Search
Search results
Terraforming Mars
8.7
Rate It
Tabletop Game
In the 2400s, mankind begins to terraform the planet Mars. Giant corporations, sponsored by the...
Boardgame TerraformThis MeeplesChoice
Battlestar Galactica: The Board Game
8.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Battlestar Galactica: The Board Game is an exciting game of mistrust, intrigue, and the struggle for...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tennis and sex, but without the grunting.
Here’s a good test of someone’s age…. ask the question “Billie-Jean?”. Millennials will probably come back with “Huh?”; those in their 30’s or 40’s might come back with “Michael Jackson!”; those older than that will probably reply “King!”.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Oppenheimer (2023) in Movies
Jul 27, 2023
Gonna Win A Ton of Awards
Clear your shelves, Christopher Nolan and many of those involved in the making of his new movie OPPENHEIMER, you’re going to need the space for the many, many trophies you are going to receive next spring.
Based on the life of the “Father of the Atomic Bomb”, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Nolan’s latest epic is a rarity in today’s Motion Picture landscape - a prestige picture, bankrolled lavishly, filmed gorgeously and populated with a veritable who’s who of “A” list actors that tells a complex story of a complicated man who ends up remorseful of what he has unleashed in this world.
And it works very, very well.
Nolan regular, Cillian Murphy, is equal parts quirky, driven, determined and haunted in his multi-layered performance as the titular character - who is in almost every scene of this 3 hour film. He is fascinating to watch and his “more internal than external” performance draws the audience in throughout the events depicted in this film. It is the Best Performance of the career of one of the most interesting actors of this generation and one should not be surprised if his name is called during awards season next year.
Murphy is capably supported by a long list of strong performers giving strong performances in roles that are much smaller than ones they normally receive. Matt Damon, Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett(!), Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Matthew Modine, Kenneth Branagh (of course, it’s a Nolan film), Jason Clarke and Alden Ehrenreich bring their “A” game to roles that could have been thrown away.
Also, good ol’ Tom Conti (one of the most interesting actors from the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s) shows up in this film as Albert Einstein and reminds us all why he is such a good performer…and…wait until you see who shows up for one scene in this film as President Harry S. Truman!
Oh…and don’t forget Emily Blunt (as Oppenheimer’s wife) and (surprisingly) Robert Downey, Jr. (as a politician using Oppenheimer for his own purposes). Both of them put in Award-winning-level uspporting performances, elevating two “A” list actors to the “A+ list”.
But this film is more than just it’s performers. Nolan demands - and receives - top notch work from the Cinematographer, the Sound Designer, the Editor, the Costume Designer and the Composer (Ludwig Goranssson, NOT Nolan regular Hans Zimmer). They (along with Nolan) craft a beautifully made and put together film that will dazzle the senses. If you get a chance, see this film in a movie theater and, if you can, see it in either iMAX or 70mm, you will be glad you did.
What holds this film back - just a little bit - is the story that is being told. Nolan (as he is want to do) plays with time and pretty frenetically cuts back and forth between about 4 different timelines to tell this story. It’s effective most of the time, but at other times, it becomes distracting and….with a 3 hour run time…does drag a bit at times.
But these are quibbles to a film that is “as good as it gets” by the BEST DIRECTOR plying his trade today. It is another triumph for Nolan and he will be making many, many acceptance speeches in just a few short months.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Based on the life of the “Father of the Atomic Bomb”, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Nolan’s latest epic is a rarity in today’s Motion Picture landscape - a prestige picture, bankrolled lavishly, filmed gorgeously and populated with a veritable who’s who of “A” list actors that tells a complex story of a complicated man who ends up remorseful of what he has unleashed in this world.
And it works very, very well.
Nolan regular, Cillian Murphy, is equal parts quirky, driven, determined and haunted in his multi-layered performance as the titular character - who is in almost every scene of this 3 hour film. He is fascinating to watch and his “more internal than external” performance draws the audience in throughout the events depicted in this film. It is the Best Performance of the career of one of the most interesting actors of this generation and one should not be surprised if his name is called during awards season next year.
Murphy is capably supported by a long list of strong performers giving strong performances in roles that are much smaller than ones they normally receive. Matt Damon, Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett(!), Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Matthew Modine, Kenneth Branagh (of course, it’s a Nolan film), Jason Clarke and Alden Ehrenreich bring their “A” game to roles that could have been thrown away.
Also, good ol’ Tom Conti (one of the most interesting actors from the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s) shows up in this film as Albert Einstein and reminds us all why he is such a good performer…and…wait until you see who shows up for one scene in this film as President Harry S. Truman!
Oh…and don’t forget Emily Blunt (as Oppenheimer’s wife) and (surprisingly) Robert Downey, Jr. (as a politician using Oppenheimer for his own purposes). Both of them put in Award-winning-level uspporting performances, elevating two “A” list actors to the “A+ list”.
