pssst...Warcraft trailer just dropped, looks atrocious, based on video-game property, directed by Duncan Jones.

The CGI looked really poor, but I'm sure ultimately it's the utterly predictable plot that makes it look like Eragon 2, or possibly How To Train Your Dragon IV.

Can you imagine what Julie Delpy could have done with a $30 million budget and studio backing? Or any number of female directors not married to Brad Pitt?

Yeah, it's like breaking up a relationship two people committed to with marriage vows is frowned upon for some unfathomable reason.

The implication, though, is that Jolie gets the ability to make $30 million dollar movies without any talent, as opposed to Delpy, who if given the chance, could easily make a $30 million dollar movie where she plays another flighty twit who falls in and out of romantic shenanigans.

Don't get me wrong, through - they'd both do a fine job directing the next Marvel or Star Wars franchise project.

Just for clarification, that's two-time screenplay nominee Julie Delpy.

And yes, Jolie gets large budgets and studio backing specifically because she's banging Brad Pitt and not any demonstrable ability behind the camera. She had Roger Deakins and the Coens backing her up on Unbroken, and it stiffed.

Hey, Angelina makes a lot of things stiff.

True. Based on Wells' approval of a bathtub sex scene it seems that's all that's necessary for critics to justify her directorial career.

She is an okay director, not a great one. And why is suddenly "sisterhood" supposed to mean support any director just because she's a woman. Jolie is a big star with box office clout - her name alone sells movies so she can do what she wants.

Change nothing about the script or shooting locale, but instead of written and directed by Angelina Jolie you have written and directed by Julie Delpy, do you think we see a $30 million dollar budget and big studio distribution? Delpy would be lucky to get a VOD deal.

We bemoan the lack of opportunities given female directors but one jumped to the head of the line because of who she is instead of her talent behind the lens.

But isn't that the case with an enormous amount of directors? That they're not as great as their position would suggest, for whatever reason? And by the way, did you see it?

I saw Before Midnight, so why see the mopier knockoff?

Not saying you have to

Well I mean say whatever you will about Jolie as a talent but she is exactly what equality is the sense that she is an ok director getting to make films with decent sized budgets. Maybe she can become a Rob Marshall or a Tom Hooper, except as a woman, just an inexplicably mediocre director who keeps getting cracks at big movies.

Heaven forbid women filmgoers consider the work of women directors as FILMS, as they would male directors, and not just hand out trophies for participation.

That isn't what people are saying. They are saying stop with the sexist insults. And saying that she gets her clout because of her marriage is sexist - as if she hasn't made the studios lots of money. As if she isn't a pretty big draw and star in her own right.

And I'm pretty sure that $30 million figure is totally off as a production budget.

You call that 'clarification'? Those two nominations were for the scripts from the "Before..." series - a singularly unique collaboration between her, Hawke, and Linklater. The stuff she's written on her own fall far short of those script trimuphs, as does her two films she's directed in the style of "Before Sunrise". Her behavior towards the Chris Rock character in the second was so obnoxious I wanted to yell to Rock what he yelled to the friend who said he was on Martin Luther King Jr. drive: RUN!

Deakins wasn't framing her shots. I wonder if you'd give George Clooney or Ben Affleck's DPs all the credit for their compositions too. Of course it's impossible that a woman could be beautiful AND creative just because she was able to use her clout to get films made.

Her appearance in that Director's roundtable last year when Mike Leigh frankly asked her to speak about her work in less general, stupid terms than "the story had such great heart" and Bennett Miller leaping to poor little Angelina's defence convinced me otherwise.

That was something...

I hear ya on that. However I must have missed the tabloid headline that revealed Aniston had consented to what Jolie and Pitt were up to. Now personally, I don't care if these three want to re-enact the plot to "Single White Female". But if you were looking for a reason the 'sisterhood' was holding her in mistrust, the fact she cares not a whit about the committment made to another woman is actually a pretty good reason for that mistrust.

Angelina Jolie strikes me as someone who takes her Ayn Rand far too seriously and has spent the past 20 years wringing out every last bit of her daddy issues for PR, but her treatment of Jennifer Aniston has nothing to do with this film.

She's not a particularly good director on her own merits.

Good gawd. Are you going to suggest you don't see THIS as the epitome of sexist nonsense.

LOL! Were you at the BTS premiere yesterday? Have you really seen it?

Please just stop.

Repeat after me: i am not jennifer aniston; Brad Pitt wasnt married to me; and he didnt leave me for Angelina Jolie Pitt. Now breathe. Let it go. MKay? Dumbfvck.

I don't get it either, especially with all the bleating going on lately about the lack of female directors. I guess you need to look like Lena Dunham to get support from the sisterhood.

Dunham has said there are only 2 seasons of Girls left, I think her train is leaving the station unless she hits a homerun with a movie. She isn't mainstream enough to deliver a weekly show for any network not HBO.

Uh, why did you pick the number $30m? From a gossip rag? You don't have to like Angelina Jolie Pitt or her movie BUT You do have to get your facts straight.

Box Office Mojo states that its production budget was $10.0m. That sounds about right considering that its a movie with no special effects and not many sets.

http://www.boxofficemojo.co...

"Angelina's bathroom boobies pop through two or three times" is a great pull-quote to trick the mouth-breathers into seeing this.

I'd like to see "it’s somewhere between mildly okay and a little better than that" on a bus ad.

"Everyone regards La Notte as a classic of adult existential downerism, but By The Sea is punchier..."

Good God. Angelina Jolie making "punchier" films than Antonioni. Her two previous films were on the better side of mediocre. Film bloggers really long for beautiful actresses and old Hollywood glamour, it is the only possible reason I can fathom for the tongue bath her ordinary work receives.

I had avoided seeing La Notte for years because it sounded boring, but when I finally did watch it I loved it; if there ever was a movie that shows how important the director can be this is it for me; the actors are great but the direction is stunning...

Better than Antonioni (or, at least comparable), and yet it's only slightly better than mildly ok? Okay.................

I didn't say it was better than Antonioni's film. I said it was from the same general ballpark. God!

So glad you gave the film a chance and gave it an absolutely fair review, ie you didn't dismiss it as having "no reason for being." I loved the film, if love is right word for a movie about grief, discomfort in the world and in love but its window of hope and truthfulness, wit, performances, beauty, insights made it strong and those who've dismissed it out of hand sadly fucking wrong.

Thank you.

Everyone involved with the film from Angelina and Brad to Donna Langley and the NBC Universal top brass knew this would be divisive. Angelina told the NYTimes she knew some people would hate it. So credit to all of them for releasing it the way it is.