This Movie Diary -spiel within, not spoiler free

Mid-way through watching this I was sure I was going to be adding this film to my favorite movies list so I looked the movie up on Listal, and saw its rating. I have hated movies with good rating but almost always if enough people disliked a movie to give it a lower than 6 rating, something's wrong with it. So I watched the rest of the movie in apprehension going, "Dammit, dammit, dammit, why? Why did I have to look it up? What are you going to do movie that will make people hate you?"

The rest of my comments on this contain ~spoilers~ but really, you should know what you're getting in for. Shall we do this in point form:

1. If your movie is going to feature statutory rape, don't use an actor who is twenty one to portray a character who is sixteen. I know what a freaking sixteen year old looks like and it would definitely freak me out to see someone of sixteen with someone who is "twenty nine and ten months". Movie makers should be aware of how their portrayals of situations shape people's reactions in real life. I liked them together in the movie, it fits with the storyline the movie was trying to set up, but there was definitely something uncomfortable making in how their relationship was dealt with. See: the father saying all it was was his son getting laid. Fuck that double standard shit. Young boys can feel manipulated, hurt, exploited, and victimized just as much as any girl. If the genders had been switched in this movie, the father would NEVER have been portrayed that way. Again, I don't really have a problem with one movie representing it this way, but when it's part of a larger pattern which teaches a double standard, that's not okay.

2. Just pretend 40:30-41:30 never happened. Basically out of the blue she asks her husband to slap her with his genitalia. I don't...understand...why that was in the movie. Mel's character was never carved out to explain it.

3. The sound recording is uneven, at least on the version I watched, so keep your hand by the sound dial.

4. Referring to the tiger as "it". -This will probably not irk the average viewer.

5. Good acting, good soundtrack, and the constant sound of cicada in the background made a good atmosphere.

6. Todd's character seems to be excess to the story. He's never developed. Plus, considering there's a huge problem with LGBTQ representation, I did not like what they did with his character.

7. And finally the easy route out ending. Really, I think it's a good movie if you just never watch the last twenty minutes or so. The shocking death out of nowhere soap opera climax drives the characters back into their old lives with seemingly little to no resolution for their crises. In short, the film sets itself up to say something meaningful about growing up and then never delivers the punchline. And I am left feeling like an absolute idiot for thinking that this was one of those movies like Margaret that would be really meaningful.

It's basically one of those movies like Skaterland, which wants to be about an existential crisis and offer up maybe a little message on the meaning of life or something we can relate to, but it's a hollow crisis. It's not really about anything, the drama is just for show. It never goes the next step to actually trying to say anything. The character becomes depressed, starts sleeping with a sixteen year old, witnesses a suicide, and then goes back to her old life. That's not a good movie. What I really wanted to be explored were the inconsistencies: How she was telling him that he had to be specific and couldn't just drift, when she was doing just that. How she was at first discouraging him from moving away, when she had done just that. That she was giving hollow advice which had failed to make her happy, and why she would do that- the hinting that there is some fault in how we are raised to grow up. (See: Her constant repetition that everything would be okay, even though she had ended up lost and unhappy.) And it was interesting watching the movie and wondering, how are these characters going to make themselves happy, how are they going to find what fulfills them? Apparently with sudden death! It solves everything in movies.

I like that it's a human movie (that it's realistically acted, that it has human situations, that it exists on planet earth, you know) but the plot is surprisingly simplistic.
~Spoilers kind of follow~
The conflict of the story is that her crush poked her with his dick (you read correctly) and when afterwards she tells her friends, the one who also has a crush on the boy tells her she is lying and somehow makes the entire school think Alma is some crazy person who goes around accusing boys of molesting her. This gets around the entire school and they all think its something to ridicule her for? *whispers* That's Dick-Alma, she accuses people of poking her with their dicks, what a weirdo. Maybe it's because I'm out of the clutches of the high school mentality, it seems stupid.
The movie starts off with three friends but only humanizes two of them. Ingrid, the girl who also has a crush on Artur is relegated to the position of the villain and that's it. It makes the movie feel kind of lopsided because there are scenes which give character depth to Alma's other friend Saralou, but Ingrid gets no other development except her crush on Artur and her bitchiness.
~Spoilers basically done~

-It deals with feelings of restlessness, of wanting to leave a small town.
-It gets major points for depicting young female sexuality as women are much more commonly displayed as objects of affection rather than the horny ones themselves.
-There are some really good comedic moments.
-I like that it portrays how much people zone out and fantasize about things.

