I'm all for honest portrayals of the unrelenting difficulties of raising a child, especially without spousal support. But does the character have to be so unlikable, sacrificed to making this something of a horror film? (Full disclosure: I stopped watching halfway in, wondering if I'd failed to notice that it might actually be billed as one.)
Glacially slow and underwritten, this film is in desperate need of scenes with dialogue that gives us more than a glimpse into who these characters are, what motivates them, and how they relate to one another. (Are clipped "conversations" supposed to be cool?) NB: if you're not a fan of jazz, the score will be irritating and distracting.
If you like one shootout after another, with so many plot twists that eventually you don't know or care who's shooting who, this movie is for you. And what a waste, seeing actors as good as these two choose a script where "character development" consists of one expository speech that's supposed to give them "depth." Even A.I. could write better than this.
Brilliantly done. I am awed by the way this film manages to convey an urgent message about nothing less than our survival, while keeping us riveted with jaw-dropping photography, a sense of hope, and a musical score that will stir your soul. Many movies are called "must see." This one truly is.
After all the raves, I was expecting more. The performances were perfect, a near guarantee given the two actors that Eisenberg wrote it for, including himself. But is it asking too much to know a little more about their grandmother? A fleeting memory flashback could've been so poignant, Or even a photograph or two? I really wanted to see her, or, minimally, hear her voice ..... And despite the well-conceived and well-written depiction of these two men, I wish it had gone even deeper, e.g., dwelling longer on what Benji's grief over their grandmother's death eventually led him to do. And what this trip means for his and David's relationship going forward; as it stands, we're missing an arc, a payoff. Is this what we watched an entire movie for? One other quibble: Did we really have to listen to Chopin's piano music for the entire film? Yes, it's appropriate. But even if you like it (not everyone does), after a while it grates. I turned the sound on & off for most of the film, because it was giving me a headache.
The writer/director was very fortunate to get this cast, who came as close as anyone could to pulling off a script that felt .... scripted. Manufactured. There's something missing here - a credibility that feels real and spontaneous, not forced into some pre-conceived character description. I really expected to love this film. While I applaud the effort, I am so disappointed.
Underwritten, both in character relationships and subjects. Why make alcoholism prominent if you're not going to follow through with it and say something? That borders on reprehensible. Why the tired father-son theme if you're not going to offer us even a glimpse of some kind of insight into these two individuals - something we haven't seen a hundred times? The movie lures us in, then fails to deliver. I really wish that mainstream critics would stop focusing on the directors and actors they're so eager to please, and review the actual movie.
Lots of obsequious praise from critics for a big name filmmaker, but I just didn't see where it's earned. The "chemistry"? No, actually, not for me, because I had no sense of who the female character is - just a lot of the sultry, come-hither sexiness I've seen in a hundred B movies. I fast-forwarded through some of it, and would've stopped watching altogether but I wanted to see how it would end. That was a mistake. The route it took actually disturbed me. What's the takeaway here? Sex conquers all, and justifies everything?
Far too little of the inner conflict and far too much about the drama of his politics. I was underwhelmed by the acting, and the fast, overly witty dialogue ultimately sounded pretentious. The women were mostly there to compete over a man, and the nudity was gratuitous to the point of being comical. And of course, it should've been an hour shorter. I never thought it possible that the story of this man, who gave the world its means of cataclysmic destruction, could be boring for such long stretches. Explosive scenes meant to show us the inside of Oppenheimer's mind simply didn't. And fancy cuts between time periods didn't make up for what amounts to a lack of substance and depth in the writing, especially the character work. We simply don't care enough, about Oppenheimer or secondary characters that, with the exception of Downey's, we can barely tell apart, i.e., the talking heads. Considering the subject, and this rich opportunity, that's a tragedy in itself. I know this director is worshiped for his cleverness with form, but I think he was the wrong choice for this material. What went on in the mind of J. Robert Oppenheimer as he developed the atomic bomb and later saw it instantly kill tens of thousands Japanese civilians? I know far less about his inner turmoil than I do about the political firestorm he set off. How is that possible?
What a disappointment. The premise is spot-on, but the writing fails to follow through. So, so much could've been done here, but all we're left with is a male lead whose face bears the same expression of discomfort throughout the film; a female lead whose misty-eyed expression never changes either; and, in the end, a love story we've seen hundreds of times instead of the unique pay-off of that premise that we've all been waiting for.
This may be the most underwritten and overpraised movie I have ever seen. Are character development and a story really too much to expect when we watch a movie? It was like watching brushstrokes dry.
