A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

This comes out on Feb 17th. Rated R. Runtime is 2hr 26m. I remember reading a little about it a while back but haven't seen or heard anything about it since.

Synopsis: An ambitious young executive is sent to retrieve his company's CEO from an idyllic but mysterious "wellness center" at a remote location in the Swiss Alps but soon suspects that the spa's miraculous treatments are not what they seem.



I'm always down for Verbinski movies, the content may waver but they're always relatively cool visually.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

I remember seeing this trailer a while back and thought it was interesting. I dunno why, but it really reminds me of Shutter Island. I'll check it out.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

It reminds me a lot of Shutter Island as well, now with parasites. Isaacs has really upped his "insane brilliant doctor" role quota as of late.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

The fact that this is a studio movie based entirely on original material means I will probably see it. These are rare nowadays.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

This is not doing well so far with the critics, and I still don't know how I feel after watching the trailer, but I kinda still want to see it.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

I want to see it. It's a meaty 2.5 hour movie. Always expected from Gore Verbinski. My take on his movies - he throws pacing to the side and expects us to sit there and watch. I think that's a turn off to a lot of casual moviegoers. Hollywood has so much focus on keeping the pace brisk. But Gore Verbinski wants to give you the full unedited story.

I'd like to make comparisons to other filmmakers that successfully do this. But I don't think he's made a film yet that can sit next to those greats. Though I do think he's capable of it.

I never played Bioshock. But I got that feeling from some of the visuals. Are these scrapped and recycled visions from that project? That's the feeling I got from many of those shots.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

I haven't seen a movie of his that I haven't liked. And hell, I really enjoyed The Mexican. I thought that was a funny movie and actually enjoyed the story. Too bad most didn't.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

The Mexican is really good. I think people are turned off by its pacing. It requires you to sit there and watch the whole thing. I think it is the same reason people have a hard time watching old movies. That was mid-to-late 90's when everything started getting really fast paced. Now they edit everything as though the audience has ADD.

(Ugh. Talking like this makes me feel like and old man.)

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

I can't help but wonder if this is :A)Verbinski trying to prove that a big budget R rated horror movie can work and help get his "Bioshock" movie greenlit . B) Allegedly some of the Bioshock sets were built before the movie was shelved and this production is finally using some of them . C) Both A&B, or D) This movie more or less IS the Bioshock movie with the script re-worked to make it more of a traditional horror movie. Given the track record Hollywood has with video game adaptations that bare little resemblance to the source material , that wouldn't surprise me. Verbinski is a solid director, but he's not exactly what I would call an artist , more of a hired gun they trust with lots of money.

It's weird. I want this movie to be a hit because I know it will give big budget horror movies with the R rating a chance. However, I really don't want Verbinksi in charge of Bioshock if it happens. My dream production would have Guillermo del Toro or Tim Burton directing with a script adaptation by Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy , also acting as producers.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

Naw...it was just a bad poorly paced movie.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

Bump for opening.

40% on RT: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_cure_for_wellness

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

But by your measurement that makes all old movies poorly paced. They're so boring!

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

This is 2.5 hours long, and virtually every critic agrees that is far too long for this type of movie.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

How is him having the opinion that one movie is poorly paced a blanket statement on all old movies?

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

My friend gave it the benefit of the doubt:


http://whysoblu.com/cure-wellness-bi...-movie-review/

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

Not what I meant and I am pretty sure you know that. The Mexican in particular yes falls into that category. Not all older movies. Old to me is movies in the 1970's one of the best decades for movies period.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

Saw this last night. I wouldn't say the film is downright awful but it never lives up to it's potential.

Within the script (which is painfully predictable and a bit sloppy), there were small flashes of something a bit more interesting. The film never really let's itself get completely nutty and it suffers because of it. In that 2.5 hours, I kept hoping the film would drown itself a little more in the Genre tropes that exist in other films similar to it.

To it's credit, the film is shot beautifully and has fantastic set pieces.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

From Box Office Guru:

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

I have to see this on the big screen before it gets yanked. I understand it's style over substance and I am ok with that.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

Just came back from this and it was style over substance. The production design and cinematography were phenomenal. I'm glad I got to see it on the big screen.

I'll definitely be getting the Blu-ray. On side-note - I read that this film is what spawned out of Gore Verbinski's aborted Bioshock film along with some of sets and props. I don't know if that' true or not, but I read it.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

I posted that a few notches up from here, but I have no proof, just speculation.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

It's close to getting there. I know the theater that I saw it at opening weekend, now has it down to 2 (late) screenings.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

Yeah, I saw it in one of the smaller screens. 11:25am. The next shows are at 7:45 and last one at 11 something in the PM.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

I thought this started out well (minus some groan inducing dialog from his bosses) before disappearing up its own ass. But it is one of the best looking movies I've seen in a while, just beautiful locales and scenes left and right.

Considering what he squeezed out of the $40m price tag, I do wish Verbinski was given a shot at BioShock with a $100m budget, it would have undoubtedly looked spectacular.

Re: A Cure for Wellness (2017, d: Verbinski, s: DeHaan, Goth, Isaacs)
 

I thought this was pretty solid and involving until it hit the 2 hour mark...then it kept going, and the ending was atrocious.

3.25/5