--This quote from the movie's website describes perfectly the weirdness of having to hide your sexuality: "While many of the characters in the film think Alma is eccentric, Bergsholm sees her as an ordinary teenager, one that many girls can relate to. “I actually think that Alma is the most normal person in Skoddeheimen,” she says. “She isn’t afraid of showing how it really is. She feels something and she shows it and everyone around her gets crazy and thinks she’s weird just because of the things she’s feeling. They make big problems out of something that’s not really a problem.”

-The bruise around his eye disappears. I'm not sure if that's a mistake in the movie or some sign that the fight never happened. Thinking about it really confuses me.
-I like the creative aspects of this- the tips on how to write a good story, the art exhibitions, the blending of reality and fiction. I love the idea of the art exhibition where it's a recording of how the painting was made and the listener is supposed to paint what the canvas looks like themselves with their minds because the originals have been destroyed.
-Sounds like my type of movie. Except not really. The version I saw had shoddy subtitles so I cannot be sure what the hell I just watched. It seemed to be trying to say something interesting about houses and the ability to know the people inside them (or to imagine the lives of the people around you?) but the actual plot was a soap opera and the main character seemed to manipulate just for the hell of it.
-He disliked his own home life and was fascinated by the lives of others, wanting to implant himself in other's lives. That I get. Writing ties into that, cool. The teacher was bored with his life and maybe yearning to be a father so he takes an unhealthy interest in his writing. What I don't get is the ending. Did he sleep with his wife or not? Why were they so friendly at the end? Wtf?
So honestly I cannot claim to have understood the movie.
-Plus, there's a scene where he turns into a Chinese man while watching them have sex. Explain that one.
-I mean what am I missing? Claude says, "During stormy nights will all children have nightmares?" And then: "During the nights of storms all children have dreams...at least once, we curl up in bed with our parents." Then it turns out Germaine wrote a booked called Children of the Storm. I don't get it. I don't freaking get it. Because both Germaine and his wife read Claude muse about children in storms and it never tipped anything off for them. OH OH MY GOD- IS THAT HIM AS A YOUNGER BOY? ARE THEY THE SAME PERSON? BUT THEY HAVE DIFFERENT NAMES? MY MIND IS BLOWN. But that wouldn't make sense because why would he get angry that his younger fictional self might have slept with his wife? Oh I don't fucking understand anything!!! Anything. But it would make sense for Children of the Storm to be his banal soap opera love story of falling in love with a woman in the normal house he craved. And maybe his jealousy that she slept with the younger him is like a metaphor for her wanting the younger him more than who he is now? No, it doesn't fit. I really have no freaking clue. I give up and wish I had never watched this. -Ha, no! I read an article and they are the same person. Omg. So if I may ask WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO HIS OLDER SELF IN REALITY? HE HAD A BREAKDOWN AND IMAGINED HE WAS HIS OWN BRILLIANT STUDENT? And did that really happen to the younger him or did he imagine it? How can you call it a twist when it turns your entire movie to mush? Okay so this movie is supposed to be some commentary on how writers write fiction, and reimagine people's lives... ?

I wish I'd never watched it. The story and whatever meaning it has comes at the expense of understanding what the hell is going on with the characters.

Comments as I watch it:
-Love this movie, love this movie, love this movie. See the following set up: Both of them come from troubled families, they meet over the summer, and create a game where they act like they cannot feel anything- imagine you are someone else, they tell themselves to ignore the pain they inflict on each other. Then there is the sweetest scene in the shower where she kisses him and asks, "Did you feel anything?" And he actually says, "Si," and she responds- well, here have this gif:

-Watching the abusive relationship in this was painful.
-Side note: If you ask someone whether they felt like sex AFTER you have sex, you're doing it wrong.
-Oh god and at 1h, 13 min it goes to shit. DAMMIT, WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN WITH EVERY MOVIE? Stupid scene where they break apart for no reason. And now they're fucking throwing stones at a dog. Yep, I'm fucking done. You know what movie, you were going places. But then you brought animal abuse into it and no, no, no all those characters can go die now.
-Oh wow, they killed the dog, they killed the dog. Should I even continue watching? Am I seriously going to let this movie justify that? Fuck you movie.
These are movies for you. They lure you in and then throw rocks at your dog.
-So the son becomes just as abusively awful as the father. Great. I'm really happy I spent my time watching that. Is this supposed to be some commentary? Like now we enter into an abusive relationship with the movie where we ignore it punching us and continue to love it and its characters because maybe things can go back to being like old times?
-Why is his best friend now the person who tried to sexually assault the girl he likes?
-I can't believe it's totally glossed over the dog killing. Wtf am I watching?
-Is he going to die? I hope he dies. The son I mean, not the father. Well yeah, the father too. Oh shit. He tried to kill his father. Hmm, was this the point of the dog killing? To lead him up to homicide?
-Yep just wash the dirt off the back of the person who threatened to kill your son and you, and beat you both, but oh he's so sorry and sad and conflicted over the devastation he causes.
-Is this movie really treating dog killing like just another event? It just happened and they're like, on with the show! Back to the soundtrack and happy times.
-Yeah so great commentary on fathers. One is crying over hers being dead and the other wishes his were dead. But what about the whole killing innocent, helpless beings thing?
-And then he laughs at being tickled as if he's stopped pretending he doesn't feel.
-Yeah the hair-crying scene is nice and all, but did you have to throw rocks at the dog? Can not an asteroid come down and slam into your skull you worthless human being?
-Oh and then the movie ends with no sign of what is going to come in these characters' lives.

