Posts by Amanda Nguyen5

Look, there's a ton of nonsense in there, but you'll find a few nuggets of truth worth noting

btw, I'm still standing by my claim that "Titanic" is an absolute masterpiece

So, look... I try to catch almost everything coming out lately—like, pretty much 100% of the new releases I can get my hands on. I don't go into anything with a bias, either. I’ll watch whatever, from Mr. Brooks to Evan, all the way down to 1408 and Dead Girl.

Usually, before the movie even starts, I’ll do a little homework. I read up on the film and maybe check out one review from a legit critic—you know, someone who actually understands cinema, not just some hack writing about the plot.

Read about the movie—meh, sounds boring.
Read a review—🙂, or maybe 😢.
But regardless, you're sitting there thinking, "Yeah, I should definitely check this one out," and then... the trailer drops. And well, you know how that goes.

I was lurking on this thread for a bit, but nothing really jumped out at me
now I'm back to catch up on the comments and it all came flooding back to me

"The Ninth Gate" by Polanski....
Look, I watched it through a different lens a few years ago—just focused on the plot and all those mystical vibes and whatever else. It was incredibly tense and honestly amazing. But then, out of nowhere, everything just went completely off the rails once that guy started breathing fire and that dragon showed up and blah blah blah

Wait, did nobody catch this one?

Whenever Pavičić gives a movie a 4.5 out of 5, you know you're in for something special.
It’s just a fact.

So... here we are with "Dead Girl," which is exactly what she just did.
My expectations were through the roof.

That’s how I headed out to the theater today...

So, what’s the deal?

A dead girl is found lying in a field in broad daylight. The whole movie is about what happened before and after she was found.
This kind of theme is right up my alley. I find myself doing this all the time while walking down the street: I wonder about people. What does that guy actually do for a living? Where is he heading now? Who's cooking his dinner tonight? Why is he standing right there? Does he have anything in common with the stranger passing him by? Stuff like that.
It’s fascinating on a human level, and on the big screen, it works great the first time (think *A Passionate Love*), very well the second time (*21 Grams*), pretty good the third (*Final Destination*), okay the fourth (*Babel*), ... (and I'm talking about the premise itself, not the directing or acting)
But honestly, it can get old. And right now, there are a bunch of different stories swirling around a dead girl that don't exactly sound fresh or exciting.
However, the whole point of film studies is that a movie's value isn't just about the plot. It's about everything else. In cases like this—where the plot might not grab you immediately and lets you focus on other elements—that's where the real magic happens.
The director, Karen Moncrieff, is someone I hadn't heard of until now, but she did an incredible job. Interestingly, critics are saying she did even better with her first film (*Blue Car*).
The movie is beautifully conceived and executed. The acting is top-tier (everyone is great, especially Rosa Bryn, who I've been seeing a lot at AMC Theatres lately—*Sunshine*, *28 Weeks Later*, etc.). Everything just clicks.
There are moments where the film feels pretty heavy. I don't mean the plot is messy, but the emotional tension is intense. I'd say they cranked it up to the absolute max.
It’s also interesting that every single little vignette in the film features some nudity or explicit sexual scenes, which just adds to that heavy, charged atmosphere I mentioned.
Overall, I'd give it an 8 or 9 out of 10. On my scale, that's a huge win. As for the director, I really hope she follows this up with something great for *Relative distances*, because I'm convinced a new powerhouse director is emerging. Add the fact that she also wrote the screenplay for "Dead Girl," and it's obvious this woman has serious potential.

Highly recommended!

The only bummer is that it only has a 6.9 on IMDb, but we've already chewed on that topic plenty of times before...

I watched it.

Polimac nailed it—"not a great movie, but visually stunning." I'm right there with them on that one.

I totally forgot to mention that on top of those gorgeous tracks by the duo Antonín Dvořák and Jacques Offenbach, the guy actually responsible for the score—whoever he is! Wikipedia says his name is Ilan Eshkeri—honestly, he just pulled off one of the best jobs in cinema this year.
The music isn't just "pretty" in this movie. There aren't even enough words to describe it.
Seriously, hats off to him.

Someone already dropped a comment calling this the "most beautiful film ever."

