Hey, this looks cute and kind of quirky. I wonder if the attention Alec Baldwin is getting for his role on 30 Rock will help this movie in the box office. SMG sure deserves it.

However, I'm still more excited for Possesion, which isn't scheduled for release until 2008. Lee Pace and SMG! That's gonna be awesome.

You gotta hand it to Sarah, she's been working very steady ever since Buffy ended. I may not have liked all her movies, but there's so much diversity in her choices that there's always something for everyone.

electricspacegirl | October 25, 10:38 CET

Well nothing anybody does will help in the box office since it's not getting a cinema release

Your mention of the attention Alec Baldwin is getting for his role on 30 Rock is another good reason to ask why on earth there is no cinema release .

garda39 | October 25, 15:30 CET

I've seen several extended clips of this film and I firmly believe that the reason this movie isn't getting a theatrical release is because it's not a good film.

The writing is mediocre and to be perfectly honest, Sarah's performance is wooden. She and Alec Baldwin have no chemistry, in my opinion. It just feels like a B-movie.

kdavid323 | October 25, 23:59 CET

These things are always subjective, of course, but the film received some positive reviews following the screening at the Tribeca Film Festival.

Brendon Butler at Cinema Blend wrote, “Some might find the pairing of Gellar and Baldwin sort of, how should we say, gross. That’s the initial feeling, yet as the reel rolls on, it’s not inconceivable why these two would be drawn to each other,” and, “This results in a pleasant enough watch, with solid performances by both Baldwin and Gellar, a snappy soundtrack and zingy one liners.”

Over at JoBlo.com, Jenny Karakaya wrote, “I was especially amazed by the powerful onscreen chemistry between Baldwin and Gellar. The dialogue was witty and both actors inhabited their roles with great conviction.” She gave the film 6/10.

I am looking forward to watching the film when the DVD is released and I see no reason why I won’t enjoy it. However, judging by the trailer, and even though Gellar does have a decent record at the box office, it probably is not a film that would have been guaranteed big business if given a theatrical release.

Having said that, plenty of bad films, or films that fail to find an audience, are released into cinemas. In many respects it does seem surprising that this particular film is going direct to DVD.

alien lanes | October 26, 00:34 CET

Well a lot of people and professional critics who saw the whole film at Tribeca don't agree with you kdavid323 .The first reviewer appears to be the only one in this collection of reviews who does
http://www.smgboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=19694&st=440

[ edited by garda39 on 2007-10-25 22:57 ]

garda39 | October 26, 00:43 CET

Garda39, sorry to appear dense, but are you responding to my post? If so, are you saying a lot of critics disagree with the two examples I have quoted, both of whom gave the film positive reviews? I did come across a couple of bad reviews, but I don't recall an abunbance of negative comment. In fact, generally speaking, the film seemed to be well receieved.

alien lanes | October 26, 01:21 CET

No , I was responding to kdavid323.I started composing my message just as you posted yours.I see now how it appears confusing as to what poster I am addressing.I will edit to make it clear

garda39 | October 26, 01:55 CET

Having seen it, I personally really, really enjoyed it. While every review wasn't glowing, the majority had good things to say. There's no obvious reason why this has gone straight to DVD. Seems like some bad decisions were made along the way. It probably didn't help that the whole Baldwin controversy was at its absolute height during Tribeca. I think it's safe to say that has a lot to do with the way things have ended up, even if it is clear that it was a short-sighted view.

With the right marketing, I think this film would have done well. A pity there won't be a chance to see how things would have turned out.

[ edited by Impossible on 2007-10-26 00:02 ]

Impossible | October 26, 03:01 CET

Regretably, the whole anti-female lead attitude expressed by a certain Warner Brothers studio chief, maybe much more prevalent in Hollywood than we know. "The Nanny Diaries" was a flop at $34 million. Jodie Foster's "The Brave One" only did $36 million. Nicole Kidman's "Invasion" made $28 million. Jane Fonda, Lindsey Lohan, and Felicity Huffman's "Georgia Rule" took in $18 million. Reese Witherspoon's "Rendition" and Cate Blanchett's "Elizabeth" only took in $4 million. I suspect these dreadful box office numbers are putting a chill in the air for female lead projects as a whole. Most of these films probably didn't recoup distribution and promotion costs let alone the cost of production.

In this atmosphere, regardless of quality or lack there of, it would appear to be safer to release a female lead film direct to DVD rather than go through the expense of distribution and promotion. I'm not saying I agree with this decission. I'm all for good female films with decent promotion and a wide release. It just seems to be a regrettable tread of the future.

Judging from the overall positive reception of Gellar's film at Tribecca, the straight to DVD release has much more to do with this poison atmosphere than the quality of the film.

[ edited by Anne 5_by_5 on 2007-10-26 04:24 ]

Anne 5_by_5 | October 26, 05:39 CET

And this atmosphere may be destroying Goners' chances as well.

shambleau | October 26, 21:02 CET

Allegedly expressed. Wasn't that rumor proven false pretty quickly?

Anyway, I really doubt Suburban Girl was put straight to DVD because of having a female lead. I find that really preposterous.

electricspacegirl | October 27, 01:09 CET

Many films far more terrible than this are released in theatres day in and day out. The film, though you might think it's B-rated after only seeing a few clips here and there, did well at Tribeca, received mostly solid reviews and was predicted to be a moderate hit at the box office. Of course SG isn't brilliant but it's different from the typical romantic faire, off beat and charming. Lack of quality isn't reason enough not to release this film and imo, is not to blame for the utter mishandling of this film.

You've not seen SG in its entirety so you can't know whether the writing is mediocre or that SMG's performance is wooden throughout or even that Alec and Sarah have no chemistry. I wouldn't say any of these things without having first seen the film.

Kyotoyoshi | October 27, 11:51 CET

Thank you, ElectroSpace Girl. I stand corrected as far as the Jeff Robinov misquote is concerned. I read seventy comments into the thread and didn't find the Variety article until you pointed it out. Thanks danregal for the correction. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117973754.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Suburban Girl truly has a few problems heading toward a wide release. It is an indie film bought out by a small time film distributor, Image. Image appears to have a few money problems, as it recently fought off a hostile takeover bid from a rival distributor. Image could be looking to make a quick buck. SG lost it's original title of "Girl's Guide to Hunting and Fishing" in a lawsuit. I'm not sure whether or not Alec Baldwin's personal problems would help or hinder a wide release. The DVD market for a small film like Suburban Girl is bigger than it's potential theatrical market. Add all this on top of the under performance of female lead films and things aren't looking good for a wide theatrical release.

I'm still looking forward to seeing this film regardless of how it is released. At the moment, I'm just wondering if it will be released in Canada at the same time as the US. It doesn't appear in either Amazon.ca or Chapter's dvd pages.

Anne 5_by_5 | October 27, 17:56 CET