But this film is more than just it’s performers. Nolan demands - and receives - top notch work from the Cinematographer, the Sound Designer, the Editor, the Costume Designer and the Composer (Ludwig Goranssson, NOT Nolan regular Hans Zimmer). They (along with Nolan) craft a beautifully made and put together film that will dazzle the senses. If you get a chance, see this film in a movie theater and, if you can, see it in either iMAX or 70mm, you will be glad you did.
What holds this film back - just a little bit - is the story that is being told. Nolan (as he is want to do) plays with time and pretty frenetically cuts back and forth between about 4 different timelines to tell this story. It’s effective most of the time, but at other times, it becomes distracting and….with a 3 hour run time…does drag a bit at times.
But these are quibbles to a film that is “as good as it gets” by the BEST DIRECTOR plying his trade today. It is another triumph for Nolan and he will be making many, many acceptance speeches in just a few short months.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Suswatibasu (1703 KP) rated The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao in Books
Oct 29, 2017 (Updated Oct 29, 2017)
Amusing, yet disappointing thanks to all the hype
For six months I've been saving this book mostly because of how much praise this book has received. Not only did this receive the National Book Critics Circle Award for fiction but also a Pulitzer Prize. And was it worth the awards? I personally don't think so.
Labelled 'a masterpiece' by critics, the book follows the life of Oscar de Leon, or as some know him as Oscar Wao, from the perspective of the people that know him. From the title you can expect something interesting happened to him to reduce his lifespan and this definitely is the case.
Through his friend Yunior and sister Lola's accounts, they delve into the history of the Dominican Republic where they were originally from before settling in New York. Fuku or a curse, plays a big role in this book, as the de Leon family believed they had faced many misfortunes over the generations and ghetto nerd Oscar was no exception. In between the chaos of murder and corruption, were several love stories that went awry.
And while some of it was interesting, and you need a good grasp of Spanish, the footnotes became irritating filling several half pages to explain the historical context. To be honest, apart from the grandmother La Inca, and sister Lola, most of the characters were unlikable - the idiotic things they'll do for love are astounding. The language was rich, but the structure seemed slightly convoluted, as if the writer had attempted to keep a scheme in place but it still leaked everywhere. While some of it is engaging, I'm really not sure how this won the Pulitzer.
Labelled 'a masterpiece' by critics, the book follows the life of Oscar de Leon, or as some know him as Oscar Wao, from the perspective of the people that know him. From the title you can expect something interesting happened to him to reduce his lifespan and this definitely is the case.
Through his friend Yunior and sister Lola's accounts, they delve into the history of the Dominican Republic where they were originally from before settling in New York. Fuku or a curse, plays a big role in this book, as the de Leon family believed they had faced many misfortunes over the generations and ghetto nerd Oscar was no exception. In between the chaos of murder and corruption, were several love stories that went awry.
And while some of it was interesting, and you need a good grasp of Spanish, the footnotes became irritating filling several half pages to explain the historical context. To be honest, apart from the grandmother La Inca, and sister Lola, most of the characters were unlikable - the idiotic things they'll do for love are astounding. The language was rich, but the structure seemed slightly convoluted, as if the writer had attempted to keep a scheme in place but it still leaked everywhere. While some of it is engaging, I'm really not sure how this won the Pulitzer.
Bee (3 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Feb 9, 2019
A good film, not a good biopic
Contains spoilers, click to show
After all my friends have been obsessing over this film, I have finally watched it.
And I have to say, I was disappointed. Don't get me wrong, it is a good film with great visuals, the reshoot of Live Aid was brilliant, Rami Malek was at his best and the singing of Marc Martel was stunning.
But the film, which is supposed to be a biopic blatantly disregards reality or changes it dramatically for a better cinematic effect. While this not a rare thing, the affect of Brian May and Roger Taylor having so much control over the film simply resulted in a very opinionated film that, at least for me, does not do justice to Freddie Mercury or Queen.
The whole point of it being a biopic is lost when facts like how the band met or how Freddie started singing are completely changed, and even small ones, like his proposal, or crucial ones, like the well-known scandal of Live Aid are changed so much.
I did not judge the film based on this, but I think it's also important to note how the studio awarded director billing to Bryan Singer who abandoned the shoot two-thirds along and left Dexter Fletcher to try to pick up the pieces, finish the shoot, editing and any extra shoots. It's only an insult that after all this, they also put Singer forward for awards.
So I do admit that it is an entertaining and good film, but does not do justice to Mercury and can hardly be considered to be a good biopic.
And I have to say, I was disappointed. Don't get me wrong, it is a good film with great visuals, the reshoot of Live Aid was brilliant, Rami Malek was at his best and the singing of Marc Martel was stunning.