This is NOT a "thriller," but a very predictable drama with a premise that's been done with far better writing. Don't be fooled by the critics. I wish I'd bailed on it when I started getting bored, hoping they were right. They weren't.
Superficial. Only minutes in, I was rolling my eyes at the "cuteness," e.g., the ever-so-coy love interest "with laryngitis" and then - really? - the thinking dog. Unfortunately that set the tone, with elements that could have been mined; but instead its only aims were being adorable, witty and charming. It wasn't.
This is something of a hybrid genre that I'd call "slapstick horror." I can see it works for some people, but for me the attempt took out both the humor and - once the first shock landed - the horror. It soon became so redundant, so full of itself that by the final gag (which I'm sure the creators thought hilarious), I was wishing I could get this 107 minutes of my life back.
Besides being a vehicle for Cate Blanchett's star performance, I don't understand what the point was in making this film. I went into it thinking it had to do with the topic of whether artists' despicable personal behavior should come into play when judging the merits of their work. But Tar doesn't create her own work; her attempts at being a composer don't go far, and her fame is derived from conducting the work of others.
Now I'm wondering if the film is an attempt to demonstrate that famous, successful men aren't the only ones who use their power to prey upon women - that women do it too. In that sense, I guess it succeeds. Point taken. Good for you.
But is that kind of "point" enough to justify our showing up - especially for over two and a half hours? Where's the takeaway, the universal kind that makes a movie great?
It's very possible that I'm missing something, so please tell me. Otherwise, I'm left with the sinking feeling that I've wasted my time on someone's self-indulgence.
If you haven't read the book or read about the premise, you'll be confused for quite some time re: what these women are talking about. This gives the film an airlessness that takes away the potential power of the dialogue and winds up feeling pretentious. Then, when we finally are given the backstory, we're also finding out that these women who are considering leaving will be leaving behind their own sons and/or other males that they love. The idea that this wouldn't have been a huge problem from the start winds up adding to the sense that this film is ultimately a stagey set-up with a premise that lacks credibility: A vehicle for some excellent performances that just don't feel earned by everything around them.
This is a gem. Without a bombastic score to tell us how to feel, we are moved on our own, because of a well-written script and performances that make the most of the characters they've been gifted with. The very young protagonist is phenomenal. He has to carry this film and does it with astonishing effortlessness; he WAS this kid. The rest are perfectly cast. I found this movie quietly powerful, and it will stay with me, not only because it captures these people, this family, but because of its wider implications for the world, with its bigotries that go on and on, generation after generation.
There's only so much one person can do. But if wisdom is available - as it is here, embodied by Anthony Hopkins' character - then there's hope for people like the boy's complicated dad, and for us all.
I loved "In Bruges"and "Three Billboards,"and watched them several times. So I was really looking forward to this one. But I found it far less satisfying, and even had a hard time getting through it. There just wasn't enough here. For starters, though it's billed as a comedy/drama, I only had a few chuckles over the dialogue; overall, it was far more sad. Yes, the acting was superb, the cinematography gorgeous. But I wanted more. More to the story, and to the characters. A sudden, out-of-the-blue decision like Colm's, involving scenes that are shockingly gross, needs exploration. But no. You keep waiting for something that never comes. It's just "what it is." Maybe that's the point. And maybe I'm missing something else, though the reviews don't give me much to go on. They seem laudatory simply because it's McDonagh. But it doesn't feel earned.
For a depiction of the utter madness of this war, you can't do better than than this film. (I also loved "1917".) I especially appreciate how it juxtaposes the intense suffering of the soldiers with the luxuries of those in charge, who send these men to battlefields without any cost to themselves. (For more on that last note, read Sassoon's poem "Base Details.")
I've been fascinated by the sheer pointlessness of WW I since reading Wilfred Owen's poem "Futility" many years ago. You can also read his "Dulce et Decorum Est" for the way that these young men are lured by lies about the "glory" of being soldiers.
Kudos to these filmmakers for not letting us forget the "War to End All Wars"on a very large, cinematic scale, yet also centered on soldiers whose camaraderie only intensifies their agony in the end. And for what? Nothing.
Quietly beautiful film. Falco and Duplass are marvelous, and the supporting cast is perfect. Shelton's directing and Andrew Bird's music are spot-on as well. The writing too, though I would've liked a more convincing depiction of this mother-daughter relationship, rather than the standard "I'm a teenager" that the daughter actually chalks it up to. Otherwise, this is exactly the kind of film I love: Focused, powerful, authentic and moving, with images I won't soon shake.
