Posts by northerncrane4

Grace Sanders24 said:🤔 What are you even talking about? 🤔

It's nothing—just go get some sleep. 🙂🙂

Grace Sanders24 said:I was bored out of my mind within thirty minutes—honestly. Wes Anderson just makes the exact same movie every single time. It’s becoming a bit much. 🥱

There were maybe ten of us in the theater; two people walked out early.
Look, if 98% of what hits our local theaters is tailored specifically for you, let the other two percent be something else. Surely that isn't asking too much, right?

“The New Yorker,” Wes Anderson.

A gorgeous tribute—an obituary, perhaps?—to the printed word; you can't even tell if the prose, the cinematography, or the acting is superior because everything is simply top-tier. Wes Anderson overwhelms his audience with layers of information—clearly betting there's still an audience willing to tackle such an avalanche—all while delivering a surreal visual feast that avoids the over-the-top clutter of “The Grand Budapest Hotel.” It demands multiple viewings.

The Tough Guy.

Finally sat down to watch this. Unfortunately, the trailer wasn't lying—it’s just too much buffoonery. There is more screen time dedicated to that pathetic little puddle where a rigged Stalin lies than there is to the actual Russian mindset. I gave up after the first third. After *Veep* and that space sitcom, it looks like Iannucci is in a serious slump.

By the way, I’m doubling down on my recommendation for that Nuriyev graphic novel the whole thing was based on.

Grace Sanders24 said:By far his worst work—period. Even the ending felt like the usual garbage served up in every mindless blockbuster. I didn't expect him to tank this hard. Still, everyone gets an off day, so I'll give him a pass. It’s just a shame, because the concept was actually pretty solid. 🕺

You're just bitter because some guy managed to spend two months jerking off on a private beach and actually got paid for it. Typical American envy. 👎

Morgan Newman7 said:🙂

My bad—I forgot they identify as "houseless" rather than "homeless."

But even if her sister hadn't stepped in when the car broke down—where exactly would she have slept? In some crowded municipal shelter? If she was lucky?

She’s able to live that way specifically because she has a safety net—not to mention a social structure that makes that lifestyle possible.

Morgan Newman7 said:It's a relevant topic—there are plenty of homeless people in the USA, too.

Except we don't actually see a single one in the movie.

Patrick Martin said:And when I was rambling on about how American actors don't have any backbone left, everyone just jumped down my throat like a pack of wolves.

Honestly, I’m not a fan of that dismissive attitude toward directors either. I guess I’m still one of those old-school idealists and romantics, a bit of a film bohemian, so that kind of cynical take doesn't sit right with me either—especially coming from someone actually in the industry.

The trailer specifically says "from the producers of John Wick." There isn't even a mention of the director.

And I certainly wasn't agreeing with you when you were talking about our actors.

Patrick Martin said:shut up forever🙄 hilarious as always, that's why I like you👍

Look, it’s pretty straightforward to me. I don't think the director or this whole genre even belongs to that "progressive" Hollywood crowd you're obsessed with. Honestly, there isn't even any room to start slapping those labels on everything these days.🤷

A studio stuck in its ways like that wouldn't even know how to capture a movie like this.☕

That kind of narrow-minded thinking? You basically only see that stuff in some small town in the Midwest.🤷

I was referring to Bob Odenkirk—who is undeniably part of that progressive Hollywood circle—and this is clearly just a vanity project for him. What director? Some guy named Elijah? Who even cares about the director when he's likely just some former stuntman. The point is, Odenkirk is a progressive—part of that group that condemns civilian gun ownership on one hand, yet films high-octane action scenes with firearms on the other. It's the same pattern we see with someone like Brie Larson and her little attempt at humanizing the military-industrial complex.

Patrick Martin said:Did I read "selective"? Because if anything here is selective, it's your take—basically your whole way of thinking. ☕

Anyway, I actually liked the movie. It’s not like we haven't seen stuff like this before—kind of a hybrid mashup of *Leon: The Professional* & *Kick-Ass*—but there are definitely some cool little tweaks in here.

For me, the best part was how they kept the focus on the action and the shootouts, while simultaneously cranking up the pace during those boring, empty stretches of life.

It was my first time seeing the lead actor and man, he hooked me immediately. ☕

The relationship with the woman was just enough to actually make the audience feel something.

I love movies where the main characters make me want to channel my inner Avenger. 🙏

I could honestly watch him go nuts one more time.

4.7🙂0.3

Elaborate—or just shut up.

