It isn't boring. The direction is solid—take that scene with J. Lee Curtis playing the tax auditor, for instance; what's the issue there? The action sequences hit the mark too. I don't quite get the massive hate. Sure, the "emotional core" of the story is a total cliché, much like in Inception, but that's what I expected. It needed that hook... (the kind of thing Netflix generations would hail as a masterpiece.) I actually enjoyed the Bagel part; it gave me some Twin Peaks vibes. For what it is, the film is very good. And fun.
I mean, I really don't know what you were expecting here. It’s a film that everyone is hailing as some kind of masterpiece before anyone has even seen it. I haven't actually sat down to watch it yet, by the way. 😁
Laura Jackson2 said:It feels like—as someone else already pointed out—this masterpiece might only ever find its way into those tiny indie theaters, leaving the rest of us with zero chance to see it unless it eventually hits the streaming services...
amberfox7 said:We might as well shut this thread down now—someone went and quoted the female version of Miljenko Jergović, Zrinka Pavlić. Just when the debate was finally getting interesting, too. There’s always some party pooper, isn't there?
What are you even complaining about? This is still your own doing. If someone is being accused of chauvinism, that’s the whole point.
Dennis Martin6 said:The whole point of letting him drive is all about shifting the perspective—throwing a totally different light on his complaining. It’s basically those tiny little steps that kick off a turnaround leading to some personal catharsis by the end.
For some reason, I feel like the dynamic between the couple isn't hitting home for everyone. It’s actually pretty straightforward: she wants him to show some actual desire for her, but he thinks doing that would make him too exposed and vulnerable. They're both right. So instead, he builds this perfect, pure image of her in his head—and that kind of idealism just leads straight to alienation. Looking at it through the lens of Japanese culture, you could argue it's that classic theme of *uchi* (inside) vs. *soto* (outside)—basically the private self versus the public persona. In Japan, the "self" is contextual; it's shaped by the group rather than just the individual.
Give me a break, that would have been beyond cringe. 😁 Luckily, Hamaguchi isn't Chabrol.
It's not an erotic thriller; it's more like Scheherazade and *One Thousand and One Nights*. 😉
The reality is that things should be viewed in binary. Forget about "relatively simple."
He isn't tough; he’s just a coward. He lacks the grit shown by that young actor who actually carries himself with authority. This guy is soft. It feels right that he’s being driven by a woman.
amberfox7 said:The chauvinist in me caught onto the underlying theme here: this movie basically argues that women can be whatever they want, and men just have to stoically endure it if they want to be loved or enjoy their lives.
By the end, he’s even blaming himself—yeah, it’s your fault because she enjoyed using young actors as warm bodies on your couch, and you're the bad guy because you didn't explicitly tell her it bothered you. I guess we live in an era where we just glorify being unfaithful.
Jokes aside.
That whole subplot about the young actor hitting photographers is just cringe—a cheap, lazy writing shortcut. I honestly expected something more Hitchcockian, maybe the protagonist snapping and murdering the kid in a fit of madness; that would've been something. The initial outburst at the photographer worked okay as a character beat, but turning it into this repetitive cycle? Without spoiling too much, it was a massive missed opportunity. It should have gone in a completely different direction.
The car scene where the young actor wraps up her narrative is hands-down the worst acting in the film; you can literally see the kid struggling, just staring blankly into space.
The last thirty minutes are a slog—emotionally hollow and frankly pathetic. And that moment where the driver explains how she, spoiler, killed her mother? Just lame.
It’s like Batman—ninety minutes too long.
That said, there is merit here. The husband's performance, playing the silent actor, is Oscar-worthy; top-tier talent right there. The lead actor is also flawless throughout—he absolutely crushed it. The direction and framing are very polished and soothing; I genuinely enjoyed the shots of the city, the roads, and the landscape. That bit with the tunnels felt like a lovely nod to Tarkovsky.
I have to admit, I'm getting tired of these films that feel like filmed stage plays, but it's alright.
Anyway, it’s a forced experience. Realistically, it’s a 6/10. It falls apart way too much.
p.s. I won't even touch that nonsense about her "pre-orgasmic" ideas for drama; it feels like a solution cooked up by some adolescent playwright obsessed with erotic thrillers. However, the sex scenes with the husband were beautifully directed, so I'll let that slide.
Monologues take the place of dialogue. Instead of objective storytelling, everything is filtered through the protagonist's perspective, which eventually extends to how the actor experiences the script itself.
The fundamental issue is that there was never any actual dialogue between him and his wife. Their communication—or rather, his version of it—was nothing more than a series of monologues and his own one-sided interpretations. She would try to open up and share her stories after they had sex, but he’d just check out, reacting mechanically because he'd rather just go to sleep. Then, the next day, he recounts those same stories back to her, adding new details she never actually mentioned. He processes her life, reframes it, and hands it back to her; she simply accepts his version as the truth. What she does with the actors is superficial at best—the text is what matters, and in this case, he holds all the cards.
That’s how their relationship functioned, but you can draw a direct parallel to the way he runs his theater productions. As a director, his system is built on stripping actors of their autonomy. They aren't allowed to react instinctively; they have to wait until they know the entire script before they are permitted to shape a response.
It’s the same system he uses to manage his private life. On the cassette, every character in the play is condensed into a single monologue delivered by his wife. He experiences the story through his own lens, inside his car, interpreting the world within a space where he feels in control. (Before the driver arrived, he used to immerse himself in the text; when she first showed up, he recited it mechanically, much like his actors during rehearsals, until he felt he could trust her "objectivity.") His car is quite literally his comfort zone—a sanctuary where he attempts to interpret his marriage and settle his own guilt on his own terms, using a role and a script that he completely dominates.
