Quote:
Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent
I think the premise just deviated so much from what people are used to with their academy considerations, but also modern films in general. And it centers on the dynamics and struggles of a collectivist culture family, which differs in fundamental ways from your typical individualist north American families and the related commentary typical to NA films. The humour was oddball-y and it flirted with goofiness at many points. So for audience members that take things very literally, they probably felt like they were watching adult dress up or an extended skit like what you'd see on Community, without grasping the overlying themes being touched on. It's a movie where you really have to surrender to where it's taking you and not view it through the typical lens that you would view most other films with. I'm not surprised that many people, at least in NA, wouldn't enjoy that ride nor resonate with the film.
|
I mean, besides reading like your best imitation of a fart sniffing Pitchfork review, that’s just not true. It wasn’t nearly as groundbreaking or fundamentally different as you’re making it out to be. A Terrence Mallick movie this was not. It wasn’t like hotdog fingers was blowing peoples minds because the allegory is just too out there for them.
It’s actually far more mainstream and typical Hollywood movie compared to much of the slow, artsy films that get nominated and win oat years. Coda, moonlight or Nomadland were far less mainstream than this movie.