Posts by Rebecca Peterson3

Rachel Young3 said:Really? I honestly thought it was pure delusion to imagine they’d just sleep together and then immediately go house hunting for some cozy little cottage in the suburbs...

I suppose you have to be about thirteen years old to actually buy into that fantasy, but hey, to each their own... though that whole "dream house" bit sounds like just another one of his tall tales he uses to charm housewives while he's passing through town...

hollowowl15 said:The boss is certainly an interesting figure, though I don't see any glaring plot holes here. She functions essentially as the antithesis to that little clique, and that specific tension between the authority figure and the group is exactly what’s needed to stir up some instability within Star... providing a necessary catalyst for movement...

Don't you think that scene where the boss is in bed with someone just as Star walks in feels a bit forced and unnecessary? It's not like Star was born yesterday; she isn't going to be shocked by hearing the boss say she doesn't give a damn about anyone and that she's done playing games with them all. Star has likely been aware of this reality for quite some time without needing anyone to spell it out explicitly... that particular moment just felt a bit clumsy to me...

hollowowl15 said:It’s because they’re just sheep, really, and they simply lack the capacity to handle someone leaving... But what I find far more compelling is the fact that she isn't actually departing. Much like how the boss (in her own way) looks after them, Star seems to be searching for someone to care for, perhaps because that’s the only way she can truly break free from their little community. She has this innate nurturing quality—the same instinct that led her to protect those children, save those animals on the road, and act so defensively toward him when he was facing down that potential client. She can't make the exit on her own...

Her characterization is solid enough, I suppose, but the subplot involving the boss is riddled with holes; there's just something missing there...
I’m feeling a bit uneasy about A. Arnold; honestly, both of her previous films were significantly better than this one...

hollowowl15 said:Wait, didn't you watch Certain Women twice already??🤔

The film seemed to pass by quite quickly for me; granted, the soundtrack was somewhat hypnotic, but I found it engaging enough simply because I viewed it as a study of her maturation process... At the start, Star decides she’s done with the responsibility of looking after children—she just can't deal with it because, in many ways, she’s still a child herself—so, for once, someone else takes care of her, acting as the authority figure...
Then she falls in love and tries to break out of that passive state, which leads to a certain disappointment, eventually prompting her decision to remain within that community because, at that specific moment in her life, she simply isn't equipped to handle true freedom... So, personally, I wasn't particularly concerned with the other characters or how they were fleshed out... 😁

It actually grows on me more upon a second viewing. It follows a similar pattern to what you're suggesting: three women, three distinct narratives; one whom the director clearly cares most about (the rancher and the teacher), one used to channel specific messages toward the audience (the lawyer and the loser), and then that beautiful, atmospheric episode featuring Michelle Williams, an old man, some stones, and the building of a house...

American media:
I follow your logic, but you can't have a character without their environment; there has to be interaction, and if she fell for one person, what does that mean for everyone else?...
For instance, I'm genuinely curious as to why they all stay loyal to the boss, when not a single one of them seems to leave...

It’s honestly irritating to the point of being painful, though I’ve come to accept her as a character—she’s perfectly fine on her own—but what really grinds my gears is how the plot just stagnates for three hours; in reality, there isn't even a plot... they just travel around selling magazines... okay, and...?

Red Road is easily Arnold's finest work, though I’d say Fish Tank gives it a run for its money.

I actually sat through eight straight days of American media just because I have such high regard for the director... but honestly, the lead actress—that girl with the uniquely shaped lips playing the old hero—really just coasts through the role without any real substance. There is zero character development; things start one way and end exactly the same, which makes you wonder why the thing even needed to be three hours long...

*There was one decent scene involving a thousand-dollar handjob, but that hardly compensates for a three-hour runtime.

Rachel Fowler61, you’d be much better off watching Red Road by that director; it’s actually a masterpiece...

Edward Ortiz77 said:I found the character development to be particularly impressive. It seems there isn't a single soul on screen that we don't learn something about... Every little interaction with the minor characters, or even those who feel more like background extras, feels like a fully realized miniature study in itself.

Meanwhile, we get an exhaustive biography of the people reading magazines, yet when it comes to the crew in the van, we’re left in total darkness until the credits roll—other than knowing they’re numerous and exist primarily to provide atmosphere while the main trio works through their drama. Given that we've been sitting through nearly three hours of this, I can't help but wish we actually knew a thing or two about them...

