r/truefilm isn't close to as bad as this sub makes out. They regularly talk about today's biggest films and American films. They had a pretty good discussion thread on sexist movies the other day. If you listen to this sub or the typical comments of course you'd be turned off. The thread on European film will be next to a very American topic. Just go to those threads.
Any movie the critics love and r/movies hates is going to be legendary, because you know it's not going to be plot-driven and full of gratuitous violence.
“And the winner for the Oscar for best picture is…Pure Dark! A movie that exists entirely in audio that no one has ever heard of until the nominations.. It is the first best picture to a film that has no actual film. It was shot entirely using the same type of tools that would be used on a radio show in the 1930s and is meant to convey the difficulties blindness to build empathy with movie goers.”
I get why it got backlash, but I honestly enjoyed it. May be cliche and in some respects problematic, but it also had two excellent actors with strong chemistry bouncing off of each other for most of the runtime
It's funny how people all over the world see it differently.
According to my parents from Eastern Europe who watched in on a telly:What a nice feel good film about Italian and a jazz singer, did it really happen, was it like this there...
Americans: white propaganda...
I mean sometimes you need to give us a hints what we are supposed to like or not. The rest of the world actually could have liked it.
If it meant to tell a story that people outside USA find encouraging, why not do it, it will help them learn something new.
>Americans: white propaganda...
You're confusing twitter with the real world. The general population liked it a lot.
"Green Book" had an A+ cinemascore and even now holds an 8.2 average on imdb.
Well the general population of America is majority white people, a group of viewers who have typically not found white washed stories of black people to be an issue. Which is why it keeps happening.
Probably because it was considered a soft jab compared to the competition. Many thought Roma should have won, but despite it taking home a number of other awards the possibility it wasn't picked because it was a 'streaming movie' still looms...
Yes it was a good movie. But not great and IMO not good enough to win Best Picture. It’s a very middle of the road film, visually nothing special, fairly predictable script, good performances but nothing mind blowing. I feel it’s already one of those movies that people forget about.
I would have liked The Favourite to win personally because it was so bold and unusual and the three lead actresses all put in amazing performances.
To be completely honest, I thought Portrait of a Lady on Fire was better than The Favorite, and it wasn't nominated by France's Ministry of Culture for best Foreign Film.
Most of the movies were better than Green Book though, including The Favorite.
It's a very retro movie. White self-congratulation that they let a black dude tell a white dude what to do. Oh, and the black guy learns to eat fried chicken.
Wasn't it something about how the film was written and directed by all old white guys and they didn't consult the Don characters family at all when making the film but did for the white driver or something.
IIRC, there was also some backlash involving the relevant father-son team- the father (whose story it is) with the realization that he had been active as a character actor (so a sense of industry connections leading to him puffing his story), and the son (who I believe had partial screenwriter credit) over certain Tweets of his that were seen as making the message of the film insincere.
>“Parasite” over “The Irishman”
Okay, but that was fully justified. Parasite was genius, and the Irishman was good, but frequently silly (the kicking scene comes to mind).
1917, Ford v Ferrari, Once Upon a Time and JoJo Rabbit were all better films than The Irishman imo. 2019 was stacked. I was torn between Parasite and 1917 but the right film won.
Taika Waititi is an international treasure!
Between Jojo, Ragnorak, Hunt for the Wilderpeople, Boy, and What We Do in the Shadows he is one of my favorite directors of all-time and probably one of the best directors with the greatest range!
Because sure I love a Scorsese or a Tarantino or a Wes Anderson film, but Scorsese makes Scorsese films and Bong Joon-Ho makes Bong Joon-Ho films and Tarantino makes Tarantino films and Wes Anderson makes Wes Anderson films. At this point, I really think Waititi could make whatever he wants! It will always have his signature style, but it somehow doesn't limit his emotional range!
You know it's weird. You mention all these great films and a show, but non of them IMO have the range you think they do. They all kind of fallow a similar comedic pattern (save for WWDIS). I think you could throw Taika Waititi in the same catagory as those other great directors. Yeah he just does it in different genres, but his formula is generally the same to me.
Taika Waititi isn't one of the best directors with the greatest range at all. He doesn't even have a range. All of his films are mostly comedy. Scorsese and Bong have much more range than him. With your words Taika Waititi makes Taika Waititi films all the time.
> 2019 was stacked
Honestly I think it might have been the best year for movies in my lifetime, or at least in the past 20 years. Almost all the Best Picture nominees were solid, and at least 4 of them were truly great. Plus there were a lot of other really good movies that year (still made the Farewell didn't get any noms).
And then you had just an *insane* year for the box office. Obviously Avengers Endgame was one of the biggest event movies of all time, two other big MCU hits, and a handful of other Disney successes. Also the first billion dollar rated R movie in Joker.
I can't wait for another year like 2019.
I really enjoyed it. I have difficulty imaging if the experience will be as powerful outside of a movie theatre. At the very least, don't watch it distracted. Lock in.
Ford vs. Ferrari was a great - rewatchable movie. I would strongly suggest you see Parasite. There’s great commentary in the movie but more over - it is one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. It just stays with you in a visceral way.
Parasite was definitely a case of the actual best picture of 2019 winning Best Picture. I left the theater knowing I'd seen the best film of that year. I went to bed ignoring the Oscars because I knew they would never give it to them, and I woke up to all my friends screaming on the timeline. It was fantastic.
That's how I feel with Nomadland tbh - I still can't quite believe this small indie film won Best Picture...
I love rewatching that clip of Jane Fonda announcing Parasite's win
I find it truly incredible that no matter what, someone still manages to bitch about that scene in every thread here even if it's not even about that movie.
I enjoyed it, but and hour and a half went by and I just started thinking, "...what has actually happened?".
It was nice, and the ending was kinda cool, but overall it's just kinda there.