But the film, which is supposed to be a biopic blatantly disregards reality or changes it dramatically for a better cinematic effect. While this not a rare thing, the affect of Brian May and Roger Taylor having so much control over the film simply resulted in a very opinionated film that, at least for me, does not do justice to Freddie Mercury or Queen.
The whole point of it being a biopic is lost when facts like how the band met or how Freddie started singing are completely changed, and even small ones, like his proposal, or crucial ones, like the well-known scandal of Live Aid are changed so much.
I did not judge the film based on this, but I think it's also important to note how the studio awarded director billing to Bryan Singer who abandoned the shoot two-thirds along and left Dexter Fletcher to try to pick up the pieces, finish the shoot, editing and any extra shoots. It's only an insult that after all this, they also put Singer forward for awards.
So I do admit that it is an entertaining and good film, but does not do justice to Mercury and can hardly be considered to be a good biopic.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Less in Books
Jul 28, 2018
Less is a good name for this book, because that's how I found it. Less than the love story it is purported to be. Less interesting than people say it is. Less funny than reviews would have me believe. Less than I was expecting. It's a Pulitzer Prize winner, apparently? Maybe I just don't "get" contemporary fiction. Because unless it's YA, I very, VERY rarely like it. I didn't like Arthur Less. None of his misadventures were that funny.
The book was a little meta; Arthur is told that the book he's writing isn't that interesting because his protagonist, a middle aged gay white man, isn't interesting and no one cares about him. Which is exactly how I feel about Arthur Less. He's a middle aged gay white man with the means to travel the world, and a boyfriend who would have married him if he'd only, I don't know, asked. But he just floats through his life a little melancholy and woe is me. And not in the like actually depressed kind of way. Just - meh.
Arthur is BORING. Arthur is privileged, and boring, and annoying as all hell. This book just makes me want to avoid Pulitzer Prize winners. Who awards these prizes, and WHY? Also why does everybody rave about books like this?
Blargh. Don't bother with this book. People who say it made them laugh out loud don't know what they're talking about, or perhaps haven't read actually funny books. They should read something by Ellen, or Trevor Noah, or Tiffany Haddish. THEY'RE ACTUALLY FUNNY.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
The book was a little meta; Arthur is told that the book he's writing isn't that interesting because his protagonist, a middle aged gay white man, isn't interesting and no one cares about him. Which is exactly how I feel about Arthur Less. He's a middle aged gay white man with the means to travel the world, and a boyfriend who would have married him if he'd only, I don't know, asked. But he just floats through his life a little melancholy and woe is me. And not in the like actually depressed kind of way. Just - meh.
Arthur is BORING. Arthur is privileged, and boring, and annoying as all hell. This book just makes me want to avoid Pulitzer Prize winners. Who awards these prizes, and WHY? Also why does everybody rave about books like this?
Blargh. Don't bother with this book. People who say it made them laugh out loud don't know what they're talking about, or perhaps haven't read actually funny books. They should read something by Ellen, or Trevor Noah, or Tiffany Haddish. THEY'RE ACTUALLY FUNNY.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
This generation's Driving Miss Daisy
The 2018 Academy Awards were interesting. On one hand, I was very happy boring, pointless Roma did not win Best Picture; however i was really pulling for The Favourite to win. Neither happened and Green Book snuck in and captured the top prize instead.
The modern Oscars are free of epics like Ben-Hur, The Sound of Music or West Side Story. Instead, character-driven stories seem to be in favor recently.
In this true story, recently unemployed Italian bouncer Tony "Lip" gets hired to drive an African American genius concert pianist throughout his fall tour of the deep southern United States in 1962.
As the two men get to know each other, they are exposed to the very different worlds and set of values the each possesses. Initial hesitation is replaced by eventual respect as the men grow a bond throughout their southern adventure as they confront racism in various threatening or nonchalant forms as is happens.
Tony comes to the aide of his client, Dr. Donald Shirley, several times revealing his bigotry and denial for his race has begun to wane. Dr. Shirley as well begins to understand Tony's rough exterior and even delights Tony's wife Cyrano de Bergerac style assistance in writing verbose and eloquent letters to her.
The acting is thorough and top notch by both Viggo Mortensen (one of the great working actors today) and Mahershala Ali (hot off of Moonlight) with a screenplay to match. The characters are flawed, vivid, well-rounded and interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed this memorable film and well deserved of the big prize.
The modern Oscars are free of epics like Ben-Hur, The Sound of Music or West Side Story. Instead, character-driven stories seem to be in favor recently.
In this true story, recently unemployed Italian bouncer Tony "Lip" gets hired to drive an African American genius concert pianist throughout his fall tour of the deep southern United States in 1962.
As the two men get to know each other, they are exposed to the very different worlds and set of values the each possesses. Initial hesitation is replaced by eventual respect as the men grow a bond throughout their southern adventure as they confront racism in various threatening or nonchalant forms as is happens.