I hate movies which 1) Abuse animals, and 2) Give you a snapshot of character's lives but don't fulfill their futures. I mean I could have just said it's a good movie if you skip from here to here which has all the dog killing related scenes but on top of that it just goes, well let's end this here, you don't need a resolution right?

Epic and immersive. There were a few amateurish spots (shady acting/hard to understand motivations/mechanism feeling scenes) but overall I loved watching it. Jennifer Lawrence makes Katniss human. I have never seen that in any other non-indie movie. Sometimes you watch a movie and it makes you remember why movies are really something to love and not just formulaic cliched time filler garbage.

What you need to know before watching: It's the story of a man who likes porn more than sex. It's intelligent but maybe a little too didactic.

And my spiel while watching the movie (contains spoilers):
Me watching Don Jon with no idea what it is:
At first: Are they purposely showing the sexualization of women? *More and more images come* Holly shit, they are ! Is it a critique? Is it really a critique? Respect! Awesome.
Intro ends: Oh another movie about a sex addict.
Down the line: ...Was it a critique or was it the movie's way of showing women as inherently sexual? I.e. making invisible how they were MADE to be a certain sexual image. Is the movie's intro just to show his hornyness for women or to show how women are often depicted in a way made to make men horny?
*cries over loss of cute young Josh Gordon Levitt image* *appreciates his acting*
...It really feels like this movie is a gender studies marvel. I'm just trying to figure out whether it's intentional or not. The pink princess party. The poster of Titanic on the wall.
And as usual the communication in Hollywood movie relationships sucks. Better for dramatic effect than a couple who actually communicates openly about what they want and solves problems with each other.
Yeah totally, having your father act like he would happily have sex with your girlfriend would never make you or her in any way uncomfortable.
"That's mine." "You're the most beautiful thing I've ever seen." "If you don't like that there's something seriously wrong with you." "I didn't say I didn't like it, I just said it's not a dime." -Treating people like sex objects. Mhmhmmm
And through out the movie, the religious confession of sex as a sin...
Interesting examination of the porn watching generation. "Lady, the shit I watch on here -they're not pretending." -"Of course they are." Also interesting how he tells people he's been in love with her since the first time he saw her, when in fact if she had slept with him the first night he would have easily forgotten her. He wants loving sex to be more similar to porn than one night stands.
Hahah interesting. And then the gender roles become reversed. She finds his cleaning things 'unsexy' and too mundane. Controlling relationships with crap communication yay! Why does he want a different life if of course you know he's harboring resentment, why does he let her change him? Movie filled with stereotypes- if it's going to subvert them, I'm waiting.
...You might be able to view movies/porn through a binary of emotional romance/sex but porn is not sex. That's the point.
Story of a person who likes porn better than sex... Damn, Hollywood. I'm kind of impressed.
He just asks her to skip class to have sex with him so they drive all the way to her house? Hmmp.
I don't know, I think the revelation is a little too simplified. He has one sided sex, thinking of the other's body as an object for use -wouldn't all the girls tell him so? "It's like I'm not even there to you."
Points to this movie for showing condom use. I'm confused how was that sex so different from all the other sex? It didn't really show that he was thinking of her pleasure. I guess because he treated her like a human being, cared about her, wasn't just seeking pleasure for himself, but...
Her character treated him as an object of marriage/family life? Hmm...
It's kind of an examination of how to not be selfish in relationships and give yourself to others and consider others. It's intelligent. It's good.
A little too Hollywoody in that he has friends but their worlds revolve around him and they're really just cardboard cut outs who have no other purpose but to serve his story line.
It definitely has a message but is it told well? I have this feeling nagging me that it's too simplified, too unrealistic, too didactic at the expense of real characters.
It's basic message seems to be that giving can be just pleasurable as taking.

