Quote:
Originally Posted by Roald
What I got out of this article is that mallick just feels very sorry for himself. What a joker.
|
I totally agree. I think the slant and scope of the article were very soft on the situation, especially given that there has been no (as of the writing) audit or inspection by an outside party according to Chris' own admission, so who really knows what is true and what is not?
Did the reporter set out to tell a story about Chris or did he let Chris decide how the story would be told?
I'm not accusing Chris of stealing a dime, not alleging it or even suggesting it -- I just think the article was very poorly focused given the circumstances -- the focus in the article on how good various people thought the movie was definitely didn't find support with the movie going public or else it would have done a bit better, to say the least.
Should be interesting to see how it does on foreign sales and DVD, ODV type sales, but perhaps comparing it to Pulp Fiction could be a bit of a stretch under any circumstances.
There were some other parts of the article that were either humorous or downright silly depending on how you read the sentences, but that's just my personal opinion.
Shame it wasn't more in the Christopher Hitchens or Dominick Dunne style of work.