Amanda Robinson4 said:Since this movie isn't trying too hard or acting all high and mighty, it doesn't feel calculated at all. It’s not insulting anyone either—not your intelligence or any of those debatable themes you sometimes see ☕ . There's just this genuine warmth to it. The drama is perfectly paced and stays grounded, without wandering off into unnecessary tangents or whatever else... It’s just such a beautiful film. Whoever made this clearly put their heart and soul into it, and I honestly value that way more than big-name stars, messy scripts, random subplots, political correctness, or just aiming for hits...
I mean, I don't think it's necessarily an Oscar for Best Picture contender, but the performances are incredible and definitely deserve some nominations. 🙂
I second this. Laurie Metcalf was fantastic, though I suspect Janney might take it.
I actually thought this was perfectly fine—just a nice, intimate little coming-of-age dramedy. I felt a real connection to the character played by Saoirse Ronan; some of those scenes with her mom, college, and school felt like they were pulled straight from my own life... 🤣 Maybe it’s because Lady Bird and I share a similar generational vibe—we both graduated in the early 2000s.
I don't get all the bashing. At least this movie didn't feel like a blatant Oscar bait attempt like The Post, for instance. Greta basically filmed a semi-autobiographical story and just happened to hit the perfect timing with the whole Time's Up movement—women are powerful, women can do anything, why aren't there more female directors nominated, blah blah blah—so the hype just built up...
To me, her film is just... honest. It isn't a masterpiece, but it certainly isn't trash either. Awards in Hollywood have always been about politics, PR, and paying back favors anyway. One year it's gay characters, the next it's Black people, then it's strong women... There's really no need to get worked up over the seventh art.
EDIT. Dazed and Confused is a great film, but my personal favorite will always be Stand by Me.
I only made it through the first book; sure, it starts off okay, but then things drag—it just gets incredibly tedious toward the end. I couldn't wait to put it down, and honestly, I have zero interest in picking up the sequels.
The movie was much the same, except from the moment they board the ship—as far as I can remember—it completely abandons the novel's plot, and the quality drops faster than a stone...
Anyway, I'm just glad I didn't waste my money on a ticket at the AMC...
To me, Jackie wasn't even particularly beautiful—not in the traditional sense, anyway—she was more of an icon because of her style and that certain aristocratic poise... Natalie is better looking (at least in my eyes), but she’s a miss here; the actress doesn't actually resemble the real woman at all, plus Portman is just a fairly mediocre performer whose face seems stuck in this weird half-grimace between laughing and crying in every single movie. And the movie is your typical Oscar bait—the kind designed to snag a nomination in one major category and a bunch of technical ones just so the lead can walk away with the award.
It’s been a while since I watched Monster's Ball, but my takeaway remains the same—it felt like they pushed her into the leading category primarily because of her skin color... as if the Academy decided two Black actors had to take the lead roles that year, and that was that. Her screen time was minimal, and she felt more like a background character to me—the focus was clearly on Billy Bob. Maybe it’s just my impression, but I vividly remember the magazines and film shows back then debating whether she actually even deserved a leading role or not.
Andrew Gomez40 said:Sure, maybe they’re dodging a lawsuit—or perhaps they're just terrified the whole thing will fall apart again next year—so they're playing it safe. There’s likely some behind-the-scenes reason we aren't privy to... though I find it hard to believe they're actually that incompetent.