I’d just jump in and say it's "one of the most beautiful films ever." I mean, "Ratatouille" is also "one of the most beautiful films ever," but they're both just in their own leagues...

Anyway, I don't feel like writing a whole manifesto right now, but I'm giving this a solid 9/10. Highly recommend it to everyone.

Honestly, AMC Theatres has been hitting it out of the park lately.

Die Hard, Ratatouille, Stardust, 1408—even Mr. Brooks is worth a watch...

Look, let's be real: no movie is quite on the level of a true masterpiece of fine art (and I don't mean "art film" as a genre, just a work of art in general), but I’d recommend everything I mentioned—except maybe Mr. Brooks—to anyone because they're all such great watches...

As for the heavier stuff, I'm planning to catch Pan's Labyrinth and Dead Girl (which I have huge expectations for) soon, so we'll see how those turn out...

Btw, definitely pay attention to those two gorgeous, long shots right at the start of Stardust where the focus shifts from one character to the next while moving along...

It really reminded me of those fairy-tale-like miniature shots De Palma used in Snake Eye.

Lisa Harris2 said:I can't agree with you guys on this being "typical American trash." Honestly? It was the exact opposite. For me, this movie was a total breath of fresh air after way too long.
I had zero clue what the plot was even about before sitting down, but seeing Kevin Costner was enough motivation 😍 and I was genuinely surprised. The only weak spot, in my opinion, was that loud, overly naive shootout in the hallway—it left my ears ringing for the rest of the film. Otherwise, nothing but praise. Oh, and Demi Moore? Total letdown. Her acting was pretty terrible! 🙂

P.S. I spent the whole time just waiting for Marg Helgenberger to crush the case in two seconds flat! 😬

Costner 👍 👍
Cook 👍 👍
Moore 👎

Later!

Yeah, I mentioned that too. It was seriously obnoxious how loud it was... I just don't get why they did that.

Lisa Harris2 said:I can't agree with you guys on this being "typical American trash." Honestly? It was the exact opposite. For me, this movie was a total breath of fresh air after way too long.
I had zero clue what the plot was even about before sitting down, but seeing Kevin Costner was enough motivation 😍 and I was genuinely surprised. The only weak spot, in my opinion, was that loud, overly naive shootout in the hallway—it left my ears ringing for the rest of the film. Otherwise, nothing but praise. Oh, and Demi Moore? Total letdown. Her acting was pretty terrible! 🙂

P.S. I spent the whole time just waiting for Marg Helgenberger to crush the case in two seconds flat! 😬

Costner 👍 👍
Cook 👍 👍
Moore 👎

Later!

😁

Lisa Harris2 said:I can't agree with you guys on this being "typical American trash." Honestly? It was the exact opposite. For me, this movie was a total breath of fresh air after way too long.
I had zero clue what the plot was even about before sitting down, but seeing Kevin Costner was enough motivation 😍 and I was genuinely surprised. The only weak spot, in my opinion, was that loud, overly naive shootout in the hallway—it left my ears ringing for the rest of the film. Otherwise, nothing but praise. Oh, and Demi Moore? Total letdown. Her acting was pretty terrible! 🙂

P.S. I spent the whole time just waiting for Marg Helgenberger to crush the case in two seconds flat! 😬

Costner 👍 👍
Cook 👍 👍
Moore 👎

Later!

It isn't fair to judge the acting without mentioning the brilliant William Hurt.
No way, no way.

David Price5 said:And he doesn't even mention Trainspotting, his most famous film... oh, and Full Monty too..

I knew that was coming, but still, I wasn't making excuses...

btw how is it that when you're reading Bukowski's stuff, you don't remember where you know things from? Like, you clearly know the guy wrote Post Office and lovac ispod žito, right?

just in case you miss my point again, let me be clear—it’s not about Bukowski or his books (which you might have heard of, maybe not)

Elizabeth Ruiz65 said:So, I caught a glimpse of it yesterday, and honestly, I don't know—it’s like Resident Evil under a different name.
Even if there are a few interesting scenes scattered in there.


spoiler Warning

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

In one of those pivotal moments where the father finally confronts the reality of what happened to those two kids...
He finds out his wife is actually alive, just lying there, asleep in bed.
So, he’s all set to rush in and kiss her, completely oblivious to what she’s actually carrying.
A virus takes hold, and then he turns into a raving, mindless zombie himself.
And then a whole new wave of infections begins—it’s actually entirely possible.
You could interpret that as an attempt to demonize a fairy tale.
And her various takes on Sleeping Beauty/Trnoružika, which...
So the prince arrives, she wakes up from his kiss, and then they just carry on. Is that really all there is to it?
Live happily until the end of the line.