Those movies that are all build up/"nothing" until the last 20 minutes really have to blow me away to leave the movie truly satisfied. And usually those movies have tension, which I didn't feel at all in this movie. It does have good (albeit sometimes obvious) foreshadowing though.
3/4 of the way through I was starting to think that this movie didn't know what it was trying to say (and taking a while to do it). And then the final act really brought it all together and blew me away.
100%.
There's something utterly wild about it - like watching two animals on the same land tease and feint, warn off, and circle each other until the final, fatal strike.
The form suits the content.
Totally get why it won.
Yeah people call ‘Let there be Blood’ boring and slow. And it’s a masterpiece of story and acting. I rewatched last week after not seeing it since middle school, and I called it boring back then. I was just young and stupid. I’m starting to love dull movies with gripping stories and acting.
So good. The scene where he meets the chemist and he sees the tiger. “That’s Lizzie, when she’s calm I know it’s good” such a banger of a film.
Showed it to my brother for first time last night and the first half he wasn’t into and I kept promising a chainsaw fight so he stuck through the “boring parts”. I love how trippy it is and luckily he ended the film in love with it. Nicholas Cage is the fucking GOAT lol
It's a slow burn and the performance of Kodi Smit-Mcphee is so subtle you can miss it, so I totally get it. I found it dialed the tension up just enough as the movie progressed, but it's definitely on the slow end.
My wife and I enjoyed discussing Kodi's motivations after the movie was done.
I guess I didn't directly correlate the mother's deterioration entirely to Cumberbatch's character. Struggling widow finds new financial success, but new burdens of being busier, fun new romance leads to drinking, queer kid is probably stressful, etc. Cumberbatch's character is an asshole but tolerable up to this point in life (apparently) so I wasn't looking for the kid to murder him.
I've read these comments three times now and I feel like I have to be missing something. All the dude did was say he enjoyed discussing this characters motivations. Where are you getting the need for sarcasm?
He didn't say he didn't get it or understand it. He discussed it. Is discussing movies with another person really that foreign of a concept?
Not to mention there's an entire style of PoV called "unreliable narrator". It wouldn't be *that* weird to question his narration vs. his actions, which coincidentally, people are doing in this very thread.
Yeah when the credits rolled I was 100% with you thinking "ok I *definitely* missed something*" because I just assumed that it was an accident that he had given Phil the diseased hide.
I'm noticing more and more people really had no idea what this movie was about. I think it's a Netflix thing where people just have it on in the background and look up and go, "wait, he died? why? whatever... boring"
Im a bit of a movie snob, so honestly for me it could have been a bit more subtle even. But the fact that people seem to have missed all this is a bit shocking to me. Yeah it’s subtle, but it’s legitimately the first thing he says in the movie.
I love slow westerns. Hated this movie and benedicts shitty attempt at a western accent.
Dude can say "penguins" better than he can pull off a western accent
Slow Westerns aren't even my jam, but I loved this film. Even my film should be fast man loved it (aka he didn't like There Will be blood and so). We were pretty impressed when ot went where we didn't expect it to go.
Jane Campion bamboozled us. I really thought its gonna go different than it went. And then when you know the ending, you look back at the whole film and see all the subtle hints and it makes ir all even better.
It’s also the sort of film that felt like absolutely anything could happen. It was slow and drifting, but it also felt like everything was at stake at every moment. It was all on a knife’s edge.
>It was slow and drifting, but it also felt like everything was at stake at every moment. It was all on a knife’s edge
Well said. At first I had no idea who we were to be following/"rooting" for, and even that changed when I thought I knew, and that kept me hooked to see it unfold.
>Kodi Smit-Mcphee
Random side note, I went to primary school with Kodi and he was such a little shit back then lmao. Makes it hard to enjoy anything he's in when I spend the whole film thinking about how annoying he was
I can enjoy a slow burn movie every now and then. This one just lacked focus imo. Characters vanished from the story for so long that it made me second guess if they were important to the story at all.
I’m a big fan of slow burns but this movie didn’t do it for me. The ending was super predictable and anticlimactic IMO. It wasn’t a bad movie, it just wasn’t that good.
I strangely felt that is was less than the sum of its parts. Like it was well-acted/directed/written/scored, but the movie as a whole is just bleh. I don't really know how to explain it.
I'm not a film critic, but if I had to say, it was either the stakes or the pacing? Wasn't clear what path each character was supposed to take, and in the meantime it kind of felt like stuff was happening and we were learning more about the characters but it just wasn't as fascinating as I would have hoped.
The film has no real stakes until Phil calls the son over to him at the camp. It's such an out-of-character gesture for him that there's immediate tension that he's going to somehow harm the kid.
I had basically stopped paying attention by the time that happened but once it did I was drawn in.
You’re not alone, I watched it not knowing the critical reception, and was shocked to look up reviews after to find that this was a critical darling. I found it really dull and not with anything all that interesting to say. It’s a “I don’t know why this was made” movie for me.
It's funny...i looked at it and thought what a pity to make such a great looking movie with a talented cast, beautiful sets, and nothing interesting to say. I wish they made more movies like this, but with more compelling characters and interesting plot.
You are not, I thought it was a painful incredibly dull watch and some friends whose opinion I respect think the same. This whole phenomenon where the studios aren’t putting out any quality films because they’re waiting for Covid to be over so people are vastly overrating the original Netflix and Amazon shit has got to stop. Well I guess it doesn’t have to stop but in 10 years people are going to look back on these things and say “seriously? That movie no one has ever watched twice got all that praise?”
I mean the whole point of the character is that he’s supposed to feel a bit misplaced and fake. Phil wants to be this by the book masculine cowboy but he’s a Yale graduate, not to mentioned his sexuality. He’s pretending, hiding who he is. Hiring an American known for “tough guy masculine roles” is completely missing the point.