Funny but too Hollywoody. The girl saved by boy cliche, the strippers, the male main character and head of family. You have black skinned thugs and white skinned everyone else.
Oh yeah he coersed his fake son into having sex with someone but then at the last second it all worked out, haha, not messed up at all. In anything other than a comedy his character would be an absolute scumbag yet supposedly because it's a comedy we're supposed to just laugh and pretend humor exists in a vacuum.
Ugh the lesbian for male pleasure scene-eyes roll into back of head
incest scene cool i guess for laughs
gender roley as fuck. sigh
female uses her sexuality to save their lives scene
nice that she punched him at least

Bleh. I guess it's edgier than other comedies but I feel like I just wasted my time.

Writing too shallow and formulaic. I cringed at Colin Farrel's scenes. It's not a human movie, there's no realistic human interaction. For example, there's a scene where the father insults her poem and she just sits there and looks sad and pathetic. Real characters are familiar with each other, they interact with each other, they get angry, they express themselves. I liked Emma Thompson but that's just about it.

It was a good romcom I guess but it just didn't challenge enough of the cliches for me. It definitely had its bit of originality but the falling in love at first sight, the man chasing the woman based on basically nothing, the 'isn't this actually stalking?' but of of course he's good intentioned, of it all.

After a string of 1-2 star movies, and wondering whether I was being too harsh, I see this film, and I'm like: nope. Watching Charlie Cox, just watching him, is enjoyable. Not because he's attractive (...), he just has this screen presence. And I love Romola Garai. The close up shakey camera work, the story structure, the atmosphere... Maybe it's because I haven't watched that many spy movies but this movie feels its own. Yes, you have to suspend a little bit of belief- the newbie gets assigned to a case involving his father AND his old college friend right off the bat, but it's good enough for you to look past the coincidences. Well... not that good. The writing of the actual spy story should've been better and in the second half you could tell it was based off of a book (a few too many events/character choices which weren't explained or set up well enough). For instance, the movie shows well enough that the two are attracted to each other but beyond that there's not enough back story between them for you to understand their connection or their wanting to be together- which irks me so much I want to pick up the book. Plus, the emotions involved in going from the newbie with a conscious to someone who shoots someone dead are never dealt with. The fact that his father's motivations were never revealed was also rather disappointing. And it did have a kind of dissatisfying, left open ending.
Basically, I enjoyed it because I enjoyed watching the main actors/characters. The story was just kind of what allowed them to be there. Sequel please?

This movie is really fucking weird. And I'm not just talking about the set up, believe me- you'll see what I mean if you watch it. I am into quirky; this movie is weird. Also, do not watch it with family.
-The scene where he tells his ex-wife he's dating a computer, oh god.

Comments as watching it:
-well that is some fucking despair, i feel repulsed
-WHAT. I SWEAR TO GOD IF THERE IS ANY ANIMAL ABUSE IN THIS MOVIE I WILL STOP WATCHING, UGH. omg. why in every movie I watch
-tonal shifts are a bit jarring
-there is a strong air of depression coming off of this film
-acting a little iffy
-hell yeah, this is a social justice movie. that speech was excellent
-I love, love the way he took her in, but the fact that it involves her domestication irritates
-suicide tw
- a little dissatisfying in the ending

Overall, this is not a popcorn movie. It's a work of art. It's bleak, maybe a bit too-I don't know, what's a word to describe naked, dying, vomiting bodies? It has a message but what the hell is it? Detachment, emptiness, the educational system, death, the pain of youth, the pains we all try to get away from. It presents you the problem but doesn't really tell you how to solve it. And that's kind of crap.
The character being 'shocked' back into a healthier state is really a tired ploy (see The Lifeguard for the exact same thing) and it doesn't really leave you with anything. If the movie is just character based and has no wider message, fine, but you need to put effort into developing the characters enough to stand on their own (aka I need to be able to understand the motivations of the characters beyond their being 'shocked' different). If your movie is didactic, you need a freaking message that can be taken from the characters' lives and applied to us (aka I need to be able to understand the motivation of the characters). So what? He didn't feel like he was enough to help anyone and then *boom* that changed? He felt like he needed to try at least?
Yet for some reason I have positive feelings for this movie, even though it doesn't really leave you with anything. Would I really want to rewatch it again? No.
...It has this atmosphere about it I appreciate, though. It's meaningful, at least in some regard.