Tony comes to the aide of his client, Dr. Donald Shirley, several times revealing his bigotry and denial for his race has begun to wane. Dr. Shirley as well begins to understand Tony's rough exterior and even delights Tony's wife Cyrano de Bergerac style assistance in writing verbose and eloquent letters to her.
The acting is thorough and top notch by both Viggo Mortensen (one of the great working actors today) and Mahershala Ali (hot off of Moonlight) with a screenplay to match. The characters are flawed, vivid, well-rounded and interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed this memorable film and well deserved of the big prize.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Frankenstein in Baghdad in Books
Jul 23, 2019
This book won at least two awards; the International Prize for Arabic Fiction and France's Grand Prize for Fantasy, and the author had previously been named one of the 39 best Arab authors under the age of 39. I picked it up to read for the Year of the Asian Reading Challenge, since the Middle East is all-too-often neglected in regional groupings like that. People don't think of it as Europe or Asia. I also try to read translated books on occasion, in an effort to diversify my reading. So this hit a number of my interests - I wish I had actually liked the book more!
It's an interesting retelling of Frankenstein - which I haven't actually read, and now feel like I really should. But it bounces around between several viewpoints. It's not too many to keep straight, but it's definitely too many to truly care about. And it suffers from an unreliable narrator - it's written as several stories told to an author from multiple people that he's woven together into a single narrative, and while he does that well, it suffers from contradictions between how different characters recall things, scenes that don't play a part in furthering the plot but the characters thought they were important, and no authoritative "this is what REALLY happened" to draw it all together.
And I very much dislike unreliable narrators, so that alone is enough to make me dislike the book. If you like ambiguous narratives and vigilante stories, however, you might enjoy this, and the writing style itself was quite engrossing.
You can find all my reviews and more at http://goddessinthestacks.com
It's an interesting retelling of Frankenstein - which I haven't actually read, and now feel like I really should. But it bounces around between several viewpoints. It's not too many to keep straight, but it's definitely too many to truly care about. And it suffers from an unreliable narrator - it's written as several stories told to an author from multiple people that he's woven together into a single narrative, and while he does that well, it suffers from contradictions between how different characters recall things, scenes that don't play a part in furthering the plot but the characters thought they were important, and no authoritative "this is what REALLY happened" to draw it all together.
And I very much dislike unreliable narrators, so that alone is enough to make me dislike the book. If you like ambiguous narratives and vigilante stories, however, you might enjoy this, and the writing style itself was quite engrossing.
You can find all my reviews and more at http://goddessinthestacks.com
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Dec 7, 2019
A bad movie disguised as a good movie
Wow what a disappointment.
I would say for a movie without out of the ordinary cinematography, art direction, costumes, lighting locations, sets or soundtrack; it had better have a good screenplay. And it didn't. I found the dialogue to be unbelievable, corny and not the way real people talk. I'll forgive this on occasion if I am listening to screenplay prose, like Tarantino maybe, where I don't care if his characters go on and on about nothing because the way they say it is so interesting. Here there is none of that.
Divorce is not a pleasant subject and the portrayal of their profession in this film makes them out to be all scum sucking horrible people. I know acting in the best interest of their clients is what they are supposed to do, but the way they twist every conversation or nonchalant occurrence between two people into something that happens to their client's advantage is just horrible.
While watching I was trying to decide if these reasons were why I was not enjoying and that was just not the case.
It's poor writing. The scene that everyone is talking about where Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver yell at each other and become increasingly emotional at the same time is all right, but honestly I felt overacting. I kind of felt that way through the entire film to be honest.
Not sure why this is getting all the accolades it is and am hoping it gets snubbed during awards season (but not likely).
What a disappointment...
I would say for a movie without out of the ordinary cinematography, art direction, costumes, lighting locations, sets or soundtrack; it had better have a good screenplay. And it didn't. I found the dialogue to be unbelievable, corny and not the way real people talk. I'll forgive this on occasion if I am listening to screenplay prose, like Tarantino maybe, where I don't care if his characters go on and on about nothing because the way they say it is so interesting. Here there is none of that.
Divorce is not a pleasant subject and the portrayal of their profession in this film makes them out to be all scum sucking horrible people. I know acting in the best interest of their clients is what they are supposed to do, but the way they twist every conversation or nonchalant occurrence between two people into something that happens to their client's advantage is just horrible.
While watching I was trying to decide if these reasons were why I was not enjoying and that was just not the case.
It's poor writing. The scene that everyone is talking about where Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver yell at each other and become increasingly emotional at the same time is all right, but honestly I felt overacting. I kind of felt that way through the entire film to be honest.
Not sure why this is getting all the accolades it is and am hoping it gets snubbed during awards season (but not likely).
What a disappointment...