So, here’s that attempt at waking her up—you know, the whole "Sleeping Beauty" kiss routine.
He’s essentially the one responsible for that entire apocalyptic momentum the film carries later on, isn't he?
Sleeping Beauty gets slaughtered immediately after.
A kiss from an infected—one who has already transitioned into a full-blown zombie.
husband.

So, what can one actually read into a discourse like this?
The message is simple: trying to play the hero and save the damsel can end up being incredibly fatal.
Whether you're looking at it from the perspective of a beauty or a prince—though we don't even need to go there—it’s all the same.
What a waste for all those collateral victims left in the wake of everything.
...consecutive, and since there's absolutely no guarantee that anyone will actually come to save the prince.
And honestly, after that, he won't even need saving, will he?
It’s also highly questionable whether any kind of rescue operation would even be possible after that.
It’s possible.

So, one might eventually conclude that it's probably better to just let the princes be.
Sleep tight, beauty, and get back to work—while everyone else stays lost in their own imaginations.
To all those little beauties sitting around waiting for some prince to sweep them off their feet: you're looking for more than just a fairy tale.
I wouldn't say they should be wishing for him; rather, they should be wishing he never existed at all.
It’s just not going to happen. There are no rose-colored happy endings left in the 21st century.
If you're looking to actually survive, the best move is probably just to marry someone who doesn't give a damn about anything.
On the second, since it'll only end up hurting us anyway. When...
Think about it more carefully; the point aligns perfectly with modern promotion.
Capitalist paradigms and their relentless pursuit of maintaining the status quo.

Well, that's just how I see it.

🙏 🙏
Whether it’s actually right or not, I gotta say, I respect the creativity.

"28 Weeks Later" is light years away from being a trash movie. Honestly, it doesn't share a single thing in common with that kind of garbage.
It’s not "28 Years Later," it's "28 Weeks Later." Get it right!
Three people on cocaine definitely wouldn't be chasing after you like that. You're clearly just talking nonsense.

And here’s my take:

This movie is honestly such a trip if you’re into that whole grim, dystopian future vibe. It hits all the right notes for me.
I remember the first part pretty vividly, and honestly, this one just didn't hit the same way. Then again, I don't exactly have a perfect memory of the original either—maybe it was just more of a "fun" watch back then? My knowledge of film has definitely leveled up since then, so maybe I should give the first one another look just to get a fair comparison. But whatever, the comparison doesn't really matter.
I’m telling you, that whole thing with the virus and everything else? It's actually pretty fascinating.
There’s some really solid footage here. Some of the shots are just top-tier. I loved that opening sequence during the total chaos at home—you can barely tell who’s doing what or where anyone is moving. It was executed perfectly.
The music is on point, too. It perfectly tracks the tension.

The only thing that actually ruined the experience for me was the absolute trash people in the theater. Seriously. And there was this one decent guy who kept loudly explaining the plot to his girlfriend, like he needed everyone in the room to know he’d already figured everything out. So annoying.
It wasn't even about the others losing their cool and freaking out. It was about me—I'm the only one who stayed totally chill.
Honestly, after watching "1408," I walked out of the theater feeling pretty shaken up. That movie really rattled my nerves—it's been a long time since a horror flick (if you can even call it that) hit me that hard. Maybe that’s subconscious reason why I didn't even bother heading home right away; instead, I went straight to catch "Evan Almighty."😁 ), and of course, being trapped in a tight space with that psycho soundtrack, all those intense close-ups, and visceral action... then suddenly, bam! It’s more about the jump scares than any actual dialogue between two people, and then—pow! A half-bloody mutant slams against a car window screaming its head off... 😎

So, let me be real—I wasn't terrified. As a piece of art, the movie isn't exactly a masterpiece. The acting could have been sharper, though the theme itself is top-tier. And I honestly couldn't place where I knew Carlyle from (just looked him up—turns out he was in "Eragon," "The World is Not Enough," and "Regret"...)