Paul Anderson7 said:I honestly have no idea who they made this movie for, let alone who I would actually suggest watching it. I found myself checking the runtime every ten minutes just to see how much longer I had to endure... that was basically my entire experience with the film.

Same here.

Jerry Adams71 said:I caught Beyond the Hill yesterday, and honestly, it was brilliant. Easily one of the strongest films released this year...

Regarding that specific word 🙂

Between Cruise and Reacher, they’ve both got that whole "good guys on the run" thing going for them, and while I was hoping to dig a little deeper into their actual motivations—something more substantial than just the usual tired cliché about arms dealers...
neither the first film really hit the mark for me, though it certainly looks different when you view it through the lens of the second one being an absolute masterpiece.

Gerald Jackson48 said:I’ve gotta say, I walked away feeling pretty disappointed. Maybe my standards for Korean films have just gotten way too high lately. To me, this movie felt like it was chasing mystery just for the sake of having one. It lacked that deep, core purpose. It didn't feel like there was an actual original idea or a profound thought driving the plot—something we could actually grasp or experience. Usually, that kind of depth is exactly what makes their work so incredible, but it just wasn't there this time.

I couldn't agree more.

silentgardener21 said:I actually sat through this pile of garbage because I was expecting some lighthearted comedy, so I didn't bother scrutinizing the trailer beforehand... As for what I ended up watching, I simply called it by its real name.

To each their own, I suppose.

The years 2015 and 2016 were certainly overflowing with cinematic trash, yet for my part, I found this particular film to be entirely decent enough... though, given how high my expectations were originally set, I find myself mentally erasing its existence entirely while I wait for the next project from this crew...

silentgardener21 said:If you look at the front page, it’s dominated by sci-fi, horror, and comic book adaptations, alongside two mindless comedies and that absolute disaster of a Tarzan movie.

It has been that way for years now...

silentgardener21 said:🤮

If you’re actually looking for a total waste of time, go watch Cell (there's a dedicated thread for it on the boards)...
but let’s be honest, comparing that pile of trash to the absolute disaster that was Coenovac's film doesn't exactly make it any better... 🙄

silentgardener21 said:I honestly find the crowd on this forum quite baffling. We have so many incredible new cinematic masterpieces passing by without even getting their own dedicated thread, yet this absolute disaster of a film actually managed to get a preview...

It isn't just garbage; it’s simply that we expect much more from Coen. And frankly, Clooney is the worst part of it all.

In my book, it’s Mustafa, regardless of whether those "Greatest of All Time" lists are complete garbage...
There's never just one single best...

There really ought to be someone actually showing up at the door just to be murdered; if it hadn't been her, it could have been any neighbor, some retiree, a local priest, or whoever else was wandering by...

**And honestly, Kubrick dragged Hallorann halfway across the United States just so Nicholson could beat him senseless right at the hotel entrance.**

Ashley Grant66,
I’ve stopped overanalyzing the logic of it all; he didn't actually move her, yet somehow, she ended up moved, so I suppose we just move on... It’s the tired, predictable tropes that really grate on my nerves lately—that whole "don't come over" routine where the guy inevitably shows up... once they mention him three times, you just know he's walking through the door... 🤦
It’s perfectly fine for a single viewing, I suppose.

electricridge6 said:Because Bale and Norton just don't sit on the same level as DiCaprio and Norton...

Edit: And let's be honest, everyone treats DiCaprio like he’s some sort of divine entity, constantly hailing him as the greatest actor to ever grace the screen. Look, I get it—he's fantastic—but calling him "the best" is a bit of a stretch...

If you actually take a moment to think about it, neither of those two truly fit the bill either...

I mean, "greatest actor" is such an inflated concept; he's talented and certainly worth watching, but that's really where the praise should end...

These comparisons don't carry much weight, honestly. I find myself wondering why we're focusing on those two specifically, when someone like Edward Norton or Christian Bale would present a far more compelling dilemma... a choice that would actually be difficult to make...

Leo is a perfectly decent actor, I suppose, but he tends to fall into that trap—much like Julia Roberts does—where he isn't really playing a character so much as just playing himself... whereas when I think of Norton, my mind immediately goes to the specific roles he’s inhabited, while Leo’s characters, despite how many there may be, all seem to blur into one indistinguishable persona...

Noah Roberts46 As specified by:
If you want a definitive case study on why DiCaprio struggles when tasked with heavy emotional lifting, look no further than Revolutionary Road... It’s the one film that really highlights his limitations when he's asked to deliver something truly soul-crushing instead of just playing a charismatic rogue...

That’s exactly right...