trying to court a fantasy musical audience that doesn't like musicals. Wicked, and even films like In The Heights and West Side Story, which fumbled (to a less embarrassing but larger -scaled degree) commercially in the pandemic years, were proud musicals and the musical audience embraced them full-heartedly. Here, the first Broadway musical drama I can think of to portray physical gay love in a serious way won't even let those characters sing about their feelings. I'm sorry, but it feels wimpy to me and clearly the film did not connect at large despite some respectful reviews. 

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 10/30/25 at 8:08pm

I genuinely appreciate you explaining your reaction.  I *will* say that the trailers (if anyone even saw them) didn't shy away from the fact it was a musical, unlike many recent musical trailers.  But I get your points, and to some extent do agree with them.

However, I guess I just think it did *so* amazingly badly that I don't think this was even a case of fans of the musical being alienated by the film's approach to the material.  Unless they all had heard ahead of time about the non-diegetic songs being cut, the problem seems to really be simply making people aware the movie is out there (and trust me, I've heard from fans of the musical who had no idea about the movie) and getting people in those seats.  Attendance was so low that I don't think this was a case of bad word of mouth causing people not to go, but simply that people weren't going and didn't know to go.  Certainly in my limited circle, while, yes, I haven't seen a lot of people blown away by it, but more often than not the reaction I've see have been people who *liked* it at least enough to recommend that others check it out too.  So I have to think there's a bigger problem here (even if I'm sure people think I'm grasping here.)

[joevitus]

Posted: 10/31/25 at 11:39pm

Scarywarhol said: "EricMontreal22 said: "Scarywarhol said: "She did pretty well with what she had. It was completely misconceived on a creative level as an adaptation and as a film, and it alienated what little existing audience there was without courting a new one. The obsessive vitriol aimed like a laser at Lopez is getting weird all over the place. Or got weird years ago."

It is weird, although I didn't find it completely misconceived (and I haven't noticed that it particularly alienated any existing audience but I may have missed that.)"

Yeah I'm probably being too hyperbolic off my own disappointment and the echo chamber of theater people in my feeds. I don't mean to speak for everyone. But given the BO performance and tepid reception in general I do feel like there was at least a missed opportunity to create something that would be ecstatically embraced by theater fans and it was not taken, in favor of once again trying to court a fantasy musical audience that doesn't like musicals. Wicked, and even films like In The Heights and West Side Story, which fumbled (to a less embarrassing but larger -scaled degree)commercially in the pandemic years, were proud musicals and the musical audience embraced them full-heartedly. Here, the first Broadway musical drama I can think of to portray physical gay love in a serious way won't even let those characters sing about their feelings. I'm sorry, but it feels wimpy to me and clearly the film did not connect at large despite some respectful reviews."

I really don't see how this wasn't a "proud" musical. There are moments where people sing in the prison, and I wouldn't exacly say movies like Cabaret, Pennies From Heaven or Chicago were "embarrassed" to be musicals. It's just a different approach to how the songs are incorporated. I'd say with their elaborate productions numbers and clear love of the movie musical past, they are embracing the genre far more than something like, say, Jersey Boys. 

As disappointed as I was with the movie the first time I saw it, I find myself defensive of it on some level. It was a a project with limited commerical appeal (true for the Broadway show, as well), a largely unknown cast, absolutely nothing like the advertizing budget needed to excite either the moviegoing or theatergoing audience. The reviews were, in fact, pretty good overall. It was a niche offering that sneaked into cinemas for about two weeks tops. I'm sure I'll revisit it on home media.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 11/1/25 at 2:44am

I know I still haven't given my actual review of the film (I'm sure everyone is on pins and needles) but I think I largely feel as you do.  I saw it twice in the one week it played here (luckily I had people who wanted to see it) and the second time I actually came around to some of my criticisms when I first saw it.  At any rate, faults and all, it's a film I'm really glad was made and one I do... admire, as weird a word choice is that.  I think Condon is a good (not great) director (I actually like his directing best in two non musical films--Kinsey and especially Gods and Monsters.)  And I don't think Condon would have it in him to find a way to make the non-diegetic prison songs work.  But I'm also glad that Rob Marshall didn't get to this (even if his choreography helped make the Hal Prince production--he was brought in relatively late when Vincent Paterson's choreography--I think he was best known for choreographing Madonna's Blonde Ambition tour at the time--wasn't working, which is why Marshall still got just an "additional choreography" credit.)

At any rate, I don't think it ever tried to hide the fact it was a musical, unlike a lot of recent films (many that did have non-diegetic, I hate that term, songs) so I don't get the "It's not a proud musical" critique.  I would get the BluRay if we get one (I assume we will, but you never know anymore) and hope, out of curiousity, it has the stuff that was apparently filmed but cut.