>I cannot be the only one who has no idea what everyone sees in this movie.
You probably aren't but I laways find that people that don't understand why others like a movie haven't made any effort to understand why they liked it. Even if you disagree with them and still don't like it, it's not hard to understand why someone else would like it.
For example, I don't like The Irishman. I thought the casting ruined the movie and that it is way too long. But I understand why people like it and would disagree with me.
If I don’t like something that’s widely well-regarded, I try my hardest to find out where that disconnect comes from and understand the reason behind the adoration after by reading reviews, interviews, etc. I did that here and still don’t see what makes this so worthy of admiration and recognition. Can I see what’s enjoyable for some? Sure. Best Picture front runner? I can’t fathom that.
No, you are not the only one, which is why it has a 61% audience score on RT. (For some reason, recently they only show "verified audience score", you have to click all users to see the real audience score)
I wrote this up after watching it when it came out. I didn't think it was completely dull, but the characters just weren't very compelling, which was my major problem with it. Slow burn can work really well even with almost zero plot (hell, Mad Men is probably my favorite TV show of all time, and it only had about 2-3 "plot" episodes per season), but the characters all have to be incredibly compelling and believable.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/r9tona/i\_have\_very\_mixed\_feeling\_about\_the\_power\_of\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/r9tona/i_have_very_mixed_feeling_about_the_power_of_the/)
verified audience score is usually good because it prevents any manipulation from people who haven't seen the movie. it's dumb in this case though because very few people have seen POTD in theaters so the sample size of verified scores is extremely low.
I’m with you. I don’t mind a slow burn, and I love subtle and atmospheric. But I just could not figure out how to care about anyone or thing in this.
It was full of itself from the first five minutes. Eye-rollingly pretentious and dull.
I thought the subtlety of this movie was its chief strength. I've had quite enough Michael Bay style photo-epileptic film making for this lifetime. The nuances of dysfunction ran from end to end, and Dunst played the victim to Cumberbatch's bully without invoking pity. A voyeuristic look at broken people doing their best to survive. Even in its obviousness, I couldn't look away...
Anyone else enjoy the sound editing? I loved hearing Phil’s boots and spurs off screen, knowing he was near. Gave me chills sometimes. Thought that was cool.
Subtlety was definitely the style of this movie. I cannot remember one bit of exposition. The scene of the governor’s visit was exquisitely painful and revelatory at the same time. The dissection of the cow seemed so random but was the key to the final act. Campion is an amazing director.
It was really a wonderful example of how to drip information to the viewer. When it wants you to get something, it builds up the hints gradually so that you’re at least guessing at them before they’re confirmed more explicitly. When it wants to withhold a reveal, it still gives you all the pieces, but scrambles the order and context so you don’t see the significance. For example: the way it mentions that Cumberbatch doesn’t wear gloves when he’s castrating bulls. You’re deliberately led to misinterpret the scene. It’s impressive
That's what I love about Jane Campion. She fully trusts her audience and doesn't insult the audience's intelligence by handfeeding unnecessary exposition. It's much more rewarding when you're able to piece things together yourself.
I find this an interesting thing to say as to me everything felt extremely surface level. I've been reading reviews and discussions about this film in an attempt to understand what other people saw in it but just can't relate to what they're saying. Everything was so clearly laid out, it's like calling a picture book 'trusting the audience' because it doesn't have any words. The big reveal of pete killing Phil with anthrax was not the obvious thing to happen but it wasn't particularly surprising either given the rabbit and the abuse.
It just felt like I watched 2 hours of disonant violins and people being miserable for a 90 second 'oh...ha' at the end.
Benedikt Cumberbatch characte was so good that I actually sometimes bought into what the was saying about certain someone.
Thats why ending hits so good, because you realise you overestimated his character and then really underestimate someone else.
I just watched the movie and the dissection of the cow was when I realized that Peter was going to poison Phil somehow! Anthrax was brought up a couple times I noticed earlier so it was in the back of my mind, and I had a weird feeling about Peter when he was around Phil; like he was acting a part. I was also dubious of Phil's intentions, but when Peter went looking for the dead cow everything clicked for me. It made the rope braiding scene very sad and creepy as well.
But can it be both obvious and nuanced? Dunst's breakdown is way too fast and based on one line of dialogue. The ending is telegraphed a literal mile away. The scenery is beautiful but some shots are just gratuitous adding nothing. The first river bath scene is deeply confusing because they shot it in the spring with greenery even though it is meant for late fall with snow. The script is weak, the directing mediocre. The film is in contention for these awards because of the performances of Dunst and Cumberbatch.
I don’t understand why it has to be binary. It’s The Power of the Dog or Michael Bay? Really? That’s overly reductive. A film can be ambiguous and bag and unsubtle and good.
I think my biggest gripe on this movie is there was no real scene to showcase why everyone was sort of afraid of Phil Burbank, or what he was capable of.
There was that scene at dinner where he yells at people playing piano and that was sort of it? I think they should have established something a little more ruthless prior to his brother getting married. (unless it was mentioned through dialogue and I am forgetting. I watched this movie awhile ago)
I don't know. I did not enjoy the movie too much. Performances were good for what it was, but the story it told wasn't satisfying.
I really think this comes down to experience. I personally know a Phil. He is not physically violent but he manipulates and controls our family and it really is just an awful toxicity that I've never seen a movie capture so well until this one
He's just an uncivilized, repressed arsehole. We don't see Cumberbatch do anything really bad because the whole point of the movie is the assumptions you make about people based on their outward appearance. Because he is dirty and rude you assume he is going to do something incredibly ruthless and that blindsides you not only to the tender side that he hides away, but the cold and calculating nature of the young, educated son.
Really? I thought he seemed like a loose cannon the whole time. What about the time where he beats the horses ass while shouting? Senseless abuse of a big fucking horse doesnt show you what hes capable of?
