You are currently browsing amanda seyfried fan; -- your ultimate source for all things amanda seyfried

According to Dread Central Amanda’s latest thriller Gone will be released on DVD/Blu-ray May 29th. No information on any extras at this time. I have however added another poster to the gallery.

[2012] Gone: Posters

14 Responses to “Gone: DVD/Blu-ray Release May 29th”
    Comment by Brian — March 19, 2012 @ 1:35 am

    That is an extremely fast turnaround time from theaters to DVD. I’m guessing that the DVD will be bare bones. The In Time DVD extras sucked, but the Gone DVD will probably have even fewer features. Summit screwed up production and marketing on Gone, so at least they will show consistency when they screw up the DVD.

    Comment by Ferres — March 19, 2012 @ 5:50 pm

    Well, at least we get to own it sooner. :)

    Comment by Brian — March 19, 2012 @ 11:00 pm

    Nice to see you here Ferres. I checked Box Office Mojo yesterday and In Time is now over $172 million worldwide. That beats Crazy,Stupid,Love by $30 million and Tower Heist by $20 million.

    Domestic: $37,520,095 21.8%
    + Foreign: $134,500,000 78.2%
    = Worldwide: $172,020,095

    Comment by Ferres — March 21, 2012 @ 6:05 pm

    I was reluctant before when the comment section here was so literally dark.

    In Time is crazy, stupid. It made more money than JT’s last movie. By all accounts it’s flirting on blockbuster territory.

    Gone will probably make it’s money back with foreign sales. It seems to be just starting. If only it was handled better… sigh :(

    Comment by Brian — March 21, 2012 @ 11:16 pm

    Yeah, Gone was handled terribly by Summit and Lakeshore. After all the times I’ve seen it (I think around 15 or 16 now) I still can’t find much wrong with it. I would probably recast the main cop (Daniel Sunjata) and the sister’s bf (Sebastian Stan, who must drink very heavily) and I would make it very clear that the killer had intentionally left all of the clues for Jill in order to lure her back to the hole in the forest. Other than that, there really isn’t much to change. There are a few awkwardly written lines that could have been changed or dropped, and the exchange between the two a-hole patrol cops could have been dropped or turned into a joke about free donuts. The biggest change should have been the title. 12 Hours is being used in parts of Europe and is a much better title. The tag line on the poster cold also have been changed to “How far would you go to save your sister?” instead of the cheesy line on the poster, “No One Believes Her. Nothing Can Stop Her.” Those changes plus a completely different and much larger marketing campaign would have made a big difference.

    Comment by Ferres — March 22, 2012 @ 2:46 pm

    With such a terribly mundane title, it really needed a seriously clever bit of marketing. The trailer was just TV level quality and hardly any real ad campaign to speak of.

    “No One Believes Her. Nothing Can Stop Her” Yeah, way over the top lacking any subtlety. Kind of thing you’d expect from a b-grade Seagal flick.

    On a positive note, her performance is generally well reviewed even if they disliked the film.

    Comment by Brian — March 23, 2012 @ 8:00 am

    She received mostly positive reviews for RRH also. She really needs movies that showcase her talent instead of movies she has to try to save. The good performance in a critically panned movie has become a trend for her.

    Comment by Ferres — March 23, 2012 @ 2:41 pm

    Niccols next film ‘Host” would have fit her well. Some think Saoirse is too young for that role. With all the eyes thing, who else has the most striking eyes?

    Because she’s weirdly beautiful, people forget how great an actress she is. She naturally blends into her character.

    I really laughed in RRH when granny gave her the cloak, she was so convincingly appreciative of that crappy looking thing.

    Comment by Brian — March 24, 2012 @ 11:13 pm

    I don’t mind that she isn’t working with Niccol again. He’s a one note director who comes up with an interesting idea every ten or so years. He would be better off sticking to writing.

    Jessica Biel took a lot of heat when she complained that being beautiful closes a lot of doors in Hollywood. She wasn’t wrong. Great looks can start a career, but being beautiful does rule actresses like Amanda out of a lot of roles that go to actresses who are merely cute. Most female roles call for an actress who can be believable as a more or less regular person. Amanda usually isn’t given that sort or role since she obviously doesn’t look like a regular person. The Emma Stones and Carey Mulligans of the industry get that sort of role.

    Comment by Ferres — March 28, 2012 @ 8:32 pm

    Jessica Biel took the heat likely because most people don’t think she’s uberbeautiful in the first place.

    I think Emma’s team has overdone it a little when they polished her up. She’s a lot better looking now than she was a few years ago. Perhaps too good looking for a regular person role. I like J. Lawrence, a cool genuine personality similar to Amanda’s. She seems more evened out though compared to Amanda’s slightly frenetic personality. Maybe having brothers did that for her.

    Carey Mulligans has those sad eyes that really work for her in the types of roles she gets.

    I agree that Amanda’s features can sometimes work against her. And Hollywood’s current trend for huge spectacle flicks negate the need for strong actresses. When souless flicks like Transformers3 can rake in so much money.

    Comment by Brian — March 29, 2012 @ 2:01 am

    I think Biel took heat mainly because people don’t want to hear complaining from beautiful millionaires. She took heat partly because she isn’t a good actress. Despite that, she had a good point.

    This site doesn’t post paparazzi pics, which is good, but I’ve noticed that Amanda is being stalked hard by the paps, just like when she dated Phillippe. She should have stuck with her no dating famous people position. I hope her anxiety level isn’t jacked up again, like she said it was while she was seeing Phillippe. She really needs to be focused when she goes to New Orleans to film Les Mis. That’s going to be a career making or breaking role for her.

    Comment by Ferres — March 30, 2012 @ 5:00 pm

    Hartnett was a pretty low key guy for quite a while. Her dating him changed that though.

    I imagine it would be hard for her to go with civilians because they won’t understand the cost of dating a busy celebrity. I heard she tried it twice and didn’t work out.

    She gets more privacy during shoots, hope that helps.

    Comment by Ferres — March 31, 2012 @ 3:16 am

    After going through all the deleted/extended scenes from In Time, I have to say they were all keepers. They should have been kept. They filled in a lot of holes and character relations that would have made it a better film. Go trim the minutemen, they were pretty pointless and added so little to the movie and only served to suck the life out of a scene.

    Comment by Brian — March 31, 2012 @ 10:54 pm

    The deleted scenes were good. An early version of the script that I read had a scene in which Leon and Fortis made a deal to bring Will and Sylvia in. That should have been included as well. The sex scenes with Will and Sylvia were a little longer too. Sylvia was much less sympathetic in the script, so Amanda must have decided to make her more likable, which was a good idea.

    Hartnett’s career is straight to DVD now, but the tabloid press loves their “Hot New Couple Alert!” stories, so this will happen to Amanda anytime she dates an actor, even if he isn’t as popular as she is. She needs to stay away from douchey real estate salesmen, which is what she dated between Phillippe and Hartnett. The man jewelry wearing one from NY was bad enough, but the one JT set her up with in LA was worse.

You must be logged in to post a comment.