So you’re saying that Zoolander could have been awful in a transcendent sort of way? That’s kind of like saying that the Blair Witch Project could have been just as bad if it had been shot in an artistic manner. It would have been just as bad but with a lot more meaning thrown in to somehow grant the movie a deeper and more philosophical lean. Yeah, bad is bad. Why Zoolander ever got past the initial production phase is kind of hard to imagine but to be honest it seems like a lot of movies that should have blown up in the idea phase have gotten out of their respective cages over the years.
Terrence Malick isn’t the issue here, the guy has done some great things with films, but it’s probably a good idea that he didn’t get his hands on Zoolander, otherwise his reputation might have taken a hit that he couldn’t bounce back from so easily. The movie somehow got support and sponsors to back it but I kind of wonder if some of them were shaking their heads and clapping their hands to their eyes in an attempt to forget just how big of a mistake it was to put this film into play. It wasn’t a great movie by any means, and in all honesty it made male models look like stylized morons without a brain in their heads except for what it took to look pretty and use their different movements while on stage.
Ben Stiller is a great actor but obviously he’s made a couple of movies where he basically had to act like a trained monkey to get a response from the audience. In my humble opinion he’s too good an actor for this kind of role and it should have been left to someone else. But obviously it wasn’t and just as obviously the studio felt that the movie was a big enough hit that second one would be warranted. I’m kind of scratching my head here wondering why when the revenue from the first film didn’t manage to put up any phenomenal numbers. It’s kind of confusing to see why they would think it would make sense to revive something that people forgot about the moment they saw it. Wouldn’t that be a big red flag?
Apparently not to Hollywood. Anytime something does so poorly it means they need to try it again and try harder the next time. That’s a sound idea in some cases but if you’re losing money on the first one and using the same formula, just more of it, in the second one then wouldn’t you think the risk could be that you’d lose twice as much? I guess I don’t understand Hollywood that much, my loss, but not really.
Zoolander was kind of a dud, even if there are fans that would say otherwise. It wouldn’t have mattered who directed it simply because the film was a fast track to nowhere. It kind of makes sense to cast actors that already had established their fame in the industry. At least then they would understand how to make a comeback from something like this.
Follow Us
