Posts by Megan Bishop41

Henry Sullivan3 said:It's a decent watch. Technically, it's solid, and I actually prefer this creative spin over a dry, boring biopic, so I don't really get the hate.
link.

Honestly, this quote sums it all up:

‘I didn’t come here to see a film about granny going mad.’

The movie is a total bait-and-switch. Not a single trailer hinted that 85% of the runtime would be focused on some old lady losing her mind.

Someone should honestly issue a class-action lawsuit to reimburse viewers for ticket prices, wasted time, gas money, and everything else—popcorn, sodas, you name it.

Here's another case where the trailers actually outshine the movies themselves—think of those low-budget Spoof comedies like Scary .../ Not another.../ Epic .../ Meet the.../ Pirate.../ Vampire... flicks.

Honestly, these things shouldn't even be called "movies"... they're basically just extended trailers.

Check out this one example of a successful trailer acting as its own short film: American Jedi

It's essentially a parody of American Pie and The Phantom Menace.

dustycrane5 said:Trailers are mostly designed just to hook an audience...
It's all about the marketing.

Sure, a trailer aims to grab people, but the movie itself doesn't necessarily aim to keep them—not that it matters once we've already shelled out for the ticket.

Ads have turned into an art form (look at the Creative Arts Awards), while movies have basically become extended commercials (thanks, product placement).
The real issue arises when the advertisement becomes more valuable than the actual product.

In today's world of information overload and zero free time, committing two whole hours to a movie is a massive ask, especially if the entire plot could have been summarized in a few minutes.

Television has completely outpaced the film industry in that regard.

I haven't been watching much movies lately.
But I’ve noticed a pattern: the trailers are actually better than the films themselves.

Take that fake trailer for "Machete" (which, if you look at it meta-wise, is basically its own short film)—it’s more polished and well-made than the actual movie.

It feels like studios pour more effort and quality into a tiny promotional clip than they do into the entire feature.
You can fit the whole plot of most Hollywood high-concept blockbusters into those three minutes.

The point of a trailer is to grab you, build tension, and make you crave the movie.
And honestly, I think that should be enough.

Why bother opening Schrödinger's box just to kill the cat for no reason?

Lawrence Martinez4 said:Look, there’s no need for more detail; the characters work perfectly fine. What you're calling a "flaw" is actually the whole point of this movie. It doesn't follow the standard biopic formula... it's heavy on flashbacks. Honestly, if you don't already know about the Reagan Era, there's no point in watching it. I just want to warn anyone who hasn't seen it yet: don't let this nonsense of a post talk you out of watching it.

🙄

Classic post-Oscar snobbery right here.....

The issue with this movie is that it's too thin on flashbacks.

But Meryl Streep shouldn't have been up for an Oscar for Best Actress; she should've been in the Supporting category......

If you insist on watching it, I guarantee you won't make it through without Fast Forwarding the whole thing......

What a massive letdown......

Barely 15% of this movie actually covers the life of Margaret Thatcher, and even then, it’s just through scattered flashbacks......

The rest of it? Pure, unadulterated boredom......

And now...... spoiler alert:

You just watch an old woman whining about the price of milk going up again... walking from room to room, getting dressed, making tea, drinking tea, watching TV, having a few hallucinations.......

🙂🙂🙂

restlessfox5 said:Total high school flick with third-rate actors

Ray Stevenson isn't a third-rate actor... he's a second-rate one.