I wish we had more movies like this one. So powerful in its understatement, and such deep characterization brought to life by two of our finest actors. I rarely give praise like this, where the word "exquisite" comes to mind, but it does: For acting, writing and directing. The supporting cast too, was spot-on. (One scene late in the film just blew me away.) This one's pretty close to perfect. Thank you.
The acting was terrific. The story grabbed me enough to make me tolerate the flaws, e.g., the overused and repetitive flashbacks. So I watched the whole thing. Then suddenly it was over. I am not spoiling the ending here because there isn't one. Filmmakers have to respect their audience's time. Two hours worth of mine, and this is what I get? No, not acceptable. Did you think it would be "cool" to have the film simply stop, with not a hint of resolution? I truly can't understand this. After going to the trouble of developing characters and a good story, how do you betray your own work like that? (How did these high-caliber actors sign on to it as such? Perhaps they were given a script with an ending, and you cut it later? That's the only thing that makes sense.I want to believe it, actually, because this acting ensemble included some of my favorite actors ....)
A very pretentious film that's supposedly skewering pretension wins the most pretentious award of all, the Palme d'Or. That just about says it all. It isn't even funny, is far too long, and except for a tinge of humanity in the main character, is all stereotype. This is what we've come to. The Emperor's still naked, prancing around in this movie, not to mention the art world. I was so hoping for something that doesn't exemplify what it's satirizing. This is not that movie. Can't we just come right out and say it?
The two leading actors were masterful - and they had to be, given the spareness of the script. They carried it off, and there was enough suspense, as revelations came, to keep me patient with the very slow pace. Two questions, though: Why couldn't we have some dialogue between Kate and her female friend, re: what she's learned about Geoff's past? It actually felt a bit strange that she didn't bring it up with her, and the missed opportunity seemed like a case of underwriting. Also, the choice of a song to open & close the film: Who on earth would choose "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" at their wedding, or anniversary celebration? Do you listen to the lyrics? Again, it was implausible and/or lazy, in my opinion: It fits at the end, but come on!
I loved it, partly because it brought back wonderful memories. But even if this was never part of your personal history, it's worth watching for the charm and humor of interviewed people you'll recognize, as well as its demonstration that "business" can have a heart. The Automat wasn't just about the profit but the quality, the experience, and most of all the people: Owners who valued their employees, employees who were loyal, and of course, its patrons, all welcome, including the homeless. All were valued, and well aware that it was something special. Because it was.
About a half-hour in, I started thinking, "A man wrote this." Then of course I found out it was Spike Jonze. (I'd gone into it without reading too much about it first, obviously.) We've all heard about "the male gaze." This was that, plus the voice equivalent, depending on which female we're talking about: so stereotypically breathy and/or giggly etc. The blind date with Olivia Wilde was especially grating. Here's a silly women if ever there was one, supposedly longing for a deep relationship yet perfectly willing to play "if you were an animal, which one would you be." Of course he says "tiger" and she sexily meows. Oh please. Soon after we've got the virtual phone sex. Once again, I don't understand the critical acclaim. Once again we've got underdeveloped characters in a "cool" premise. Who IS this Theodore, beyond a guy with a broken heart? How many times have we seen that? I'm a big Joaquin Phoenix fan, by the way. Put him in a well-written film and he'll make you care, big-time. Here it all rang hollow, and even he couldn't pull it off. That's saying a lot.
Great reviews sometimes set up expectations that can't possibly be met. Which is why I didn't give this film an even lower score. The characters are shallow and many of the situations trite; no depth here, just a lot of moping by extremely privileged characters feeling sorry for themselves. I liked not one of them, even though I really wanted to. I wanted so much to care, wishing it would spark with something that felt fresh or real or insightful - which never came ... I was hoping that at least the film might rip off the Bergman mask of pretentiousness, and really make a statement about overblown icons, but it never did. Some humor, even, would've helped; the whole Bergman Island setting begged for it! But no, like Bergman it had to be very serious, and wound up being very pretentious itself.
Like others, I really wanted to like this movie, and for a while I did. The set-up captured me (though I found one bedroom element ridiculous, something taken seriously that — come on! — verged on comedy). But the longer it played out, the less my interest held up. The devolving middle might have been worth the wait if the denouement had paid off. But it didn't, finally landing without a real payoff — nothing special, nothing to take away that was original or insightful or worth all that time. There's a repression verging on implausibility in the third act that made me wonder about what, exactly, a filmmaker's job is, and whether he or she owes some respect to an audience that invests three hours into a film. Is it fear of being seen as sentimental, or is it pretension, or simply a lack of insight? In any case, I'm bewildered by all the praise, the usual bandwagon. And sad to say it. Yet again.