It was pretty funny seeing Perrin on screen, too. Watching him walk, run, or whatever he was doing—hey, at least he's upright! 😁

And I can't exactly play the mystery solver and *not* notice that the director of the first film and the producer was Danny Boyle, while the guy helping the protagonists in this sequel is named Doyle.
hm, I wonder if IMDb will even list that little detail, given how much smoke and mirrors they use.

So, what’s the verdict? What are you all thinking?

I gotta admit, seeing that the last review for this movie said it "looks promising" actually bummed me out a little... because that means someone actually sat through it.

He loved Al Capone and Lee Harvey Oswald, lived in both perfect and watery worlds, delivered mail, protected singers, and danced with wolves—but now he’s back as a successful businessman with an alter ego addicted to killing.

Kevin Costner is Mr. Brooks.

Earl Brooks is a middle-aged businessman riding high on his career. But behind all those business wins, the big houses, the beautiful women, and the smooth lifestyle, there’s something completely different lurking. His alter ego, Marshall (played brilliantly by William Hurt), is a killing addict. Brooks wants to quit, but as things usually go, he gets caught red-handed during his final act. Now, a voyeur holding Brooks's leash just wants him to take them along on the next hunt. And that’s where the story kicks off...

An unknown (if I dare say) director, Bruce A. Evans, also penned the script for his first major project. It had the potential to be something truly special, but it ultimately lands somewhere right in the middle.
Quick cuts, varied camera angles, a solid soundtrack, snappy dialogue, and engaging characters all help drive this psychological thriller forward at a fast pace, but I’m afraid Evans overreached a bit.
Honestly, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen such an intelligent character on the big screen like Earl Brooks. Just his presence pulls you in. But Evans couldn't just leave us with Mr. Brooks, his alter ego, the blackmailer, and the cop; he felt the need to throw in extra subplots that just end up distracting from our main guy. You’ve got Brooks's daughter popping up with her own set of issues, and a detective whose job isn't just hunting Brooks, but juggling catching another killer while dealing with personal drama. Evans does tie everything together into a somewhat coherent story in the end, but by focusing on these side details, he loses the core thread: the life of Mr. Brooks himself.
The acting is top-notch—Costner, as I mentioned, does a wonderful job portraying such a complex character. Hurt is masterful as Costner's alter ego, and Demi Moore (playing the detective) has a few standout moments. Even comedian Dan Cook holds his own as the clumsy blackmailer.
The sound design is a bit too loud in certain spots, which is a shame because the movie didn't really need it, but otherwise, it does a nice job setting the mood. The soundtrack is also spot on and deserves high marks, especially during those penultimate scenes involving Brooks and his daughter.

My overall takeaway—as a huge fan of psychological thrillers—is that if Evans had trimmed the fat and stayed focused on the lead, he could have made this a stellar film. Especially with a cast like Kevin Costner, Dan Cook, and Demi Moore, he could have reached much higher levels, but he just didn't quite get there.
So, to use a traffic light metaphor—it's a green light for genre fans, but a yellow light for general moviegoers.

Sean Brown3 said:I’m wondering if there's any way to actually "make it" in the American film industry without graduating from a top-tier film academy.
I want to direct, but from what I can see, spots at these academies are incredibly limited—and most of them seem to go to people who already have the right connections.

🙄

no

mistyseal11 said:The point the movie is trying to make is actually decent...

but the actual movie itself? Total garbage...

That was basically my first comment too.

I’m glad I sat through it just to be reminded of how crazy people can be—it’s been a while since I saw anything even remotely like this.
But man, the movie was trash.

And don't even get me started on the microphone. I wasn't looking for it, obviously, but once I noticed it twice—one hanging and one fixed in place—I couldn't help myself. Every five minutes I'd glance up, and most of the time, there it was again. Just staring at me.

If the movie had actually been good or interesting, I definitely wouldn't have been looking at the ceiling.

Like I said, the beginning was great. It could have gone anywhere, but it didn't. Such a shame.

quietdriver3 said:There you go...