Mda. Honestly, it's borderline rude to run for three hours. Fine—if you can stomach the first two, there's a bit of a payoff in the third hour; it still drags through those monologue sequences, but sure, it carries some weight. But there is absolutely no reason for it to hit the three-hour mark—none at all. The pacing wouldn't feel any faster even if everything were condensed into two hours; it would still have that slow, deliberate crawl, so I can't help but complain about the runtime. Is there a psychological term for temporal abuse? 😁
Man, I don't know if that's a thing, but we should probably add it to the dictionary. 😁 The part with the silent woman felt unnecessary to the overall story. I rewatched the final third today, and maybe it's because I watched it in isolation without being fully immersed, but that whole sequence of mutual confessions at the end of a cigarette instead of a candle felt kind of cringe. To me, the entire section where they articulate everything we've already figured out could have been coldly cut. The final scene—the play scene—is powerful and cathartic enough on its own.
The film really drives, even with its hefty three-hour runtime. It calls to mind Bergman because it relies so heavily on dialogue, but unlike my usual experience with Bergman, this feels like a smooth, comfortable ride where you actually have space to breathe and absorb the moments. Given how the plot unfolds, it also reminds me of Three Colors: Blue. There’s this idea that we can’t fully process experiences while they’re happening; we need time for everything to settle. In a way, that’s the actors' job—to live with the text for months just so they can truly "react." Then there are those who have the luxury of wasting too much time trying to reconcile the irreconcilable—fools, really...
It offers something more than the hundredth recycled story about emotional repression and avoidance (if I’d just read the synopsis, I probably would have skipped it), and it’s worth a second look. But man, three hours... Still, since the core concept is solid and leaves you with something tangible at the end, if that requires three hours, I'll take it. My only real gripe is the female driver; the way her character is written and resolved feels a bit basic.
vividstag16 said:I don't feel any empathy for the lead actress or anyone else in this movie. People find their own ways to cope; once the chaos of war settles down, they'll just drift back to their usual routines.👍
Exactly. It’s their call. The real question is whether you’d feel more empathy if they were actual homeless people, but that would be an entirely different movie. Regardless, it’s interesting watching the debate unfold here—seeing who has valid points or justifications and who doesn't. It turns out this is a pretty controversial topic. 😁
northerncrane4 said:If someone flipped the perspective, then it’s the director's doing. She views or portrays the system through a benevolent lens. That's why she gets the Oscar. Her protagonist is an agoraphobic living within a system that allows her to find fulfillment—unlike my experience.
No, you just saw fulfillment in the most depressing film of the year.
northerncrane4 said:If we're being honest, the system is exactly what allows them to maintain the lifestyle they've chosen. They aren't some kind of modern pioneers, despite how one side character in the movie describes them. It’s more like an unskilled workforce that wants the freedom to drive those beautiful backroads, knowing there's always a town just over the horizon—a place where they can call family for a zero-interest, likely unreturned loan if their vehicle breaks down. "Nomadland" isn't a critique; it's actually a tribute to the American system, where even people living on the fringes always have gas money, and the absolute worst-case scenario is getting kicked off a private parking lot.
The system is exploiting them, and you've completely missed the point...
Why is it that we only catch glimpses of that delivery guy from a distance when he's dropping off drinks, but as soon as he gets close to the table, the camera seems to look right past him? It makes me wonder if he’s actually working out at the ranch or something. I just can't wrap my head around it.
That bit about my thesis was just a joke; I’m nowhere near finishing it. We brought up Dreyer and Bresson while discussing Schrader's latest film, ultimately deciding their styles felt a bit too dated for us. 😁
Dennis Martin6, do you have a director who explores Christian themes that you find good, or at least interesting? I need some material for... a thesis project. 😁
Ashley Grant66 said:Personally, I thought the music worked way better in Good Times—that OPN soundtrack really gave that movie an extra dimension. Here, though, the score feels like it’s eating every single scene alive. It’s just too over-the-top and doesn't really vibe with the goofy tone of the film. Just my two cents!
By the way, that auction scene is top-tier—I’ve always loved auction scenes in movies because you just know things are about to go absolutely sideways. 😁 That part where the receptionist calls her boss that—honestly, it felt like a scene straight out of some goofy Hollywood comedy—but man, it was gold! 🤣
I agree. I watched Good Times right after this one, and while the dialogue isn't fighting the music quite as much there, I still don't get why they went with this Vangelis rip-off style. It feels misplaced.🤷 Personally, nothing about it felt goofy to me; it felt tragic from the jump. It’s clearly meant to grate on your nerves because of how foolish the protagonist is. I struggled through the beginning, but once I settled in, it paid off. To me, the film worked.
By the way, that teasing scene is gold. I always love scenes involving banter because you just know things are about to go sideways. 😁 And that moment where the receptionist calls her boss out? It felt like something straight out of a silly sitcom, but it was spot on. 🤣
It's like a Ricky Gervais mockumentary. 😁 Yeah, those two scenes are great.
crimsonmoose3 said:I’m all for him. 😁 It’s been a while since I sat down for one of his movies. I went through his entire filmography once, and I have to say, the man was incredibly prolific... 😍
The one thing I'm really curious about is Blade of the Immortal.
You're bringing up Takashi, but this thread is about Takeshi. 😁