-A bit unrealistic I think in its depiction of the porn world
-Emma Roberts was good
-I seriously do not understand the movement in movies where a guy holds a girl's hands back during sex. Like why do I keep seeing this.
-The story of a histrionic poet turned erotica writer who loses her virginity. It was enjoyable enough to watch, but nothing great.
-The most meaningful part of the movie- which almost makes me want to say it's meaningful overall, but there's too much fluff- comes when he tells her: "Don't you have anything that you just wrote for yourself? And you didn't want to show anybody?" And she responds, "No, not really." As an examination of our obsessions with fame and talent, that scene basically makes the movie. She loves being a poet, but she's not very good at it. Yet she feels the need to share everything she does. I think it's awesome in that it made me analyze myself and think, you know why is that if you're talented at something or even doing anything really, that you feel this urge to share it? Why don't we just do some things for ourselves? How desperate for affirmation are we and why?
-This scene and the one where she tries to seduce John Cusak are the best parts of the movie.
-The joke about not wanting to plagiarize Plath's suicide was amusing.

strike 1- i know im going to hate you
strike 2- using 30 year olds to play highschoolers
strike 3- absolutely no reason besides her looks given for him liking her
strike 4- giving me the urge to face palm to the extent head hurts
strike 5 - needless antagonism, guy starts fight over girl scene. misogyny is a romantic device, lovely
strike 6- nope to any realism of human interaction whatsoever then
strike 7- such a weird porny vibe on this movie. i mean sure movie, own what ya are
strike 8- making me horribely embarassed. just the entire dancing in front of people construction - no no
strike 9- the dance scene is still happening, with whooing. highschoolers are judgemental shits -just...
strike 10- "busted", acting like the main characters are the center of everyone's universe
strike 11- dad speech at graduation party as if people were there for her specifically
strike 12- face palm, face palm, face palm.
strike 13- is this based on a book because things do not line up. you think she's amazing after spending 1 night doing one dance with her? where is the amazing? show not tell.
strike 14- am I suppose to relate to the arm spreaded happiness of a pretty, rich girl who at her first motivation to make friends manages to do so instantly? yes, it must be exhilerating.
strike 15- at 30 minutes in, the forbidden passionate probably horribely corny sex scenes have not started yet.
strike 16- oh no he immerged from a closet with your 18 year old daughter, oh my.
strike 17- compare this movie to something like the TV show Looking, where you actually get to know the characters through their getting to know each other. i mean they've barely had a full conversation and yet he's eating at her house.
strike 18- and since when is the first move of a highschool boy to endear himself to his crush's father. when does that happen? yes as an 18 year old i demand that a parental authority consent to your relationship. i barely know you but i am already working my way in there.
strike 19- nice girl to come home to *face palm*
strike 20- why does he strike me as so much more sexual as a brunette than as a blonde?
strike 21- embarassingly honest/way to open discussions of 'true' love. reminds me kind of the great gatsby's empty obsession with daisy.
strike 22- the camera focusing on her awed face while he talks about putting love first, omg
strike 23- the speech is STILL going. it's like 'girl' porn and by the quotes i mean the ideal for what a Western girl would supposedly be attracted to. but i mean seriously hearing him so slowly come out with his little smile about not a girl but the girl, just please...
-this movie is really bad. but the soundtrack may be good.
*face palm*
omg i cant, i cant. this is awful. they're playing epic music in the background and saying "i want to feel this with you" and it's like no you barely fucking know each other, you're barely characters.
and it's officially time to give up.

-That moment when everyone in the scene is acting like something was great and you're just like....
-I enjoyed the mood of this even though I found a lot of the poetic lines weren't to my style.
-Really liked the LGBTQ aspects of this to the extent that I want to give it more stars but it just didn't click with me enough as a movie. That "honor killing" shit is horrifying.
-Good soundtrack too.
-I didn't understand Lue's character enough to get the sudden violence which leaves me feeling kind of disconnected with the film.
-Ugh stop it with the cigarette advertizing will you.
-Not a bad movie, but missing something to make it great. It made me interested in finding out more about these writers.
-Bit of my understanding of the "kill your darlings" phrase: “In writing, you must kill your darlings.” --William Faulkner. David also refers to the men at his apartment as his "darlings". Thus, something about David needing to "kill his darling" aka get a hold on his of his feelings/favoritism, which he failed to do, and he was in turn killed himself by his "darling". *shrug* If the movie was supposed to have any larger meaning it could have been a bit more indicative of such.

I enjoyed this movie but it was bad. Also I'm kind of obsessing over it. So I have to give it at least 5 stars. I appreciate that they cut out some of the book's melodrama but I wish the movie had developed things more than it did.