Joaquin Phoenix is one of our best actors, and I was really looking forward to this film, especially since it deals with parenting. So I regret to say that it disappoints. First, it's slow. Second, the child is so over-indulged that it's painful to watch the poor kid being taken so seriously. I kept wanting the adults to be adults and give this precocious child some structure, or at least a sibling. The overindulgence can't be good for him, I wanted to point out; what parent (or parental figure) sits by a bathtub with a 9 YEAR OLD in it? There were way too many scenes like that, with parents on the floor playing silly games that are supposed to show how great their relationship with their kid is. My favorite line is Johnny's. The thought "this kid is a spoiled brat" had just entered my mind when Johnny wonders the same thing. I wish the writer had explored this. It might have been helpful instead of self-aggrandizing. The kids being interviewed was a nice touch, perhaps justifying the choice of black & white, which otherwise seemed pretentious. I wondered if it was a period piece, till the phones came out. I am not happy being so negative; I realize that someone even wanting to make this kind of film in the first place is admirable. Alas, it's a missed opportunity. Ego ruins so much in the arts ....
While I admire this attempt to portray the damage done by mass gun violence, particularly in schools, I don't see how this adds to the conversation. The parents' grief is of course heartbreaking, and the actors deliver. But there's nothing unexpected in the writing, no real insight regarding accountability for parenting gone horribly wrong OR the proliferation of guns. We don't need to "move on" from what's wrong with a culture where this happens, or even from the way it wrecks people's lives; we need to ask deeper questions than this writing asks, and figure out WHY it keeps happening. In that sense, words like "forgiveness" lose their meaning. I came away wondering what the word means here, beyond the usual religious usage, and it troubled me. It came off like a glossing over, far too neat, far too discouraging of a much-needed, insightful and deeper probe.
Powerful. The consequences that follow an all-too-common instinct to cover one's tracks, as well as going against your sense of right & wrong, seem inevitable and earned by basing every step on very distinct characterizations. The writing is superb, brought to life by well-cast actors. For me, this was an unforgettable film.
Heartbreaking without being exploitative, and laid out as a clear indictment of a specific company as well as the corporate mentality that prioritizes Wall Street profit above all else. Watching this revelatory film, you can't help but think, "This could have been my loved one. This could have been me."
Who are these people, and why should I care about them? This isn't "young love," either; it's an inappropriate relationship, and if the genders were reversed, it would be seen as a much more problematic issue. Why isn't it here? Is Paul Thomas Anderson pulling a fast one on us? Is he the one laughing, at everyone who's looking the other way and falling all over this film because of his reputation? That kind of dynamic is worth examining. I barely managed to get through it. Despite all the running these two protagonists did, it was very slow! And the female lead was so difficult to root for, so unlikable. I just don't understand the adulation for this film; if an unknown director/writer had come up with it, I wonder if it ever would've been made. The joke's on us, I'm afraid.
This film demonstrates what can be done with brilliant writing and directing, delivered by a powerful performance by Tom Hardy. I watched it years ago and was so impressed. I just re-watched, and it only got better.
I can't understand the praise, or why this movie was made, and especially why such fine actors signed on. Their roles are caricatures, and most of them played them as such. Others have noted that it's too long; I stuck it out, but unless you love this director (clearly some people see something there that I don't), do something better with two and a half hours of your life.
Filming a play isn't easy. Filming a Shakespearean play is even harder. On that score, it succeeds better than most, moving quickly and stylizing the set in a way that lends a certain artistic integrity. Yet the pace and the style are the very characteristics that constrain it. It feels hurried, pared down (it was), as if savoring the richness of the original would be asking too much of a contemporary audience. Ditto the style, which brought more attention to itself and less to the substance of the tale — and the characters. It became tiresome, like watching someone show off. Across the board, the acting was excellent, of course most significantly so by Washington and McDormand. Yet they seemed constrained. I wonder if direction was to blame for my biggest letdown in the film: Macbeth's very famous "Out Out"speech near the end. I was astonished that, despite the fact that Macbeth delivers it immediately after finding out the most tragic news, he hurries through it with very little inflection in lines that beg lingering, and varying expression on profound as well as personal levels. If Mr. Washington delivered it so perfunctorily because he was told to, then what a waste. I would love to see what he would've done with it on his own.
With material like this, what a shame to see it vastly underserved by a workmanlike script. Scenes written in cliches wasted opportunities to deliver these characters' stories with the specificity and power they deserved. What a disappointment, seeing this particular story manage to drag! Editing would have helped, but the script was too by-the-numbers to salvage this waste of such fine acting and (of course) material. (It even managed to muddy the waters re: our understanding of the terms re: "worth" that were eventually left to one scene, a good one but it couldn't clarify more than one aspect.)
I'm in awe at the courage and persistence that went into the making of this film. Kudos too to Netflix for making it available to stream. Like "Cowspiracy," it's revelatory, exposing the grip money has even on organizations that label themselves as environmental champions, because of where their donations come from. Watch this and you'll rethink fish as an alternative to meat after you've watched the other one. There's only one solution. Do your part, for your own sake and those who come after you. Make the change.
Brilliant acting, writing and directing come together in what will hopefully be a landmark cautionary tale and wake-up call for our times. Courageous in being as disturbing as it needed to be, with well-drawn characters, sharp dialogue, and - again - brilliant performances, Carey Mulligan first and foremost.
Underwritten. And what a shame, given the talents of the actors, not only the always-brilliant Frances McDormand but those who aren't professional actors.
How powerful this film would've been if the screenwriter had mined these roles and given them the scenes they deserved! And such opportunities for depth: The relationship with the David Strathairn character, Dave, and Fern's sister, who supplies some exposition about Fern's backstory but allows so little understanding of who are they are in themselves, and to each other. "Spare" is what I'd call this kind of writing, and sometimes less is more, but not here. After spending two hours with Fern, I know her life (in minute detail), but I don't know HER. Another underdevelopment: The reasons why these people live with such hardship. There's a systemic reason, and it has everything to do with the Amazon element that figures so prominently as a setting, while missing the opportunity to contrast its workers' lives with those who profit from them. I didn't read the book, but I suspect it would've been a great source for the theme of the chasm between rich and poor that is the nation's growing disgrace. With some flesh on the bones of its script, this movie could have been a true classic. Again: What a shame.
What a disappointment. These three actresses aren't the problem (each is marvelous in her own right); the problem is the writing. There isn't much of it. A lot more could've been done to deepen these characters, to move us and/or make us laugh. There were scenes left hanging, not bothering to explore the workings of these relationships. Why so casual, so weak? I wish the three leads had been given something brilliant, or at least substantial, to bring to life. Such a wasted opportunity.
This is a beautiful film. Pay no mind to those who can't or won't appreciate it for whatever reason. I was so moved, and cared so much about these characters; the actors were rich and sensitive in their portrayals - every single one. I wish there were more films like this one. It began with Alan Ball's usual finely-tuned writing, and everything worked from there. Thank you.
I was touched that Fincher paid tribute to his father by making this movie from his script. I even did the homework beforehand, having been warned that the film wouldn't make much sense if I didn't; but, having been an industry writer myself, I did wonder: It should be there in the film, whether it's a period piece or not. That's the writer's job. Great films find a way to work it all in. Nonetheless, I looked forward to it. But I have to say that, despite some fine performances, this film is very overrated. Besides being esoteric, it's so repetitive (e.g., we know immediately that Mank's an alcoholic yet it's hammered home time and time again); it's overly long; at least half of the characters are redundantly stereotypical; and worst of all, at least for me, the characters fail to engage. I just didn't care about them. Oh, maybe Mank near the end (a few good lines that I could certainly identify with), but his clever flippant dialogue throughout the movie was tiresome and, again, repetitive. What a shame, to have so much talent given over to material that very few can understand or justify giving 2 hrs. 11 min. to. I wish I didn't feel this way. But I also wish the reviewers who fall all over themselves to praise this film, anxious to appear "in the know," would keep in mind that non-industry viewers are hungry for meaningful, compelling stories with relatable, well-drawn characters. Fine material with high production values so rarely gets made these days. Even original material that's simply entertaining has a place in these dark times. Me? I kept checking to see how soon it would be over.
I can't understand the "universal acclaim." So disappointing. It's not funny; I think I chuckled two or three times. Nothing original here, with a concept that has been done so, so much better. The writing in particular was mediocre, and the decent performances of both leads could not rescue it.
The performances are terrific, and it's great to see an abundance of older female actors. I wish they'd been better served by the script, which is uneven. At times it works, but suffers from implausibility, confusing elements, and conflict choices that are unoriginal and - again - implausible as they play out. While I appreciate the opportunity for Mary Kay Place and her supporting cast, it made me wonder if the writer understands women as much as he thinks he does.
Brilliant. The writing, acting and directing combine for a social satire that I still can't get out of my mind. The images will haunt you, and bring home the real divide that exists across the world - that of class - and its cost in human terms.