Interesting, really interesting...

I never would've guessed.

Thanks a ton for the link, though I still think the film crew could prevent this whole mess by just not sending all that "extra gore" down there. That way, the operator couldn't screw up in the first place.

But then again, someone might lose their mind because the operator would probably end up hacking away sloppily anyway. Honestly, I'd much rather deal with one microphone than half a head missing.

redowl90 said:Come on, people, use your heads for a second. Do you honestly think filmmakers—during actual production or even in the editing room—would just miss something as obvious as a microphone sticking right in the middle of a shot? And not just once, but multiple times?!

yeah

David Price5 said:It’s not an editing issue. Camera crews get footage in a different format... someone already mentioned this before..

Well, look at that.
First news I've heard.
Can anyone drop a link to where they talked about this? Or maybe somewhere outside this forum that mentions it?

I mean, sure, it's fine when I'm watching stuff at home and you catch a mic or a stray wire (like watching some old classic in a dark room and seeing the gear, damn)

The opening is killer. Those first 15 minutes are just astonishing... absolutely phenomenal...
Ashley looks incredible, even with those extra pounds and enough booze in her system to sink a ship. That helicopter shot heading toward the motel—maybe proof that helicopters actually exist?—was just perfection. One word: flawless.

Then this wild young guy shows up... his acting is phenomenal... everything is going great so far.

But then Ashley starts talking, and she completely ruins her character. It just doesn't track—her dialogue is terrible, yet her figure is perfect. It’s jarring.
Then the Bugs show up.
Do the Bugs actually show up?
Nope, they don't.

And then the whole thing just goes straight to hell.

Honestly, this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my entire life. Especially those last 45 minutes. Good grief.
I really wanted to write something constructive and back up my points, but then I realized: why bother? I'd much rather spend my time praising something good when the time comes than wasting words on this trash.

I can handle a hanging mic once or twice in a bad movie, maybe four or five times if I'm feeling generous. But when a stationary mic is clearly visible in the upper left corner for a solid 10 seconds during a scene? The whole paranoid atmosphere they were trying to build? Totally ruined. It's gone.

1. Thank God I was at Carnegie Hall earlier for one of the top 5 best performances I've ever seen, otherwise my whole day would have been a total wash.
2. It slightly reminded me of Mel Gibson's Conspiracy... and only then did I realize what absolute garbage the Bugs are.
3. I have no clue why they translated "Bug" as "Kukci" in some versions but kept the title as "Bug." Makes no sense.
4. Despite all the hype, this might be my last time ever watching a Friedkin film.

I’ve gotta start this review with a pretty embarrassing confession: until last night, I hadn't even heard of Dahan, let alone the lead actress, Marion Cotillard.

I honestly have no clue where they’ve been or what they’ve actually been up to lately. I heard Dahan was doing some music videos and maybe some indie shorts, and Cotillard has been working on stuff with Scott and a few others, though nothing that really made huge waves. As for that movie from yesterday? All I heard was that the acting was top-notch and the story was solid.

Story?
This story is all about Edith Piaf—you know, the legendary "little sparrow" herself. It’s a deep dive into her life, but honestly, it’s just as much a tribute to the soul of old-school New York City back in the day. Through her journey, you really get a feel for that gritty, beautiful atmosphere of the era.
Dahan keeps jumping all over the timeline, which I know drove a lot of people crazy, but honestly? It’s the only way to do it. If you look closely, though, there are still three very clear stages: childhood, the big breakthrough, and those final months leading up to the end.
Our heroine’s whole life just zipped by like some restless little sparrow, never really settling down anywhere for long. So, honestly, there’s no reason why the director wouldn't ditch a standard chronological timeline. I mean, we all know—or at least the movie shows us—that there was that specific moment when Piaf (sparrow) earned her nickname, but she was always that little bird at heart. There's no point in dragging out a predictable timeline to hit every single milestone, because if you look closely, those milestones didn't even exist in a straight line. It actually works way better this way, jumping around in a zigzag pattern. It perfectly captures the constant, wandering energy of her restless soul.

Kate Diaz said:While it might not be everyone's cup of tea, I actually found the non-linear structure and the sheer temporal chaos of the film quite compelling. At certain points, you lose all sense of which era you're currently inhabiting because everything is so beautifully jumbled. It mirrors the chaotic essence of Edith Piaf's own life perfectly.