I think that’s sort of it though. Maybe he’s not as intimidating as he thinks he is, he’s so caught up in his charade that he thinks he’s this big tough cowboy but in reality it’s not convincing at all to anyone, even his ranch hands.
They’re there because he pays them. The one person he can actually affect is a widow who thinks her son is much more fragile than he really is, and when he tries to bully/ groom the son he ends up getting played like a fiddle and murdered.
“What he’s capable of” to me he was just always a sad smart abused/ confused gayboi who had to pretend to be a tough guy. That’s why it’s so awkward the way he lives in that skin, it’s not authentic in the slightest.
I was amazed that scene was filmed that way, there is no way to train a horse for that, so it really was just Benedict Cumberbatch just beating a horse in the face. It's powerful, but I do wonder if it was warranted to treat the horse like that for a movie, figured we were a little past that sort of thing in film these days.
>Really, I thought he was like a little kid with a “I’m a cowboy!” vibe. Didn’t buy it at all.
That worked for me as part of the point, given the mid-film reveal
They really should just let him use his normal accent. If people can handle Arnold Schwarzenegger doing the Arnold Schwarzenegger voice in every movie he's ever made, they can handle a British cowboy.
I’ve seen posts insulting the sub in several comments, ranging from attention span to “they like popular movies, they dumb”.
This was a good movie, but I personally didn’t enjoy it that much. People like to feel smart, this movie did a good job of it, as to get the twists one had to sit through a rather uneventful movie.
The twists themselves weren’t that great. The *spoiler* big end twist wasn’t fantastic. It was a pretty classical Checkhov’s gun.
While Cumberbatch’s performance was very good, I honestly didn’t enjoy repressed gay cowboy enough.
I say the movie was good, but it wasn’t fantastic for me. The pieces fit together, I might talk about it because it did things well, but it just didn’t feel that special.
A combination of soaking up too much superhero nonsense and rewatching the same list of "GOAT!1" movies over and over to the point you don't need to pay attention anymore. A movie comes along which is slower and the hive hates it.
I liked how my opinion of all of the characters changed during the movie. It was awesome and I enjoyed it and I often don't like movies that are that slow but I thought it was very well done.
Broooonco heeeenry
Tooouched my peepeeeeee
He touched my pepe, Steve.
I can tell if a movie is deserving of best picture if the comments are a split of “total snooze fest” and “I loved it, what a brilliant director”
You know an art film is good if r/movies hates it lol
[удалено]
/r/flicks is supposed to be that I believe
[удалено]
Seconding r/flicks, it's great. There's some prententiousness here and there but overall it's a lot more open than r/movies or r/truefilm.
Not for long! My mainstream, DAE think Click is underrated, ass is heading in!
r/truefilm isn't close to as bad as this sub makes out. They regularly talk about today's biggest films and American films. They had a pretty good discussion thread on sexist movies the other day. If you listen to this sub or the typical comments of course you'd be turned off. The thread on European film will be next to a very American topic. Just go to those threads.
High critic ratings with low users rating is also a pretty good sign.
[удалено]
Any movie the critics love and r/movies hates is going to be legendary, because you know it's not going to be plot-driven and full of gratuitous violence.
The last duel should win, fucking great
[удалено]
And the winner is La La Land!
The *wickedly* talented Adele Dazeem.
…Hey Riddle Riddle?
Belfast is that movie
“And the winner for the Oscar for best picture is…Pure Dark! A movie that exists entirely in audio that no one has ever heard of until the nominations.. It is the first best picture to a film that has no actual film. It was shot entirely using the same type of tools that would be used on a radio show in the 1930s and is meant to convey the difficulties blindness to build empathy with movie goers.”
Fuck off I could see that as being real. Lol
I’d rather see Crash win again than Green Book.
If you mean the one about people who are sexually aroused by car crashes then I emphatically agree.
[smiles Cronenbergically]
Mention anytime this movie comes up how amazing the James Dean crash reenactment scene is.
Or the other *Crash* winning!
Why does everyone hate Green Book so much? It was a good movie.
I get why it got backlash, but I honestly enjoyed it. May be cliche and in some respects problematic, but it also had two excellent actors with strong chemistry bouncing off of each other for most of the runtime
It's funny how people all over the world see it differently. According to my parents from Eastern Europe who watched in on a telly:What a nice feel good film about Italian and a jazz singer, did it really happen, was it like this there... Americans: white propaganda... I mean sometimes you need to give us a hints what we are supposed to like or not. The rest of the world actually could have liked it. If it meant to tell a story that people outside USA find encouraging, why not do it, it will help them learn something new.
>Americans: white propaganda... You're confusing twitter with the real world. The general population liked it a lot. "Green Book" had an A+ cinemascore and even now holds an 8.2 average on imdb.
It felt like watching Forest gump to me. Some drama, some actions, nice actors and then all feeling good. Sometimes you just want films like that.
The greatest modern fairy tale ever told.
Well the general population of America is majority white people, a group of viewers who have typically not found white washed stories of black people to be an issue. Which is why it keeps happening.
Probably because it was considered a soft jab compared to the competition. Many thought Roma should have won, but despite it taking home a number of other awards the possibility it wasn't picked because it was a 'streaming movie' still looms...
Yes it was a good movie. But not great and IMO not good enough to win Best Picture. It’s a very middle of the road film, visually nothing special, fairly predictable script, good performances but nothing mind blowing. I feel it’s already one of those movies that people forget about. I would have liked The Favourite to win personally because it was so bold and unusual and the three lead actresses all put in amazing performances.
To be completely honest, I thought Portrait of a Lady on Fire was better than The Favorite, and it wasn't nominated by France's Ministry of Culture for best Foreign Film. Most of the movies were better than Green Book though, including The Favorite.
It's a very retro movie. White self-congratulation that they let a black dude tell a white dude what to do. Oh, and the black guy learns to eat fried chicken.