Assuming it even happens next year. For now, only this year's three-day pass holders can grab the next early bird deal—apparently because one performer is already a sure thing. It'll be quite the spectacle if they pull a vanishing act in 2026 too 🎉 ...
vividraven7 said:Either way, it’s pathetic how they pushed this whole "needs surgery" narrative—it's total garbage... she doesn't need any operation or to get a cast removed or whatever. All my comments on this topic were wiped from Facebook. And you know what's even more pathetic? I can see my own comment, but nobody else can... just another attempt at manipulating people's intelligence. I’d much rather they just admitted she wanted more money than they had, or that she canceled for some other reason... anything but lying about needing surgery on the exact same day as Coachella. It’s honestly retarded. Then they have the nerve to put that damn video on their YouTube saying it's an announcement for Coachella attendees, when it's blatantly obvious it isn't for Coachella—it's for some other festival where she actually *was* getting a cast removed or whatever was on her leg. Look, I get being lost in schedules and dates, but you aren't so clueless that you say "this weekend" when the gig is next month... we're talking a full month away. Honestly... I'm just disappointed. Between the deleted comments and the inability to even comment on YouTube... it's disgusting.
I second this. If she canceled (which is highly likely since she never even confirmed her Chicago show on her official site), why didn't they just tell us? Instead, they posted a video where anyone with a rudimentary grasp of English can tell it has nothing to do with us. I don't know who messed up or who they're trying to cover for, but frankly, the Coachella management should have just been honest with the fans. Deleting comments only makes them look worse. On the other hand, if Florence was too expensive for them this year, why would she be more affordable next year? And who even guarantees we'll still be listening to her in 2016?
The whole situation regarding her canceling that Chicago show feels incredibly suspicious to me. I watched that apology video they pinned to the Coachella page right after the news broke—and get this—she doesn't even mention Chicago. In fact, towards the end, she just says, "I'm sorry I won't be able to perform for you this weekend." 🤔 What a weekend, my god... They’re claiming she’s having surgery that day, yet in the video, she’s talking about taking off some surgical shoe and needing to practice walking. I pointed out the discrepancy in their comments on Facebook, but they completely ignored me—or maybe they just deleted it.
Nirvana was—and basically still is—just a band for kids going through a depressive phase. I listened to them constantly back in high school, but honestly, those lyrics just don't hit the same way anymore. It’s not even that the music is bad, per se—it’s just the kind of stuff that resonates during one very specific window of your life. Makes me wonder what would have happened if Kurt Cobain had actually lived... maybe his sound would have evolved along with him, instead of feeling a bit infantile to anyone who's long since moved past their teenage years.
I honestly don't get how you let them pull a fast one on you like that—why on earth would you even buy the ticket? Unless, of course, the F&M show was never actually a done deal to begin with...
Sometimes I wonder—if he’d actually made it—what he would look like today and how his sound would have evolved? Would he have moved away from the grunge aesthetic entirely, or just turned into some caricature like Ozzy Osbourne, filming reality shows with his wife and daughter? It’s a damn shame... he died right at his creative peak—he could have easily dropped more great albums, whether with Nirvana or as a solo act.
The documentary is way too long and feels pretty one-sided. Does anyone know why Dave Grohl didn't take part in the filming?
It’s not that I don't get what the poet was trying to convey through those ambiguities—I definitely grasp the intent. It’s just that so many elements of this movie fail to land for me. Primarily, it feels like the director tried to bite off way more than she could chew—especially early on when tackling all those social issues—but it falls flat because the approach is just too superficial. If she had taken a smaller bite... focused on just one specific theme... it would have been much stronger.
As for that prophecy bit, I completely forgot about it, which honestly says everything about how forgettable the film was—even though I watched it only a few weeks ago.
Serena is such a walking dichotomy—by the end of the film, it’s impossible to ignore; she’s a powerhouse in business, yet totally fragile and insecure in her private life. I agree that she’s constantly fishing for validation from her husband, but that doesn't mean they aren't actually in love... if that makes sense. If anything, I think the writers intended for it to feel that way since their relationship turns so destructive, crossing lines that are almost unforgivable. My main gripe, though, is how their dynamic is handled—it just lacks conviction, that spark, that chemistry... there’s far too much dialogue and not nearly enough actual showing.