The only real issues for me were the massive chronological gap regarding WWII and the somewhat thin portrayal of Piaf's romantic life. I feel there was a missed opportunity there; her relationships were just as turbulent and unfocused as the rest of her existence—the highs, the lows, the friendships, and the struggle with alcoholism. On the other hand, the film occasionally veers into being overly pretentious. For instance, the director didn't really need that intense scene showing an elderly woman struggling right before performing at Carnegie Hall when she first heard her signature anthem. In reality, Edith was still doing relatively well then; her health only truly spiraled in those last couple of years. But then again, I suppose that's just "artistic license" at work.

👍

And then there's the acting. Honestly, Marion Cotillard's performance is going to stick with people for a long time. It’s one of those things you just can't shake. That said, she definitely goes a bit overboard in certain spots... a little too much, if you ask me.

Kate Diaz said:While it might not be everyone's cup of tea, I actually found the non-linear structure and the sheer temporal chaos of the film quite compelling. At certain points, you lose all sense of which era you're currently inhabiting because everything is so beautifully jumbled. It mirrors the chaotic essence of Edith Piaf's own life perfectly.

The only real issues for me were the massive chronological gap regarding WWII and the somewhat thin portrayal of Piaf's romantic life. I feel there was a missed opportunity there; her relationships were just as turbulent and unfocused as the rest of her existence—the highs, the lows, the friendships, and the struggle with alcoholism. On the other hand, the film occasionally veers into being overly pretentious. For instance, the director didn't really need that intense scene showing an elderly woman struggling right before performing at Carnegie Hall when she first heard her signature anthem. In reality, Edith was still doing relatively well then; her health only truly spiraled in those last couple of years. But then again, I suppose that's just "artistic license" at work.

👍
The acting is just straight-up "astonishing," as we Americans would say.
On my scale of perfection, only three people have ever earned a top spot. It was just two guys—Al Pacino in *Dog Day Afternoon* and Jack Nicholson in *About Schmidt*—and one woman, Ellen Burstyn in *Requiem for a Dream*. But today? I’m officially adding another woman to that list.
Marion Cotillard is absolutely killing it. Seriously, everything about her is just flawless—the look, the way she talks, even how perfectly her lips match the dialogue. Her movements, that slight slouch, even the way she stumbles through a scene... it’s all just perfect. She’s got it down.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: those old-school vibes feel a bit overdone. But honestly? That’s not on her. It’s the director's fault—or whoever else was behind the scenes.
I saw someone mention somewhere that Marion Cotillard isn't just playing Edith in that movie—she actually *is* Edith. Honestly? I’m totally with them. When you look at photos of Cotillard side-by-side with Piaf, they're practically identical. It's wild.
I was already totally blown away, but then I took a look at these two photos and honestly? I’m speechless.
Check out this shot of Marion Cotillard. Honestly, she just has that presence, you know? It’s hard to look away.
I just stumbled upon this shot from the movie. It’s such a vibe. Honestly, seeing this image just takes me right back to that whole era. It's one of those photos that hits you immediately, you know? Just pure, unadulterated mood.
Honestly, it’s not just that Cotillard plays Edith exactly like she is—it's that her performance is totally different from who Marion Cotillard actually is in real life.