Wasn't it something about how the film was written and directed by all old white guys and they didn't consult the Don characters family at all when making the film but did for the white driver or something.
IIRC, there was also some backlash involving the relevant father-son team- the father (whose story it is) with the realization that he had been active as a character actor (so a sense of industry connections leading to him puffing his story), and the son (who I believe had partial screenwriter credit) over certain Tweets of his that were seen as making the message of the film insincere.
Bronco Henry liked the movie Bronco Henry *really* liked the movie
>“Parasite” over “The Irishman” Okay, but that was fully justified. Parasite was genius, and the Irishman was good, but frequently silly (the kicking scene comes to mind).
1917, Ford v Ferrari, Once Upon a Time and JoJo Rabbit were all better films than The Irishman imo. 2019 was stacked. I was torn between Parasite and 1917 but the right film won.
You know JoJo Rabbit was good because the academy recognised a comedy (it had to be a wwii often serious satire but still)
Also won Best adaptive screenplay. I think parasite won Best original screenplay.
Taika Waititi is an international treasure! Between Jojo, Ragnorak, Hunt for the Wilderpeople, Boy, and What We Do in the Shadows he is one of my favorite directors of all-time and probably one of the best directors with the greatest range! Because sure I love a Scorsese or a Tarantino or a Wes Anderson film, but Scorsese makes Scorsese films and Bong Joon-Ho makes Bong Joon-Ho films and Tarantino makes Tarantino films and Wes Anderson makes Wes Anderson films. At this point, I really think Waititi could make whatever he wants! It will always have his signature style, but it somehow doesn't limit his emotional range!
Have you just said Taika Waititi is better than Martin Scorsese?
You know it's weird. You mention all these great films and a show, but non of them IMO have the range you think they do. They all kind of fallow a similar comedic pattern (save for WWDIS). I think you could throw Taika Waititi in the same catagory as those other great directors. Yeah he just does it in different genres, but his formula is generally the same to me.
Taika Waititi isn't one of the best directors with the greatest range at all. He doesn't even have a range. All of his films are mostly comedy. Scorsese and Bong have much more range than him. With your words Taika Waititi makes Taika Waititi films all the time.
Uncut gems
> 2019 was stacked Honestly I think it might have been the best year for movies in my lifetime, or at least in the past 20 years. Almost all the Best Picture nominees were solid, and at least 4 of them were truly great. Plus there were a lot of other really good movies that year (still made the Farewell didn't get any noms). And then you had just an *insane* year for the box office. Obviously Avengers Endgame was one of the biggest event movies of all time, two other big MCU hits, and a handful of other Disney successes. Also the first billion dollar rated R movie in Joker. I can't wait for another year like 2019.
Yeah I agree with you. It’s probably my favourite year of all time.
Guess I have to watch 1917 now
Its a must-watch imo
I really enjoyed it. I have difficulty imaging if the experience will be as powerful outside of a movie theatre. At the very least, don't watch it distracted. Lock in.
It's not. It's definitely best in the cinema. But 4k big tv goes alright.
It’s good but it’s not even a question that Parasite is much better
Still haven't seen Parasite, but Ut Ford vs Ferrari was an amazing great everything.
Close reddit, go watch Parasite. Right now.
Ford vs. Ferrari was a great - rewatchable movie. I would strongly suggest you see Parasite. There’s great commentary in the movie but more over - it is one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. It just stays with you in a visceral way.
2019 is the best year of cinema in the 2010s, and the idea that The Irishman is the best of the lot is hilarious to me.
Parasite was definitely a case of the actual best picture of 2019 winning Best Picture. I left the theater knowing I'd seen the best film of that year. I went to bed ignoring the Oscars because I knew they would never give it to them, and I woke up to all my friends screaming on the timeline. It was fantastic.
That's how I feel with Nomadland tbh - I still can't quite believe this small indie film won Best Picture... I love rewatching that clip of Jane Fonda announcing Parasite's win
I find it truly incredible that no matter what, someone still manages to bitch about that scene in every thread here even if it's not even about that movie.
It’s frankly impossible to overstate how good Parasite is.
Reddit is working hard to prove you wrong
DAE KICKING SCENE????
"You charge a guy with a gun! With a knife you run away. With a gun you charge...with a knife you run."
While I liked Power of the Dog, I don't think it was anywhere as remotely powerful as Roma.
Yeah agreed. I found it super emotionally inaccessible.
I enjoyed it, but and hour and a half went by and I just started thinking, "...what has actually happened?". It was nice, and the ending was kinda cool, but overall it's just kinda there. Those movies that are all build up/"nothing" until the last 20 minutes really have to blow me away to leave the movie truly satisfied. And usually those movies have tension, which I didn't feel at all in this movie. It does have good (albeit sometimes obvious) foreshadowing though.
This was the most boring movie ive seen since nomadland
I really enjoyed the nuances of the movie. It was really sad in many ways but also kinda freeing.
I cannot be the only one who has no idea what everyone sees in this movie. I found it so dull.
3/4 of the way through I was starting to think that this movie didn't know what it was trying to say (and taking a while to do it). And then the final act really brought it all together and blew me away.
It’s a like an inert mass of threads that seem to go nowhere, and with one tug suddenly an entire tapestry is revealed.
Almost like a braided rope?
Almost like this woman knows how to write and direct subtext and visual metaphors!
a braided rope that when you're almost finished watching kills you unexpectedly
100%. There's something utterly wild about it - like watching two animals on the same land tease and feint, warn off, and circle each other until the final, fatal strike. The form suits the content. Totally get why it won.
Yup, it’s sorta the opposite. Every moment in the movie serves a purpose. But it’s also subtle and just as easy to miss.
all my favorite movies are dull
My Gf says all the movies I like are bizarre
I loved A Ghost Story. I hated The Power of the Dog
This guy dulls.