I’d draw a direct parallel between that relationship and the one Serena has with Galloway; both are poorly fleshed out, leaving the viewer to just accept the premise that she's a femme fatale who makes men lose their minds. Both men end up clearing any obstacle in Serena's path just to stay close to her. Especially Galloway—his motivations are completely murky. The whole movie is riddled with these kinds of gaps...
The movie hit the torrent sites a few weeks ago—so if you actually want to see it, save your money on a theater ticket because it really isn't worth it. It’s not that it's catastrophically bad, just... mediocre. I get the feeling they were aiming for some sort of epic period drama, but the execution just fell flat. What stings the most is that the story actually has potential; if this had been handled properly, it could have been a masterpiece. The director touches on corruption, Depression-era unemployment, environmental destruction, human greed, and so on—but it all feels incidental and incredibly superficial. The focus stays on the romance, yet it comes across as shallow and unconvincing, the acting from certain characters is wooden, motivations are murky... The protagonists are supposedly madly in love, but the audience only knows that because the two of them won't stop repeating it. The cinematography and the outdoor shots are beautiful, as is the costume design. Jennifer Lawrence is one of the few bright spots in the whole thing.
All in all, it's a pretty forgettable flick to kill a rainy afternoon.
Richard Wilson4 said:Now that I'm actually thinking about it—aside from the animation and the movie Hook which serves as a deconstruction—we haven't really seen a major big-budget production centered on Peter Pan🤷
I'm not sure if this even counts... I recall it being pushed heavily about a decade ago, but it's largely fallen off the radar now:
slywolf45 said:Let’s talk about how many times we end up mentioning Nicolas Cage, an actor who seems to possess exactly one facial expression: the "sad puppy" look.
Then there’s Keanu Reeves, who also appears to operate with a single setting: a total blank slate. Don't get me wrong, he was perfectly fine in The Matrix, but that’s really where his range ends for me.
As for Gwyneth Paltrow—I just can't bring myself to like her. She comes across as incredibly precious and whiny in every single role. And don't even get me started on that Academy Award ceremony where she spent half an hour sobbing (alongside her colleague Halle Berry)... honestly, it was so awkward I actually had to change the channel to escape the secondhand embarrassment.🙈
I find Keira Knightley completely unappealing too, but I won't go into detail there; I know I’m being biased.
*To be fair, Halle Berry is actually a decent actress.
How on earth she snagged an Academy Award over someone like Cate Blanchett is still a mystery to me. For a year or two, everyone treated her like she was some kind of legend, but she’s really not all that—and frankly, I have no clue what she does now, besides running some wellness blog and filming yet another sequel to Iron Man.
Someone else mentioned Depp above. I actually used to like him—some of his nineties stuff still holds up—but the man has turned into a total caricature of himself. Sometimes I think Jack Sparrow was the worst thing to ever happen to his career. It's like he forgot you can actually act without being a cartoonish mess, overacting, or working with Tim Burton.
Michelle Long6;49264214 said:Clearly, you haven't seen the excellent Black Swan.
I have. I've seen Garden State—and that absolute disaster of a Star Wars movie too. Plus Leon, Goya's Ghosts, The Other Boleyn Girl, Everyone Says I Love You, Cold Mountain... the list goes on. I've watched plenty of her work; I don't base my entire opinion on just one single film.
In my eyes, she had her best role in Leon. As for Black Swan and Closer, they're fine, I guess. I've already made it clear that she isn't a total catastrophe—she has some decent roles—but she’s mediocre when you consider all the hype people throw her way. I just don't see this "versatile genius" everyone talks about... I see a pretty average actress who occasionally manages to stand out—usually playing some fragile woman, even when she's supposed to be portraying a strong character.
Raymond Jackson4 said:Oh, absolutely! The woman acts and looks like a boiled squid in vinegar!
Please tell me I'm not the only one feeling this way... 😁
Watching her is like sitting down to a bland, uninspired dinner; all the ingredients are technically there, everything follows the recipe perfectly, but it just lacks soul—it's missing that essential spark...