I need to circle back to this for a second. Look, I get it—you can't cram an entire lifetime of chaos into 140 minutes, and trying to summarize a legend like Piaf is a massive undertaking. But honestly? I felt like Dahan lost the plot a few times. Just to give you a couple of examples: the movie mentions she was nearly blind, but completely skips over her being almost deaf, which would have totally changed the trajectory of her career if it had actually happened. Then there’s that bit about her dealing with Marlene Dietrich, but they act like she never even met Yves Montand. And that's wild, because she’s the one who actually discovered him! Sure, she helped out someone like Charles Aznavour by taking him on tour too, but that might just be extra info. Still, it felt off.
Honestly, this movie has some totally pointless moments. Out of nowhere—and if you aren't paying close attention, you’re going to be super confused about whether it’s a dream or reality—they just drop this line on her: "Your daughter is dead. Meningitis." But here's the thing: there isn't a single mention of a daughter, a father, or even how she was born before or after that scene. If there's no context, there's really no reason to bring up her death at all. It just feels unnecessary.
Aside from his daughter, that messy car accident is definitely going to haunt him—the one where he falls into a morphine addiction and everything just starts spiraling downhill.
Driving some random car straight into a tree while blasting music against a gorgeous backdrop looks cool on camera—that’s just a minor, trivial fender bender in the grand scheme of things—but honestly? It’s completely unnecessary.
They totally skipped over the part about her photos being traded for 150 fake passports—the ones she smuggled in during her second visit to that prison camp to sing. Those passports actually saved lives. Look, I get it. You can't include everything, and Dahan himself said he’s making a portrait, not a full-blown biopic. But seriously? It makes zero sense to dwell on some obscure French actor like Paul Meurisse while ignoring massive moments like this. This was arguably the biggest discovery ever made: finding Yves Montanda, who was probably the most famous singer in the world at the time.
The segment about the boxer—who actually climbed all the way to the middleweight world championship title, by the way—is handled beautifully. Their whole whirlwind romance was already splashed across the big screen back in 1983 in that movie "Edith and Marcel," where his son, Marcel Cerdan Jr., played him. It’s the kind of thing you just have to see.
One guy gets mentioned in just a single sentence, while the other isn't even brought up.

The absolute best part of the movie—and I’m talking about the directing here, not just the acting—is that one specific moment when she steps out onto the stage. The music starts building, you know it's time for her to belt it out, she opens her mouth, but then... total silence. We don't hear a single note from her. Instead, we're hit with this massive wave of applause and cheering, and suddenly she's already mid-performance on a completely different song while still technically "singing" that first one. It is just stunning.

The movie basically wraps things up with her performance at Carnegie Hall, but honestly? It feels a bit fake. She spends the whole film barely able to walk or even speak, only to suddenly become this bubbly, energetic force who’s practically dancing on stage. Look, I get it—the filmmakers probably wanted that moment, but it just felt off.

I have to say, for a biopic about a singer, this movie feels a bit light on the soundtrack. They definitely could have squeezed in more tunes. And honestly? They really should've avoided playing "What a Wonderful World" over and over again. I get it, it's her biggest hit and a classic, but still...

I have to say, the screening at AMC started off on such a hilarious note. They had the word "Legends" plastered all over the screen, but then the subtitle underneath just said "Legend." I haven't laughed that hard in an AMC theater in ages. Honestly, I can't wait to see what they try to do with the "Dreamworks" logo next time...

And here’s one last little trivia nugget that probably could have been squeezed into a single line of the movie: Piaf actually passed away on the exact same day as her close friend, the legendary writer Jean Cocteau, who was the one who wrote "Le bel indifferent" just for her.

It’s been a long time since a movie at AMC hit me this hard—honestly, maybe only *Apocalypto* all year. As far as biopics go, it’s a really decent portrait of a legend.
The directing is great in spots and solid overall. The acting? Absolutely top-tier. Every single actor was on point; I can't recall a single weak performance. Plus, the soundtrack is just phenomenal. So, here's my take:
subjectively—10/10 (I love Piaf, I love chanteuses, and I live for biopics)
objectively—8.5/10 (the plot drags a bit in places and the direction isn't flawless, but the acting carries it up by almost two whole points)

Seriously, go see it.

I have to start this review with a shameful confession: until last night, I hadn't even heard of Dahan or the lead, Marion Cotillard. But I'm ending it with the fact that those names aren't going anywhere after this movie.

Caught a screening at AMC Theatres today.

The humor lands perfectly, Megan is even better than expected, and those family dialogues? Pure genius. The soundtrack is a total vibe too. The lead actor definitely has potential—he just needs to find his own unique spark (haven't seen Paranoia yet, by the way). There are tons of easter eggs tucked in there, just like someone else already pointed out, and honestly, I don't need to say anything about those "greatest movie ever" claims.
Bottom line: it's a fun ride, but an 8.1 on IMDb feels a bit much (even compared to a masterpiece like Zodiac). I am just glad Rotten Tomatoes bumped up their impression with a score around 55%.