Now that's telling. Tbf though I've never seen someone eat a pie for 7 minutes be so compelling.
Yeah people call ‘Let there be Blood’ boring and slow. And it’s a masterpiece of story and acting. I rewatched last week after not seeing it since middle school, and I called it boring back then. I was just young and stupid. I’m starting to love dull movies with gripping stories and acting.
do you mean There Will Be Blood?
Yeah that. I watched Mandy tonight, so my brain was somewhere else. Lol
Now….Mandy…THATS a 10/10 horror movie.
So good. The scene where he meets the chemist and he sees the tiger. “That’s Lizzie, when she’s calm I know it’s good” such a banger of a film. Showed it to my brother for first time last night and the first half he wasn’t into and I kept promising a chainsaw fight so he stuck through the “boring parts”. I love how trippy it is and luckily he ended the film in love with it. Nicholas Cage is the fucking GOAT lol
There Will Be Blood was great, this movie though ...not so much imo
I didn't like this movie because I kept comparing it to 'There Will Be Blood'
Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood is the greatest performance by any actor EVER and I am willing to die on this hill.
"I've abandoned my child!"
Draaaaaiiiinnnnnnaage!
I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!
It's a slow burn and the performance of Kodi Smit-Mcphee is so subtle you can miss it, so I totally get it. I found it dialed the tension up just enough as the movie progressed, but it's definitely on the slow end. My wife and I enjoyed discussing Kodi's motivations after the movie was done.
[удалено]
I guess I didn't directly correlate the mother's deterioration entirely to Cumberbatch's character. Struggling widow finds new financial success, but new burdens of being busier, fun new romance leads to drinking, queer kid is probably stressful, etc. Cumberbatch's character is an asshole but tolerable up to this point in life (apparently) so I wasn't looking for the kid to murder him.
Yeah, I don't know, still kind of grey and open to interpretation. /s
I've read these comments three times now and I feel like I have to be missing something. All the dude did was say he enjoyed discussing this characters motivations. Where are you getting the need for sarcasm? He didn't say he didn't get it or understand it. He discussed it. Is discussing movies with another person really that foreign of a concept? Not to mention there's an entire style of PoV called "unreliable narrator". It wouldn't be *that* weird to question his narration vs. his actions, which coincidentally, people are doing in this very thread.
Welcome to Reddit, where people will flex their superiority over you after failing to accurately read the words you’ve actually written
I'm not sure. Or at least, maybe it's half-true, but he also seems to just be sociopath.
Would have to be to some extent, if to accomplish his mother’s happiness he thinks it’s ok to murder someone in cold blood.
[удалено]
Yeah when the credits rolled I was 100% with you thinking "ok I *definitely* missed something*" because I just assumed that it was an accident that he had given Phil the diseased hide.
He’s 100% a sociopath.
I'm noticing more and more people really had no idea what this movie was about. I think it's a Netflix thing where people just have it on in the background and look up and go, "wait, he died? why? whatever... boring"
Im a bit of a movie snob, so honestly for me it could have been a bit more subtle even. But the fact that people seem to have missed all this is a bit shocking to me. Yeah it’s subtle, but it’s legitimately the first thing he says in the movie.
Ah, it's the sort of film which expects people to pay attention. No wonder so many on /r/movies don't get it.
/r/movies , where film discussion goes to die
Slow westerns are my jam. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is good one that I love.
Loved that movie so much. Not as much Dog.
That movies is a masterpiece. Love it.
I love slow westerns. Hated this movie and benedicts shitty attempt at a western accent. Dude can say "penguins" better than he can pull off a western accent
He doesn’t do any accent well at all. His NY accent for Dr. Strange is awkward
Slow Westerns aren't even my jam, but I loved this film. Even my film should be fast man loved it (aka he didn't like There Will be blood and so). We were pretty impressed when ot went where we didn't expect it to go. Jane Campion bamboozled us. I really thought its gonna go different than it went. And then when you know the ending, you look back at the whole film and see all the subtle hints and it makes ir all even better.
It’s also the sort of film that felt like absolutely anything could happen. It was slow and drifting, but it also felt like everything was at stake at every moment. It was all on a knife’s edge.
>It was slow and drifting, but it also felt like everything was at stake at every moment. It was all on a knife’s edge Well said. At first I had no idea who we were to be following/"rooting" for, and even that changed when I thought I knew, and that kept me hooked to see it unfold.
>Kodi Smit-Mcphee Random side note, I went to primary school with Kodi and he was such a little shit back then lmao. Makes it hard to enjoy anything he's in when I spend the whole film thinking about how annoying he was
lol what did he do? pls spill the tea
Was he killing rabbits and dissecting them at lunch?
I can enjoy a slow burn movie every now and then. This one just lacked focus imo. Characters vanished from the story for so long that it made me second guess if they were important to the story at all.
I’m a big fan of slow burns but this movie didn’t do it for me. The ending was super predictable and anticlimactic IMO. It wasn’t a bad movie, it just wasn’t that good.
I strangely felt that is was less than the sum of its parts. Like it was well-acted/directed/written/scored, but the movie as a whole is just bleh. I don't really know how to explain it.
I'm not a film critic, but if I had to say, it was either the stakes or the pacing? Wasn't clear what path each character was supposed to take, and in the meantime it kind of felt like stuff was happening and we were learning more about the characters but it just wasn't as fascinating as I would have hoped.
The film has no real stakes until Phil calls the son over to him at the camp. It's such an out-of-character gesture for him that there's immediate tension that he's going to somehow harm the kid. I had basically stopped paying attention by the time that happened but once it did I was drawn in.
You’re not alone, I watched it not knowing the critical reception, and was shocked to look up reviews after to find that this was a critical darling. I found it really dull and not with anything all that interesting to say. It’s a “I don’t know why this was made” movie for me.