-Oh my god, do not even get me started on the fact that they had her wear makeup while in abnegation, two seconds after saying they don't do vanity. Seriously, she tries makeup in Dauntless in the books, there was even an in. This is ridiculous.
-The music was really heavy handed and obviously manipulative
-I thought I would like Shailene Woodley in this but I didn't like her acting. She also had surprisingly few lines. And the one liners. Oh god.
-Corny. Really corny.
-Kind of amateurish in places. See: when their pulling Al's body out of the chasm.
-And I love that they basically erased Al from the movie because I hated that entire thing in the books. I would've liked if they just didn't include his character at all but they did it just enough so they could show her betrayed.
-The number of times her name was called in this movie, one after another. As if she were the center of the universe at Dauntless. Add to this, that that whole her practicing at night away from the others never happened in the books. Very Hollywoodized, underdog puts in the extra effort to get on top style.
-They really changed her character, especially in the beginning. Her reactions were off. When she first gets to Dauntless the movie portrays her as so happy and smiling and excited, and they make it seem like she fits in very easily. Which is irksome because it completely erases her confusion and doubt over whether she made the right choice, as if right after abandoning her family she would be all smiles. And not having this in the movie, this portion of struggle, beyond the fighting skills issue, kind of made it seem like she excelled wherever she needed to.
-I really don't feel there's any character to connect to. I like the story line well enough but the character development...
-Basically my favorite scene in the movie is when Four is showing off his back tattoo.
-For their kiss, I wish the movie included more of the idea that touching/kissing out in the open was really different from what she'd experienced at abnegation.


-I just could not help but see every difference between the book and the screenplay, and think ugh. Like when they made it out to seem she was being kicked out for not winning two fights (Why did they erase the fight she won?) and then had that whole thing with her racing to the train...Ehh... It just seemed like it had been very Hollywoodized. I'm not actually that big a fan of the book. I stopped reading after the misunderstanding-partial break up-reunion cliche of cliches, and I'm really happy that wasn't in the movie. But still their relationship was kind of shallowly developed. At the end he claimed to know her- off of what? I also disliked that they made him give her advice before she went on to fight. I get they did it as a show of his liking her/kindness but it made it seem like he was the reason she would do well, instead of herself. (Not sure if I recall correctly from the book but doesn't she figure out that foot thing on her own?)
-I did not like Kate Winslet in this. Did not fit.
-Four is good. I approve of Four.
-Very hollywoody basically. The timing always feels kind of off when you show both of someone's parents dying within a matter of five minutes of them just getting on with things.

-That "all that noise inside you head" scene annoys me because he assumes she would prefer to swim but needs to overcome "the rules". I know that they expect the "more rules" thing to be an insight into her character but the basis for that hasn't really been properly provided so he kind of comes off as entitled creep, just saying.
-Plus, when they have the characters speak the movie's point in a really obvious way it's just so corny.
-Similar in end of the world scare factor to Melancholia.
-Jaring changes in mood common to book adaptations.
-Alright really wish I was reading the book now because that was very fast/unexplained.
-Her acting is iffy in places.
-Of course they conveniently live in the middle of nowhere with no neighbors.
-"I don't care about some stupid evacuation", you know that thing that's trying to save our lives. Nope, no siree.
-Well trigger for obnoxious cliches alert: Throwing her life away for a boy. I mean she could've just said she wanted to stay with them but no, you had to go with the whole if you die I want to die thing, mhmm.
-Am I missing something? Wtf is going on with this movie. "I don't need help", terrorists in the area but we want to stay here. ????
-And now they're promising to return to the terrorist area and flee the military people trying to protect them. Seems sane. And for some reason the military is insisting on separating families by gender.
-Basically skipped through to the end. It just- it didn't come together properly. Not my thing.

I was not expecting this to be a good movie. The acting from the two main leads was basically excellent, especailly Shailene Woodley. Loved the first half of the movie. The 2nd half, meh. Just kind of dumb drama and way too simplistic revelations about the now vs. the future. But there is a realness and and an honesty and a sweetness in the first half. I give that part 7/10, and the rest of it like 2/10. -I wish they had done more with her character, made her a little stronger.

