Hey /tv/, my local arthouse cinema just announced a test screening of a Hollywood production that's showing next Wednesday.
They won't say what the film is, but the description is:
"A psychological thriller that delves into the depths of desire."
Also pic related is a still from the movie.
What do you think it is?
the handmaiden
>>71785542
Oh shit, you think so? What makes you think that? The actor in the pic isn't Korean...
Was that the tagline for the film?
Bump
I need answers
>>71785478
Captain Amazing
>>71785478
SOMEONE AT LEAST IDENTIFY THE ACTOR REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
The Girl on the Train, maybe? Is the synopsis and the still all you have or is a distributor listed?
>>71785478
Star Wars: Rogue One
>>71787166
That's the only info they're giving, other than that the film will be released in 2017 and it isn't finished yet.
>>71787166
>>71787291
"A psychological thriller that delves into the depths of desire.
Film companies sometimes rely on the input of the general public to gauge reaction and to further inform the creative process. This is a rare opportunity to see a film before it's finished.
Seating for this event is limited and we recommend arriving 15 minutes prior to start time. 17+ only please."
Girl on the Train fits the psychological thriller, I don't know about the "depths of desire" part.
But it's possible desu
>>71787385
Actually it can't be The Girl on the Train because this film is being released next year.
>>71787291
Maybe M. Night Shyamalan's Split then.
Elle dawg
>>71787519
"It's unknown when Principal Photography ended but it was confirmed on June 7th of 2016 that reshoots were occurring .
Fuck, this could be it.
Man, I really hate M. Night Shyamalan, but I really want to know what film this is.
>>71787610
Just call the Cable Car Cinema & Cafe and ask.
>>71785478
>A psychological thriller that delves into the depths of desire
The cuckold?
>>71787769
>implying they'd actually tell some random guy who may or may not show up what the film is
You're not supposed to know what movie you're seeing when you go into a test screening, otherwise it compromises your opinion of it in the eyes of those running the test screening
>>71787852
You don't have to ask for the name of the movie, just find an excuse to ask who the distributor or company running the test screening is. If you do this right and they actually know, they will tell you.
Or, you know, just go to the screening if you're so curious. Seeing a movie and knowing nothing about it beforehand sounds fun.
>>71787995
Well, I guess I'll give it a try tomorrow.
Thing is, I'd be blowing off a previous commitment to go see it though, and if it turns out to be M. Night Shyalaman's latest twiiiiiiiist, it would have been a waste of time.
