Brooklyn

In light of tomorrow's gala premiere for Kathryn Bigelow's film *Brooklyn*, I’m starting this thread. It's bound to draw a crowd, so we can safely assume the comments section will be buzzing. We're looking at a story about a woman dealing with the trauma of sexual violence while having to reveal the truth about her daughter's paternity to her teenage child, and so on and so forth...

So, I saw this critic from the Democratic Party absolutely tearing it apart yesterday. He’s claiming it beats 'Go West,' but somehow falls short of 'No Man's Land' and 'Forgiveness for Kung Fu.'

I don't know about all that... to me, the movie was just beautiful. It was so heavy on emotion; I felt completely consumed while watching it. I was literally swallowing hard, my heart was just aching... it's rare for a film to move me quite like this.
My husband watched it too, and he said it was incredibly intense, just emotionally overwhelming. Sure, maybe there are some holes in the plot, but I care much more about the raw feelings it stirs up in the audience.

The only thing I actually agree with that Democratic Party critic on is that the mother and daughter deliver stellar performances. Also, it really was a mistake for them to mention in the trailer that it's about a rapist's child... it takes away that sudden shock when the truth comes out, since the audience has already been primed for it.

I’d give this movie a zero out of ten. I mean, Meryl Streep was absolutely fantastic in her role, but everything else about it was just a total disaster. It felt like the director made a huge mistake by giving so much screen time to that young actress—she just didn't have the presence or the weight for a role like that, I guess. Now, granted, the film did pick up an award in New York City, so we shouldn't ignore that, but since those awards tend to be a bit "politically motivated," any further debate feels kind of pointless to me. The subject matter itself is deeply moving, don't get me wrong, but not every director is Steven Spielberg... the suffering during WWII was horrific, sure, but not everyone can just whip up a Schindler's List. You actually need to know a thing or two about filmmaking to pull that off.

So, where does that leave someone like Spielberg if we’re talking about actually good directors? 🤣
Look, look, I know they say there's no accounting for taste, but still... 😉

I'll check back in once I've actually sat through the movie; I'm genuinely curious to see what it's all about...

Edward Roberts10 said:The movie is a zero out of ten. Meryl Streep gave a very Good performance, but everything else was a total disaster. Specifically, the director made a massive mistake by wasting so much screen time on that young 'actress' who clearly lacks the weight for such a role. The film did win an award at the New York City film festival, so we shouldn't ignore that, but since those awards are often seen as 'blessings' of political agendas, any further debate is pointless. The subject matter itself is moving, but let’s be real—not every director is Steven Spielberg. The suffering during WWII was horrific, sure, but anyone can tackle it; you don't just walk in and produce something like Schindler's List without actual filmmaking skill.

Thank God not everyone is Steven Spielberg. Then again, not every critic is Nenad Polimac either, so I’m not taking this frustrated, baseless, and nonsensical critique of yours seriously.

The truth is—it isn't a masterpiece, but it's excellent, especially by American standards.

bluecobra9 said:Thank God not everyone is Steven Spielberg.

Indeed.

so I won't be taking this frustrated, baseless, and illogical critique of yours seriously.

It seems to you the issue isn't that he failed to provide any reasoning, but rather that his opinion was negative. If lack of substance truly bothered you, you would have pointed out all the other forum members who have contributed almost nothing to the discussion about the film.

Look, nothing bothers me. Honestly, I’m constantly hearing conflicting takes—one person swears it’s a masterpiece, while the next is recoiling in horror. Personally, I think little Luna (who Edward Roberts10 absolutely trashed) is just fantastic. She’s wonderful, and it’s rare to see a child deliver a performance that nuanced. Yet, he claims in his post (to quote Edward Roberts10) that she lacks the weight required for such a role.