comments while watching:
more realistic than average hollywood fare. those small human awkward moments are there. really feels like two people getting to know each other. ah theyre so sweet together. feels, feels. shailene woodley's acting in this is much better than divergent. very good actually. there going to make her get cancer aren't they? this has the cancer feel to it. because a movie cannot be made about two characters just living and getting to know each other, not enough drama, no no. "fuck you, crystal." okay that was a really sweet moment. omg this movie. okay okay favorite, favorite. if they fuck it up, im gonna be pissed. please. 39 min-perfect. 42. going to count down to when this movie fucks up. too good to be true. 46.50. seriously, just get over her, god. omg. very good character development for him. she still needs a little. she's shy and honest. he feels compassionate towards people but often doesnt really mean everything he's saying. it's really interesting to watch someone who feels the need to be kind to people. don't really get why he brought her along to meet his dad though, seems kind of emotionally explosive. did he want her there as support? first really irksome unrealistic spot: they're totally going to ignore the whole "why didn't you contact me for years" bit? he's smiling like he really wants to enjoy himself. does this speak to his character wanting to look over flaws, to live in the "now"? hmmm. is it going to be drunk driving? is that where there going to get the drama? how is this going to go to shit? i know it will. IF THEYRE NOT TOGETHER AT THE END OF THIS MOVIE I AM DONE. here we go 72- the moment it goes to shit. this is so stupid. i am done, i am done. fuck movies. okay but that moment when she was telling him she was sorry instead of getting pissed at him for his shit- nuh-uh, portraying her as way too much of a push over. she is way too loving and also blind and naive and ughhh. he's still into her?? come on. wtf is up with this kid. just dont get on the bus and go look for him! this movie is touching on something, where a good portion of the drama comes from the character (focusing on the dude unfortunately but I'll take it) trying to find themselves and navigate relationships and dealing with their flaws. okay the whole voice over explain everything part- no. Too amateurish, movie. Some people like to analyze the characters' actions, you know. They don't need it all spelled out.

-don't understand why the son acted that way
-when someone kidnaps you you don't act so silent
-there was no fight, no pushback, she just did it. so stupid, considering how much worse it could become when out of public. oh my god.
-the kidnapper has to excuse the mess? wtf? why bother acting like eveverything normal? trying to tone things down? why don't they try to run away? this is so unrealistic, i cant. Again he has no weapon, why are they not running? neighbors??? HE HAD NO WEAPON.
-i'm sorry but the female passivity in this is making me want to stab myself. i am angry watching it.
-this movie is absolutely ridiculous. am i supposed to believe this story of the woman so lonely she's even grateful for a kidnapper/murderer? *vomit* and the man to teach maleness thing, just sigh.
-i do not understand the character's actions. they are not human. is this like a male domination fantasy? christ.
- so you're just going to ignore he's a murderer???? also how does she make money? welfare?
-done

-pro: divorce humor and sadness
-pro: indie
-con: phallocentric bs
-con: quirky in a kind of irritating pretensions way, not a sweet way
-con: feels like watching a train wreck
-con: weird sexual shit going on
-pro: there seemed to be a message in there, some metaphorical meaning... could look into it, but I don't really care enough. I mean it's a human movie, that is to say the interactions and the story are relatable, but it's unpleasant.

I can relate to this -the girl not in sync with the world around her. It's extremely slow and it can be hard to get through if you don't know where it's going. It's a human, realistic and well-acted film. You may fall asleep a few times but if you get through it... So here is me trying to ponder through its meanings:
While it deals with the subject of religion, it does negatively so. It covers its flaws, corruption and sexism. The teachers of the religious school complain that after the confirmation ritual the kids go through, very few of them attend church or follow up with the religion. It is an empty ceremony where the kids are more interested in what they're going to wear than anything else. There is a scene in the movie which was obviously a visual for the blind leading the blind as the kids walk around with blindfolds in order I guess to understand the miracle of Jesus healing a blinded person.
The movie finally gets going when the kids find a bunch of kittens. The teacher feeling disgusted at the diseases they may carry, puts them in a plastic bag, ties it up and hands it off to a man. He travels on his bike for a while, followed by Marta who is running behind him. She finally catches up to him but only to watch him slam the bag down on the sidewalk and then throw it into the water. She ends up going down to the water where the bag is in sight and you kind of have the hope she's going to go at least try to see if anyone's still alive but then some creepy dudes start talking to her and she shies away from them and leaves.
She's found by her priest/teacher who takes her with him to go retrieve a crucifix from an abandoned church. There is definitely something off in the taking of this religious artifact off of its wall, to take it to another church. Something ludicrous about struggling to carry it and laying it on the floor. Marta sits there for a while clearing the dust of its body. The priest of the abandoned church who has gone a little senile, tells her that people imagine Jesus smiling and blue-eyed, giving out miracles, but he was angry. People expected miracles from him constantly(much the same way the people do of the priests, asking them to pray for their loved ones).
They hoist the crucifix onto the top of the car and start driving down the road. Marta tells her priest/teacher that Jesus wasn't as peaceful as everyone thought he was and this inexplicably causes the priest to almost veer off the road. The crucifix drops off the car and into the ocean. Parallel between the drowned kittens and the crucifix dropping into the sea? Meaning?
They arrive back at their church without the thing which was supposed to make their ceremony more prestigious. There is a blank space on the wall where the crucifix was meant to go. The florescent cross that used to be there lies on the floor. Marta ends up leaving and going back to the place where the kittens were drowned. She wades part way into the water, which makes you think of the earlier conversation where a family member says she will not consume fish from that part of the world because many immigrants' bodies have been found in the water. While Marta wades right in... She then comes out to wander the beach. The people she's been watching collect items off the street through out the film have made a make-shift home of their own on the beach.
A boy wanders up to her and asks if she'd like to see a miracle. He hands her what looks like a fish and says, "It's still alive." Marta kind of smiles at the animal clearly struggling for life in her hands and the movie ends.
No idea what the ending means, but technically for fish being in air is their form of drowning, so it seems a strange ending for someone who clearly was affected by the cruel treatment of the kittens. If the scene is supposed to be some positive moment, some sign of a natural miracle or a metaphor etc., for me it's overridden by the cruelty. The film seemed to have a message on the harshness of the world, its cruelty, and religion's place in it...But I didn't really understand it and I will probably easily forget it, though I appreciated the slow, searching for yourself, at odds with the larger world aspect of it.

