It didn’t feel as grounded as it seemed to want to be. A bit too indulgent with the family take over. And overall it was much more sympathetic to the wealthy family than to the poors, but that one is more of a moral critique than an artistic one.
Uncut Gems. We turned it off when it became apparent how it would end, when he pawned KG’s necklace to place a bet on him. There wasn’t any reason to care about a guy on a self inflicted downward spiral with no redeeming qualities. Would he win or lose? Would a bookie shoot him or would he make a fortune with that weird opal? Who cares? You’re not rooting for him to win, and he’s probably going to self destruct. Maybe they try to make some vapid point about addiction by having him win big and then immediately killing him so he dies happy, like the end of Sopranos only the character is mildly autistic and unlikeable.
Also there ended up being no point to the Mattel board drama. It didn’t affect the plot at all and at the end it was still all men making decisions based on profit.
Perfect liberal movie, lip service without changing a thing.
That didn’t happen in the movie though, there was no next step taken. America pitches the idea and the man in charge is about to say no until another man says it will make a lot of money. There’s no implication of her being promoted or anything. The Mattel leadership doesn’t change, the patriarchy doesn’t change, and Barbieland didn’t fundamentally change either. A couple characters changed their outlooks on themselves, which isn’t a bad thing but it’s also not that profound. The movie identifies some bigger problems but ends up just accepting them and moving on. And I think reading intention into that is probably giving the studio too much credit. Especially when you could replace the board with a literal roadblock and it wouldn’t change anything about the rest of the plot. To be clear, I thought it was a fun movie, I just don’t think it’s as groundbreaking as many make it out to be.
In which case I would point to this part of my comment.
And I think reading intention into that is probably giving the studio too much credit. Especially when you could replace the board with a literal roadblock and it wouldn’t change anything about the rest of the plot.
That and (speculation) I’m pretty sure most of the people making this movie are liberals themselves.
Gravity. At the time I attended a “higher-tier” course in Physics (German schooling system), so I noticed an awful lot of ridiculous non-physics, which completely broke the movie for me.
I think the whole movie would have been greatly improved if I the last scene Sandra Bullock’s character was crushed to death by the flaming corpse of George Clooney’s character.
The funny thing is that it’s a 2.5 hour movie. Those 30 minutes of story are still only stretched out over the first 2 hours. The last half hour is just boring artsy effects flashing before your eyes.
Oh my god yes. I honestly tried, really hard, and I like a lot of fairly artsy films - but I just can’t enjoy 2001. Everyone says it’s so deep, so meaningful. And yes I’ve done the deep dives, I know about the star child and the evolutionary leaps and all of the meanings.
To me it just falls flat because it’s just trying so hard to be a deep and meaningful film. There’s no story to bridge it, there’s no nuance to me, it’s just beating you over the head with “Hey, look, look at how deep and meaningful this is, it’s so important you understand this is more than just a film”
Add comment