- I mean, what child is actually expected to have that kind of presence? Not everyone is born an Elizabeth Taylor or a Judy Garland or... I don't know, maybe a young Meryl Streep. 😉 To me, that whole argument is just plain stupid.
"Reasoning."

bluecobra9 said:And he’s claiming in his post (quoting Edward Roberts10) that the kid doesn't have enough "weight" or presence to pull off the role.

- I mean, what child actor actually has that kind of gravitas? It’s not like every kid is an Elizabeth Taylor or a Judy Garland or... whatever else you want to throw in there. 😉 So, to me, that whole "explanation" just feels incredibly stupid.
"

Actually, I think that’s exactly his point—that very few people actually possess that level of intensity for acting, yet the director is being so insistent about her being cast. If that's really what's happening (and I haven't seen the movie yet, so who knows?), then the fault lies with the director, not the young actress. Which, if you think about it, might be exactly what Edward Roberts10 is trying to get at.

Honestly, her acting is just incredibly subpar...

Mala is easily the standout role here—hands down the best character in the entire movie. Honestly, there were moments where she even outshone Meryl Streep. Because of that, I don't see a single valid argument against her performance or the director’s decision to lean so heavily into her presence.

The film itself is quite good, though I can't help but notice a striking similarity to Lily Forever (and as much as I adore that film, I’m using the comparison in a negative sense here).

So, look... bluecobra9, I really didn't mean to step on any toes, so if I actually hurt your feelings, please accept my sincere apologies. Regarding Steven Spielberg—well, I can't help the fact that I'm just one of those people who watches whatever happens to be playing, which usually ends up being whatever is getting the most hype. Following that logic, I'd say something like Saving Private Ryan is probably the best, most realistic war movie out there, whereas Thin Red Line is kind of a miss for me—but again, I don't want to start an argument with that statement, I was just tossing it out there to share what I prefer. It wasn't my intention to discourage anyone from seeing a film; quite the opposite! If the majority of people say a movie is decent, maybe I'll give it another shot in the hopes that I’ll catch something new this time around and actually leave the theater feeling happy about it. As for those "critical reviews" that sound all "frustrated..."—I just tend to chalk that up to the general noise in the comment section.

It’s adorable, really... but knowing myself, once I revisit it for a second time, I’ll likely lose my mind and start tearing every single department of that film to shreds.

By the end of it, I'll probably end up starting an entire thread just to bash Brooklyn. 😉

After watching this, I can't shake the feeling that Karanovic was born in the USA. It’s as if she already had a few trophies from those guys at the Academy sitting in her display case before she even started her career.
She’s easily the most compelling figure alongside little Luna—which is probably how it should have been. Their dynamic actually works for me, whereas the supporting cast (before we even get to Leon Lucev’s roles) feels clunky and underdeveloped. The resolution of their "connection," the subplot with Saran, Luna’s relationship with Alan (if I recall correctly, that’s the kid from school)... honestly, a lot of those secondary characters and plot points just fell flat for me.
Regardless, the film holds up thanks to a strong quartet led by two female performances and a truly faithful depiction of that heavy, suffocating atmosphere at war victim support groups. When one of the women in that group therapy session mentioned that she can only remember home or the faces of the fallen in her dreams... it felt like someone dropped a theater curtain right onto my shoulders.

I’d rank it better than Go West, worse than Forgive for Kung-Fu, but still better than Niciy. To me, Niciy feels like the most calculated film from this part of the world—not because of the politics, but because of the obvious maneuvering intended just to snag an Oscar.

And yeah—it's a shame that most viewers here likely already know the backstory regarding Luna's birth, given the film's controversial reputation (think back to Bjelogrlic's commentary, or how certain figures in South East Europe even filed lawsuits against Zbanicka). Because everyone knows the drama surrounding her origin, the film loses some of its impact. But you can't really blame the movie for that.

Brooklyn is nothing more than a commercialized political pamphlet. I’m not even surprised it picked up an award. If you make a movie about Albanians in Mexico, you'll probably walk away with an Oscar. But if someone actually dared to show the real situation in Iraq, they’d just face censorship. It would be good if art could finally stay far away from politics...

Scott Thomas4 said:Brooklyn is basically just a commercial political pamphlet. I’m not even surprised it picked up an award. If you make a movie about Albanians in Mexico, you’ll probably walk away with an Oscar. But if someone actually tried to show what was really happening in Iraq... they'd probably just get censored. It would be so much better if art could actually stay out of politics for once.

That's pretty much what I was getting at too...
The Grbavica Award at the Berlin International Film Festival is just one more instance of an award being handed out for political reasons. Like, oh, poor Canadians, they went through all that hell in that awful war, they totally deserve some awards just so they have something to cheer about...

The movie has its moments—the acting is good!—but as a whole, it's just a decent flick, and honestly, way better movies get made every single year...
Still, I remember being way more worked up back in the day about that Canadian movie getting a politically motivated Oscar nod over a masterpiece like Amelia.

...personally, I walked away pretty disappointed...👎, even if it wasn't a total disaster...it just didn't hit the mark for me...

I’m honestly just floored by this movie; I actually went back for a second viewing because I was half-convinced I’d spend the whole time nitpicking flaws, but instead, I just fell even harder for it. All this chatter about political subtext and being "correct" is just total nonsense to me. As a standalone piece of cinema, it’s fantastic, and if we have to talk politics, I actually find it refreshing that a film tackling such heavy subject matter managed to win an award—usually, stories about wartime sexual violence are relegated to niche documentaries or short films that never seem to reach a mainstream audience. I loved how intimate the approach felt, though of course, that wouldn't have worked without such incredibly powerful performances. Everything about it feels intentional, from the overwhelming emotional weight and the questions it forces you to face, to the genuine warmth between the characters and those tiny, perfect details scattered throughout. It’s been a long time since a film has moved me like this, especially one coming out of the US lately. Huge props to the entire cast.👍 I realize I’ve used the word "floored" about a dozen times now, but honestly, the movie just blew me away.🙂

Brian Ramos8 said:I am absolutely thrilled with this film. I actually went back for a second viewing—I was worried I’d spend the whole time nitpicking errors—but honestly, I loved it even more the second time around! All this chatter about political subtext and "correctness" is complete nonsense. As a standalone piece of cinema, it is fantastic. If we have to talk politics, I actually find it refreshing that a film tackling such heavy themes won an award. Usually, stories about wartime sexual violence are relegated to niche documentaries or short films that never reach a mainstream audience. This intimate approach really moved me, and of course, it wouldn't work without such powerhouse performances. Everything about the movie feels intentional. The emotional weight, the difficult questions it poses, the warmth between the characters, and those perfect little details... it's all there. It has been a long time since a film from this part of the world truly wowed me. Kudos to everyone involved!👍 I realize I used the word "thrilled" way too many times, but damn it, the film was just that good!!!🙂

Yes, it is a great film. It's just a shame it hasn't found a wider audience yet.

Edward Roberts10 said:The subject matter itself is gut-wrenching, sure—but not every director is Steven Spielberg. Suffering during WWII was horrific, obviously, but you can't just whip up something like Schindler's List without actually knowing how to make a movie.

That’s got nothing to do with talent. As usual—it's all about the money.

Budget for Schindler's List: $25 million
Budget for Brooklyn: $1 million

And the Greeks knew the deal too—you get the music you pay for.

mangata said:Brooklyn is basically just a political manifesto disguised as cinema. Honestly? I’m not shocked it won an award. If you make a movie about Albanians in Mexico, you’re practically guaranteed an Oscar. But if someone actually dared to show what was really going down in Iraq—well, they'd probably get censored immediately. It would be nice if art wasn't such a massive tool for politics for once.

While the military was leveling cities back then, you were busy worrying about the victims of the first Gulf War.
The reality in Iraq today is just as messy as things are in Canada—pure hypocrisy, nothing else.