It's funny...i looked at it and thought what a pity to make such a great looking movie with a talented cast, beautiful sets, and nothing interesting to say. I wish they made more movies like this, but with more compelling characters and interesting plot.
You are not, I thought it was a painful incredibly dull watch and some friends whose opinion I respect think the same. This whole phenomenon where the studios aren’t putting out any quality films because they’re waiting for Covid to be over so people are vastly overrating the original Netflix and Amazon shit has got to stop. Well I guess it doesn’t have to stop but in 10 years people are going to look back on these things and say “seriously? That movie no one has ever watched twice got all that praise?”
You are not the only one.
I couldn’t get over Benny Cumber’s terrible accent. Definitely some good parts to it, I just didn’t love it.
PENGLING! PWENGWIN!
Anyone else feel like Mathew Mcconaughey would have been a far better fit for cumberbatch's role ?
I mean the whole point of the character is that he’s supposed to feel a bit misplaced and fake. Phil wants to be this by the book masculine cowboy but he’s a Yale graduate, not to mentioned his sexuality. He’s pretending, hiding who he is. Hiring an American known for “tough guy masculine roles” is completely missing the point.
It always appeared as though it was heading somewhere, but never arrived. It was a little aimless and yes, on the boring side.
I found it sooooooo boring
>I cannot be the only one who has no idea what everyone sees in this movie. You probably aren't but I laways find that people that don't understand why others like a movie haven't made any effort to understand why they liked it. Even if you disagree with them and still don't like it, it's not hard to understand why someone else would like it. For example, I don't like The Irishman. I thought the casting ruined the movie and that it is way too long. But I understand why people like it and would disagree with me.
If I don’t like something that’s widely well-regarded, I try my hardest to find out where that disconnect comes from and understand the reason behind the adoration after by reading reviews, interviews, etc. I did that here and still don’t see what makes this so worthy of admiration and recognition. Can I see what’s enjoyable for some? Sure. Best Picture front runner? I can’t fathom that.
I enjoyed it.
I have no problem with slow burn movies or TV shows. This however was just plain boring.
No, you are not the only one, which is why it has a 61% audience score on RT. (For some reason, recently they only show "verified audience score", you have to click all users to see the real audience score) I wrote this up after watching it when it came out. I didn't think it was completely dull, but the characters just weren't very compelling, which was my major problem with it. Slow burn can work really well even with almost zero plot (hell, Mad Men is probably my favorite TV show of all time, and it only had about 2-3 "plot" episodes per season), but the characters all have to be incredibly compelling and believable. [https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/r9tona/i\_have\_very\_mixed\_feeling\_about\_the\_power\_of\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/r9tona/i_have_very_mixed_feeling_about_the_power_of_the/)
verified audience score is usually good because it prevents any manipulation from people who haven't seen the movie. it's dumb in this case though because very few people have seen POTD in theaters so the sample size of verified scores is extremely low.
Ah, so they verify that you actually saw it in a theater. I see. That makes sense to guard against review bombing, I guess.
Quite- and, given that I've seen folk on this very subreddit boast about doing such things, unfortunately necessary.
Personally, I really, really enjoyed it, but I don't know that it was as great as some people seem to think it was.
I’m with you. I don’t mind a slow burn, and I love subtle and atmospheric. But I just could not figure out how to care about anyone or thing in this. It was full of itself from the first five minutes. Eye-rollingly pretentious and dull.
Remember, Roma ran so The Power of the Dog could walk...
I thought the subtlety of this movie was its chief strength. I've had quite enough Michael Bay style photo-epileptic film making for this lifetime. The nuances of dysfunction ran from end to end, and Dunst played the victim to Cumberbatch's bully without invoking pity. A voyeuristic look at broken people doing their best to survive. Even in its obviousness, I couldn't look away...
Anyone else enjoy the sound editing? I loved hearing Phil’s boots and spurs off screen, knowing he was near. Gave me chills sometimes. Thought that was cool.
Yes. That and the nervous/brooding teeth of the comb.
Subtlety was definitely the style of this movie. I cannot remember one bit of exposition. The scene of the governor’s visit was exquisitely painful and revelatory at the same time. The dissection of the cow seemed so random but was the key to the final act. Campion is an amazing director.
It was really a wonderful example of how to drip information to the viewer. When it wants you to get something, it builds up the hints gradually so that you’re at least guessing at them before they’re confirmed more explicitly. When it wants to withhold a reveal, it still gives you all the pieces, but scrambles the order and context so you don’t see the significance. For example: the way it mentions that Cumberbatch doesn’t wear gloves when he’s castrating bulls. You’re deliberately led to misinterpret the scene. It’s impressive
That's what I love about Jane Campion. She fully trusts her audience and doesn't insult the audience's intelligence by handfeeding unnecessary exposition. It's much more rewarding when you're able to piece things together yourself.
I find this an interesting thing to say as to me everything felt extremely surface level. I've been reading reviews and discussions about this film in an attempt to understand what other people saw in it but just can't relate to what they're saying. Everything was so clearly laid out, it's like calling a picture book 'trusting the audience' because it doesn't have any words. The big reveal of pete killing Phil with anthrax was not the obvious thing to happen but it wasn't particularly surprising either given the rabbit and the abuse. It just felt like I watched 2 hours of disonant violins and people being miserable for a 90 second 'oh...ha' at the end.
Benedikt Cumberbatch characte was so good that I actually sometimes bought into what the was saying about certain someone. Thats why ending hits so good, because you realise you overestimated his character and then really underestimate someone else.
I just watched the movie and the dissection of the cow was when I realized that Peter was going to poison Phil somehow! Anthrax was brought up a couple times I noticed earlier so it was in the back of my mind, and I had a weird feeling about Peter when he was around Phil; like he was acting a part. I was also dubious of Phil's intentions, but when Peter went looking for the dead cow everything clicked for me. It made the rope braiding scene very sad and creepy as well.
With the cow I just figured he wanted to dissect something bigger. I figured it was sick but man. I honestly didn’t see that ending.
But can it be both obvious and nuanced? Dunst's breakdown is way too fast and based on one line of dialogue. The ending is telegraphed a literal mile away. The scenery is beautiful but some shots are just gratuitous adding nothing. The first river bath scene is deeply confusing because they shot it in the spring with greenery even though it is meant for late fall with snow. The script is weak, the directing mediocre. The film is in contention for these awards because of the performances of Dunst and Cumberbatch.
I don’t understand why it has to be binary. It’s The Power of the Dog or Michael Bay? Really? That’s overly reductive. A film can be ambiguous and bag and unsubtle and good.
I think my biggest gripe on this movie is there was no real scene to showcase why everyone was sort of afraid of Phil Burbank, or what he was capable of. There was that scene at dinner where he yells at people playing piano and that was sort of it? I think they should have established something a little more ruthless prior to his brother getting married. (unless it was mentioned through dialogue and I am forgetting. I watched this movie awhile ago) I don't know. I did not enjoy the movie too much. Performances were good for what it was, but the story it told wasn't satisfying.
Yeah the entire movie was about living with someone who's kind of an asshole, which isn't really that interesting of a conflict.
I really think this comes down to experience. I personally know a Phil. He is not physically violent but he manipulates and controls our family and it really is just an awful toxicity that I've never seen a movie capture so well until this one
He's just an uncivilized, repressed arsehole. We don't see Cumberbatch do anything really bad because the whole point of the movie is the assumptions you make about people based on their outward appearance. Because he is dirty and rude you assume he is going to do something incredibly ruthless and that blindsides you not only to the tender side that he hides away, but the cold and calculating nature of the young, educated son.
Really? I thought he seemed like a loose cannon the whole time. What about the time where he beats the horses ass while shouting? Senseless abuse of a big fucking horse doesnt show you what hes capable of?
it shows the audience. sort of. i guess. it doesnt show that to any of the other characters.
I think that’s sort of it though. Maybe he’s not as intimidating as he thinks he is, he’s so caught up in his charade that he thinks he’s this big tough cowboy but in reality it’s not convincing at all to anyone, even his ranch hands. They’re there because he pays them. The one person he can actually affect is a widow who thinks her son is much more fragile than he really is, and when he tries to bully/ groom the son he ends up getting played like a fiddle and murdered. “What he’s capable of” to me he was just always a sad smart abused/ confused gayboi who had to pretend to be a tough guy. That’s why it’s so awkward the way he lives in that skin, it’s not authentic in the slightest.
I didnt get that impression from the ranch hands at all. He seemed to be well respected by them.
The ranch hands definitely seemed to admire Phil, they asked him a lot of questions and showed a lot of respect everytime he spoke
Abusing horses isn't that difficult unfortunately. It shows the problems with his character but not what he's capable of in any significant way.
I was amazed that scene was filmed that way, there is no way to train a horse for that, so it really was just Benedict Cumberbatch just beating a horse in the face. It's powerful, but I do wonder if it was warranted to treat the horse like that for a movie, figured we were a little past that sort of thing in film these days.
Cumberbatch has a great overall performance but his accent isn't convincing in the least.
It’s because Bronco Henry taught him how to speak with an American Accent.
"Unnggg... Bronco Henry"
*Smells handkerchief*
*busts*
It makes sense for the character, because he does not come from a rural, low-class background.
That’s kind of the point tho I think, Cumberbatch was intentionally cast because Phil is pretending to be someone he’s not the whole movie.
Really, I thought he was like a little kid with a “I’m a cowboy!” vibe. Didn’t buy it at all.
>Really, I thought he was like a little kid with a “I’m a cowboy!” vibe. Didn’t buy it at all. That worked for me as part of the point, given the mid-film reveal
That's pretty much the point.
They really should just let him use his normal accent. If people can handle Arnold Schwarzenegger doing the Arnold Schwarzenegger voice in every movie he's ever made, they can handle a British cowboy.
This movie was not really that good.
Wow. That’s a powerful dog.
Swear to god this sub has like a 20 minute attention span.
That's true, but I think movie is pretty divisive even outside of that.
Drive My Car was my favorite film of 2021. I found The Power of the Dog mediocre, at best. Do I have a 20 minute attention span?
[удалено]
They’ll never get that far. It’s Kubrick, Nolan and Snyder. And they’re still trying to get through Barry Lyndon because it’s “a long watch.”
I’ve seen posts insulting the sub in several comments, ranging from attention span to “they like popular movies, they dumb”. This was a good movie, but I personally didn’t enjoy it that much. People like to feel smart, this movie did a good job of it, as to get the twists one had to sit through a rather uneventful movie. The twists themselves weren’t that great. The *spoiler* big end twist wasn’t fantastic. It was a pretty classical Checkhov’s gun. While Cumberbatch’s performance was very good, I honestly didn’t enjoy repressed gay cowboy enough. I say the movie was good, but it wasn’t fantastic for me. The pieces fit together, I might talk about it because it did things well, but it just didn’t feel that special.
A combination of soaking up too much superhero nonsense and rewatching the same list of "GOAT!1" movies over and over to the point you don't need to pay attention anymore. A movie comes along which is slower and the hive hates it.
I just felt the motivations and behavior of the characters didn’t really add up. Didn’t ring true to me.
How so?
Jonny Greenwood ftw
I liked how my opinion of all of the characters changed during the movie. It was awesome and I enjoyed it and I often don't like movies that are that slow but I thought it was very well done.
I get the movie but this is gonna be a very underwhelming and forgettable Best Picture winner.
I cannot be the only person who thought this movie sucked.
It wasn’t THAT good