Paul Anderson7 said:Who's actually pretending it's something else? I think you judge movies by how well they nail their own genre. As an action movie with a decent sense of humor, this thing is pretty much at the top of its class lately. It was genuinely fun; I actually ended up watching it twice in three days, so in my book, it’s great. Obviously, it’s not the kind of movie that’s going to haunt your thoughts for weeks or force you to rethink your entire worldview. It won't move you to tears, and it certainly won't inspire you to go out and change your life.
It delivers ninety minutes of solid entertainment, and for what it is, it's a winner.

Take this for example. Last night I sat through Judas and The Black Messiah. It’s a heavy-hitting historical drama dealing with themes that still feel relevant in America today.
So I watched it, and what did I really get out of it? A tedious drama that lacked the actual punch needed to make an audience stop and think. Sure, Daniel Kaluuya did a fine job, though I can't say for certain if he earned the Oscar—I haven't caught all the nominees yet.
As far as serious historical dramas tackling modern issues go, it felt incredibly lukewarm and uninspired. Not a single scene really stuck with me, honestly. It's the kind of forgettable movie that people will have moved on from by next year.

So, we have this "serious" drama that can't even compete with the best films in its category from recent years. At best, it's a mediocre production that leaned on its subject matter to turn a profit without breaking much of a sweat. Honestly, I’d rather sit through the entire filmography of Steven Seagal than endure that snooze fest again, and I’m not exactly a fan of Steven Seagal.
On the flip side, we have an incredibly engaging action movie that I’ll probably revisit a few more times. Does it offer profound social commentary? No. Is it a masterpiece of high art? Not really. But to me, it’s ten times better than Judas and The Black Messiah. And there’s no shame in that. If a movie functions perfectly within its genre, why should we treat it as inferior? Just because it's simple or doesn't reinvent the wheel? If that's our metric, we might as well toss out 99% of all cinema for being unoriginal.

Nobody is top-tier when it comes to its genre these last few years, and it deserves the credit.

Dammit. Just based on the trailer alone, I spent days wondering how Hollywood’s progressive crowd would whip up an NRA picture book without blinking—and wouldn't see a single issue with it. It’s truly a miracle—the sheer power of selective outrage.

Emily Young76 said:In this one, our lead is a widow named Fern living life on the move—out of her van, meeting others with a similar lifestyle—but there isn’t really a villain to be found.

It's an obvious trend now. Neither “Druk” nor “Soul”—both Oscar winners—feature an actual antagonist. I'd link this directly to the dictates of political correctness—or rather, political opportunism—where having a villain is too risky; if any specific identity group sees themselves in a negative character, the film is finished.

electriccanyon26 said:No—you're watching the most depressing film of the year and calling it fulfillment.

I suspect the issue is my own viewing history—I've sat through "Easy Rider", "Midnight Cowboy", and even this year's American contender "Atlantis". "Nomadland" is just inherently bleak, much like Pixar's "Soul".

electriccanyon26 said:The system exploits everyone—you’ve got the whole argument upside down...

If someone turned things upside down, then it’s the lady director. She views—or rather, presents—that system as benevolent. That's why she gets the Oscar. Her protagonist is an agoraphobic living within a system that allows her fulfillment, not mine.

Henry Mitchell29 said:Yeah—it feels more like an ode to eccentricity than an actual critique of the system or society.

Let’s be real—it's that exact system that allows them to maintain their entire lifestyle. Which one did they settle on?They aren't "modern pioneers," regardless of how one side character in the film puts it. It’s just an unskilled workforce looking for any road they can drive on—knowing there’s always a city just over the horizon where they can lean on family for interest-free, likely unrecoverable, loans when their vehicles break down. "Nomadland" isn't a critique; it's a glorification of an American system where even these social outcasts always have gas money—and the absolute worst that can happen to them is being told they can't sleep in a private parking lot.

Finished it yesterday. I expected more struggle, but I sat through the whole thing without much fuss. The issue isn't the lack of drama—not in a genre sense—but in the most basic storytelling sense. McDormand is predictably understated; she plays the role with such raw, unpolished grit that you don't even expect "acting," making the whole performance feel as plain as Nivea hand cream. The most fascinating part is the sheer vastness of the landscape. As for McDormand herself, her involvement is actually the most glaring example of that unbearable hypocrisy—that constant sucking up to the artsy Hollywood elite. It’s all lovely—the scenery, the authentic faces—but nobody would even watch this if it didn't feature a festival-circuit A-lister in a supporting role, basically acting as Lady Gaga for aging industry academics.

"Everyone is obsessed with Mary" is an Easter movie.

Jurassic Park.

Patrick Martin said:And obviously—since nobody bothered to write a single damn word about the actual financing model—they completely ignored how this is even being paid for. Which matters.

The funding model is just like any other Sedlar production—money laundering.