Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
I have seen 5 of the 8 and Bill's not wrong. All 5 I have seen I would never want to watch again. A great film should be one I would want to see again.
willing to open his mind to a different lifestyle, to people who choose it, and who, maddeningly, don't fit into neat little pigeonholes.
Frances McDormand is amazing, simply amazing. In a film populated by mostly amateur actors, she matches their genuineness and vulnerability without resorting to those Hollywood standard acting gimmicks, i.e. nervous eye-movements, exaggerated facial expressions, hand gesturing, etc.
What motivates a person voluntarily to choose to live a life devoid of all the materialistic comforts of modern day life? And to do so without comfort of family or close friends? We not only gain insight into the motivations of Fern, but also of a group of other characters, each one interesting and individual.
Cinematography: not, again, the typical Hollywood wide-angle "Wow!" type; rather, the grandeur of the West as you might experience it, its vast expanses of nature, unburdened of visual human impact, its majesty to a large part held in its very quietude and complexity--- like this film.
What motivates a person voluntarily to choose to live a life devoid of all the materialistic comforts of modern day life?
But they don't - they use smartphones and laptops and printers and laundry facilities etc. My parents lived in a fifth wheel for a year traveling across the US and Canada. So do tens of thousands of people. Not sure it is movie worthy and scenes of sunsets and roads is not my idea of great cinematography.
Slow and quiet with nothing happening doesn't make it good. But hey whatever floats your boat.
these shouldn't be alien to any human. That the film covers a difficult subject without descending into melodrama is a tribute to good writing, editing, and--- acting!
This is the favorite to win Best picture.
Personally, I found it to be a slog to watch.
It's look-at-your-watch boring in terms of pacing. Long extended shots of mountains and roads I guess are "deep thinking" moments?
I have read critics who salivate over it but I am not sure what the point of it is. They say it is a movie that could only be made in America because there are no safety nets in the USA so all of these people are quasi-homeless. Okay so it's a social commentary on the lack of government support but then that is undercut by the fact that the lead character Fern is offered helps several times by friends and family to give her a fresh start. She chooses life on the road instead and veers away from getting back on track.
So the movie is not about getting back on track or a failed system because she turns all the help down. Therefore, is it about preferring to live this nomadic life? If so, okay, but everyone in Nomadland seems one degree or two from a kind of misery. So misery is still the better option? Uggh.
These sorts of movies always seem to be movies that are vanity projects where everyone is trying so hard to win an oscar. It basically meanders around and allows the audience to experience Nomadic life for near 2 hours watching a millionaire actress pretend to be poor for those 2 hours?
Don't get me wrong I don't mind movies where you don't have all the answers or know the protagonist's motivations - but there should be something in here to hang onto. Perhaps a thing called a plot or at least a theme that makes some sense.
This would not be the first time I disliked a movie and liked it 5 years later. The closest film in recent years to Nomadland in pace and "feel" has been Roma. But I liked Roma a helluva lot more than this.
This just seems like a slice in time following a woman wandering around. And we are supposed to sit and be amazed. So far I don't get it. And because it's probably aimed at Liberal do-gooder bleeding hearts like me - I must have missed something.
Like Bill - This is a movie so torturously boring where someone needs to Wake me so I can be Woke.
"E Burres Stigano?"
As long as I've been watching movies, the "road movie" has been a genre. And these are not generally plot driven. Most often, they have young protagonists who hit the road, meet people, have some adventures, learn some life lessons. And that's it. If you like the people, the scenery, if you like their little journey, you enjoy the movie. Otherwise you don't.
I would say this is firmly in that tradition, although the people are older. If there is a theme, it is loss, loss of family through aging and death, loss of community through economic change, loss of home.
And she hits the road and she meets a bunch of people whom I found interesting, and she sees some scenery which I found quite lovely.
I enjoyed this quite a bit and would be quite happy to see such a small and quiet story win best picture. And I more or less choked on Promising Young Woman. So to each their own.
I thought it was Meh--left it be after halfway
PYW was okay - I don't think it's best picture nomination worthy. But considering some of the other choices it seems at home.
It's basically the Brett Kavanaugh story the way it should have ended if there was any justice.
I saw it almost the same way, except that I felt little bit for the characters. They all seemed to believe in that dream that they are in a quest for adventure and the beauty of nature, maybe unrealistically so. They seemed in denial of the harsh realities of living on the road. Maybe for some of them, this is their last chance to see the wonders of nature with the meager assets they have; some sort of a last chance desperate grab at a dream.
I suppose that is a way to look at it but I recall my parents in a fifth wheel traveling across the US. I just don't think it's movie-worthy let alone best-picture-worthy.
The reviewers rave about the cinematography but I did;t think it was particularly memorable either.
So far I'd probably pick Judas and the Black Messiah or Promising Young Woman.
The latter is a revenge story of sorts and Carey Mulligan was so good in The Dig that as a combined performance I'd like to see her win - she won't.
Judas and the Black Messiah has weird editing issues although it was solid.
Mank is okay - mediocre
Trial of the Chicago 7 seems more like a TV movie and bettered by almost any episode of the West Wing.
They all just seem, as maher points out" It used to be "Look what good movies we make," but now it's "look what good people we are"
forget this is the wealthiest, by far, society. Since his rant didn't mention films he enjoyed in years past, it's just another angry guy. That said, American filmmaking in general has suffered for years: budgets are blown on blockbusters that people continue to find fascinating--- through 10 sequels/prequels--- as the characters become less real and the FX becomes more and more dominant.
I guess Maher should stick to blockbusters...
He said he didn't want Godzilla vs Kong either. Maybe you missed the point on this one?
He lambasted Hollywood in the video.
I have only seen two of them. So far he is correct. I guess I have more depressing hours ahead of me if I chose to view the others.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: