|
Post by jervistetch on Nov 21, 2017 2:03:51 GMT
I just wanted to recommend this quiet, coming-of-age comedy/drama. It is thoroughly enjoyable and Saoirse Ronan is phenomenal in the title role. Actress Greta Gerwig wrote and directed it and she really hits it out of the park.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 22, 2017 4:54:39 GMT
i am seeing it friday so good to know now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Lady Bird
Nov 22, 2017 15:16:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 15:16:21 GMT
It has exceptional word of mouth. Look at its box office numbers. A24 is also an exxeptional mini studio. Lady bird could become their highest grosser yet.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 23, 2017 19:59:58 GMT
I'm just gonna guess both will garner nominations this year .
|
|
|
Post by NewtJorden on Nov 24, 2017 1:47:08 GMT
I can see an Oscar for Saoirse.
|
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on Nov 25, 2017 3:38:45 GMT
I loved BROOKLYN and LADY BIRD is just as good. LADY BIRD is as emotionally satisfying as BROOKLYN but with a lot more humor. If you liked the way you felt when you finished watching the first movie then you should definitely see the second.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Nov 25, 2017 5:50:43 GMT
Is she related to Larry?
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on Nov 27, 2017 18:36:31 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 23:42:49 GMT
Well apparently it's RT's highest rated movie of all time.
|
|
|
Post by NewtJorden on Nov 29, 2017 15:55:20 GMT
Well apparently it's RT's highest rated movie of all time. And its well deserved
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 29, 2017 15:59:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Dec 17, 2017 8:39:10 GMT
I just viewed Lady Bird and I found it mediocre—taking nothing away from anyone else's fondness for the film, including the original poster's. But for me, it was not especially funny—some of the comedic material was good (for instance, the "Sacramento/San Francisco" line late in the movie), yet I felt that quite a bit of it was lame. Overall, I deemed the comedy too obvious—not in a slapstick, over-the-top sort of way, but just in an overly apparent manner. The movie aspires to be an acerbic comedy, but there is not enough intensity or edginess to support that ambition. Indeed, the film tries to be cutesy or sweet yet also ironic, and I feel like the combination does not really work. I am not sure if a comedy can be cutesy or sweet and also ironic, but if it can be both, Lady Bird does not strike me as a successful example. Frankly, I thought that quite a few of the jokes were bad, and I was not sure if the filmmakers understood that they were bad and were using bad jokes intentionally for (attempted) ironic effect, or if they just did not recognize their lameness. But overall, the film strikes me as a variation of the usual adolescent coming-of-age narrative, not that far different from those (often beloved) movies written and/or directed by John Hughes in the eighties. Lady Bird seeks to be hipper, and some of the elements are intriguing (i.e. driving through Sacramento), but I feel as if the attempt falls flat. Relationships between characters are often suggested more than explored or fully developed (to that point, the film leans on extended montage too often), and the movie feels about half an hour longer than its 93-minute running time. Ronan is credible and engaging as the protagonist, but a sharper and more confident context would have helped the total film. Again, the movie wants to be sweet yet also ironic, deadpan yet earnest. I am not sure that the mix is that effective. But Lady Bird is not bad, and many people (especially, although not exclusively, women) seem to be tickled by it. I did like Brooklyn from two years ago—I found it "good," a more mature and hefty (if sentimental) coming-of-age film that explored the fragility of young adulthood and the duality of the historical immigrant experience in America. I did not feel that it was worthy of its Best Picture Oscar nomination, though. A 2017 film that delved into similar issues and relationships as Lady Bird (i.e. a daughter's collegiate ambitions and her relationship with her mother) that I found vastly superior was Columbus. Although too slow and quiet for commercial audiences, the film is mesmerizing (both visually and psychologically) and transcends the conventions of the coming-of-age genre in a way that Lady Bird certainly does not. As the lead, Haley Lu Richardson delivers one of the finest female performances that I have ever seen—incredibly pure and natural, using very simple and instinctive responses to tap into deep and momentous feelings. There are no Oscar-bait histrionics here (to be fair, Ronan largely avoids them, too), just subtle and deeply felt screen acting at its finest. And the overall film, crafted by writer-director Kogonada, is reminiscent of Terrence Malick without the pretentiousness, gratuitous camera movements, and celestial strain that somewhat define the famous filmmaker's later work (although I do not dislike Malick, and I did find 2011's The Tree of Life "very good" despite some of those flaws). Columbus is one of the four best feature films from this year that I have seen thus far, so whether or not you like Lady Bird, give that one a try, too (although you almost certainly will not find it in theaters any longer). It is the kind of movie that ought to be prominently featured in awards nominations and discussions, but due to its idiosyncratic transcendence and lack of an audience, it will not receive nearly the notoriety of far lesser films. Incidentally, this Los Angeles Times review of Columbus formally delineates many of the movie's assets: link
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 17, 2017 18:19:16 GMT
Well apparently it's RT's highest rated movie of all time. This might rack up all the top five nominations.
|
|
|
Post by moviemanjackson on Dec 17, 2017 19:04:42 GMT
Great movie, really surprised with the direction and cinematography too.
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Jan 2, 2018 2:24:18 GMT
I found it to be Pretty in Pink(1986) with small twists but looking at some info it seems more like a semi-autobiography of Greta Gerwig (director & writer). I don't know much about her but just reading a bit made it one plausible explanation (there is some basis to it from her wiki: " A native of Sacramento, California, (...) She attended St. Francis High School, an all-girls Catholic school in Sacramento" ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Gerwig)) I mean maybe it's because I'm a man and I only have brothers but unlike some of the things seen in Pretty in Pink, I couldn't relate nor feel much for any of the characters, especially the protagonist, Lady Bird herself. Sure I could easily replace all the characters names with names of people I went to High School with but even then, those who actually fit Lady Bird's character like a glove, are some of the last people I would make a movie on. I know all the above is just me and it's not something we can compare objectively but even if I don't hold the absolute truth, the movie didn't feel enjoyable nor left me in awe. Now, for slightly more objective arguments, the pace is weird, especially for a "coming of age" movie. I didn't have a stopwatch but it seemed like a good part was built like sketch shows, 1 to 2 (maybe slightly more in this case) minutes sequences put back to back. While it conveyed the idea of the passage of time, it didn't allow much character development. As others said about the characters themselves, some, if not all, are pretty much based on clichés so they don't really strike you nor will stand the test of time. The acting is on par with what is expected but if someone's performance has to bee brought up, it has to be Laurie Metcalf, playing the mother. Just like Allison Janney in I,Tonya( www.imdb.com/title/tt5580036/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) she steals the show from the lead. Saoirse Ronan acting wasn't bad per se but she just couldn't get there or hit the mark so it would be a special or memorable performance. While you do get from the start to the end, you kinda left wondering what it was all about since there is very little that connected or stood out. I might be standing with a minority for this one but I can't really give more than 5/10.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 2, 2018 11:11:12 GMT
I found it to be Pretty in Pink(1986) with small twists but looking at some info it seems more like a semi-autobiography of Greta Gerwig (director & writer). I don't know much about her but just reading a bit made it one plausible explanation (there is some basis to it from her wiki: " A native of Sacramento, California, (...) She attended St. Francis High School, an all-girls Catholic school in Sacramento" ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Gerwig)) I mean maybe it's because I'm a man and I only have brothers but unlike some of the things seen in Pretty in Pink, I couldn't relate nor feel much for any of the characters, especially the protagonist, Lady Bird herself. Sure I could easily replace all the characters names with names of people I went to High School with but even then, those who actually fit Lady Bird's character like a glove, are some of the last people I would make a movie on. I know all the above is just me and it's not something we can compare objectively but even if I don't hold the absolute truth, the movie didn't feel enjoyable nor left me in awe. Now, for slightly more objective arguments, the pace is weird, especially for a "coming of age" movie. I didn't have a stopwatch but it seemed like a good part was built like sketch shows, 1 to 2 (maybe slightly more in this case) minutes sequences put back to back. While it conveyed the idea of the passage of time, it didn't allow much character development. As others said about the characters themselves, some, if not all, are pretty much based on clichés so they don't really strike you nor will stand the test of time. The acting is on par with what is expected but if someone's performance has to bee brought up, it has to be Laurie Metcalf, playing the mother. Just like Allison Janney in I,Tonya( www.imdb.com/title/tt5580036/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) she steals the show from the lead. Saoirse Ronan acting wasn't bad per se but she just couldn't get there or hit the mark so it would be a special or memorable performance. While you do get from the start to the end, you kinda left wondering what it was all about since there is very little that connected or stood out. I might be standing with a minority for this one but I can't really give more than 5/10. I actually possessed the same feeling (and it is what I had suspected based on the trailer, prior to seeing the film): as a man, I could not really find a point of connection to the movie. I chose not to make that point in my comments earlier in the thread because, obviously, some men truly enjoy and appreciate the movie and I did not want to pretend to speak for all men or to seem be implicitly casting aspersions about men who do take to Lady Bird. But I did share your feeling, and many of my comments match up with yours. And the issue is not about being unable to relate to a female protagonist in general. So far, I have seen two 2017 feature film releases that I consider "great" (I have not yet viewed all of the current releases): A Quiet Passion and Loving Vincent. A Quiet Passion is an off-beat portrait of poet Emily Dickinson, and I certainly related to her. And as I mentioned earlier, I very much took to Columbus, which features a young female protagonist.
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Jan 2, 2018 22:04:22 GMT
I found it to be Pretty in Pink(1986) with small twists but looking at some info it seems more like a semi-autobiography of Greta Gerwig (director & writer). I don't know much about her but just reading a bit made it one plausible explanation (there is some basis to it from her wiki: " A native of Sacramento, California, (...) She attended St. Francis High School, an all-girls Catholic school in Sacramento" ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Gerwig)) I mean maybe it's because I'm a man and I only have brothers but unlike some of the things seen in Pretty in Pink, I couldn't relate nor feel much for any of the characters, especially the protagonist, Lady Bird herself. Sure I could easily replace all the characters names with names of people I went to High School with but even then, those who actually fit Lady Bird's character like a glove, are some of the last people I would make a movie on. I know all the above is just me and it's not something we can compare objectively but even if I don't hold the absolute truth, the movie didn't feel enjoyable nor left me in awe. Now, for slightly more objective arguments, the pace is weird, especially for a "coming of age" movie. I didn't have a stopwatch but it seemed like a good part was built like sketch shows, 1 to 2 (maybe slightly more in this case) minutes sequences put back to back. While it conveyed the idea of the passage of time, it didn't allow much character development. As others said about the characters themselves, some, if not all, are pretty much based on clichés so they don't really strike you nor will stand the test of time. The acting is on par with what is expected but if someone's performance has to bee brought up, it has to be Laurie Metcalf, playing the mother. Just like Allison Janney in I,Tonya( www.imdb.com/title/tt5580036/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) she steals the show from the lead. Saoirse Ronan acting wasn't bad per se but she just couldn't get there or hit the mark so it would be a special or memorable performance. While you do get from the start to the end, you kinda left wondering what it was all about since there is very little that connected or stood out. I might be standing with a minority for this one but I can't really give more than 5/10. I actually possessed the same feeling (and it is what I had suspected based on the trailer, prior to seeing the film): as a man, I could not really find a point of connection to the film. I chose not to make that point in my comments earlier in the thread because, obviously, some men truly enjoy and appreciate the movie and I did not want to pretend to speak for all men or to seem be implicitly casting aspersions about men who do take to Lady Bird. But I did share your feeling, and many of my comments match up with yours. And the issue is not about being unable to relate to a female protagonist in general. So far, I have seen two 2017 feature film releases that I consider "great" (I have not yet viewed all of the current releases): A Quiet Passion and Loving Vincent. A Quiet Passion is an off-beat portrait of poet Emily Dickinson, and I certainly related to her. And as I mentioned earlier, I very much took to Columbus, which features a young female protagonist. I didn't watch the trailer, nor read any interview or article about Lady Bird prior to watching the movie but based on what I read on Gerwig's (the director and writer) Wiki and IMDB pages, she was born in Sacramento and went to a religious high-school in Sacramento. Since she was born in 1983, she could also have been roughly the same age as Lady Bird in the movie. So again, it seems like it's a semi-autobiography or at least partially based on Gerwig's life. Considering she's also the director, our feeling might come from the way she tried to convey the story. At times, the story-telling seemed more oriented towards an audience of girls and women than a mix or "neutral" one. Again, I don't pretend to hold the absolute truth, since as you said, other men actually enjoyed the movie, but for me it had very little to offer. I would still say that not being able to relate to the protagonist is an issue but part of a larger one (trying to relate to any characters) while also being one example on a list. I must say I haven't seen A Quiet Passion, Loving Vincent and Columbus but I'll add them to my watchlist.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Mar 4, 2018 17:20:56 GMT
some of the comedic material was good (for instance, the "Sacramento/San Francisco" line late in the movie) While that line is supposed to be a little funny, I don't think that comedy was the main goal in that moment. The guy says "What?" and LADY BIRD thinks either he couldn't hear her or that it was a small city that no one knows about or both. She has the chance to say something else and chooses a more famous city that sounds similar.
|
|