-A woman having any reaction but being freaked out to someone posting "where do you live?" in a picture of themselves taken without their knowledge= please do not.
-Yep just call out your address to a random stranger. Perfect. WOULD-NEVER-HAPPEN. Does the movie turn into a horror movie from this point forth? Because it was marketed as a rom so that would be a nice twist.
-Oh now you're going back to his apartment. Can someone shake some sense into this girl?
-Oh and his apartment has photographic lights in it. I mean how many more warnings can there possibly be? Really? How can this not be on purpose?
-??????????
-Now read me a poem called Daddy
-Now let me kiss you when you're not expecting it because of said poem called Daddy
-Someone who gives you no answer on whether they're planning on dating your friend. Because that entire situation is normal. Why would coming between friends make anyone uncomfortable. It's like you told my best friend you would go on a date with her. So?
-Oh yeah there's nothing off about that one.
-Women who would tell other women they should take being sexually harassed as a compliment: 0? 0? Quit!!
-Well I guess props for actually showing a sex scene with a condom in hollywood. Okay weird eye focus... Um.
-Now your weird strange boyfriend who you barely know is breaking into your house.
-I don't think playing music over their sparse social interaction when you've barely heard him speak is such a good idea.
-They have alright chemistry but the relationship's shalowly developed
-1) why would he lead her friend on/go out with her in first place if not interested?
-I've liked Elizabeth Olsen in other films but in this one I really don't.
-Ah little Draper, I expect great things from you.
-So cliched. Ugh
-I really don't think there's much chemistry between the friends which is a huge problem considering the movie's supposed to be about them.
-I like how Dakota Fanning has this strong stare/look. She talks to people and keeps her face and eyes in the exact same position
-..But he doesn't know you've fought? So is the assumption he predicted you would?


Meh. Meh. Meh. Unoriginal plot, ridiculous happenings and lack of chemistry. Dakota Fanning made the movie enjoyable enough. I don't like movies which use death to create drama as they often do not give the subject the depth of feeling it needs.

The movie goes interesting places but unfortunately ends in melodrama and never really develops the relationships which make up its core. Though I usually hate movies with such left open endings, there was something about this one which was just... nice. Sure it's one big messed up family but there was something homey to it. The acting was good for the most part. How the relationship between Roz and Ian was portrayed left a mark.
Really the cliched melodrama of the ending, the lack of familiarity/closeness between Ian and his wife, the unrealistic time jumps where you're supposed to believe nothing's happened in that time, the fact that after 2 years together they couldn't just talk through the age difference and live with the difference...It should be 6/10 but...I kind of really liked this movie. I wish the ending had been more originally and satisfactorily written, and that it didn't rely on dumb drama to keep viewers entertained. You know what you could've done with any extra time? Actually given some depth to the couples so you understand why they work together!

As far as representation goes, this Brazilian LGBT film featuring a blind Leonardo as its main character is pretty freaking awesome. I just wish I enjoyed it more than I did... I really started disconnecting to the character after he basically started acting like a petulant ass. Maybe if I understood more about his motivations I would have related more when he started complaining that that everyone wanted to control his life (true) and that nobody wanted him to kiss anybody (which sounds ridiculous and at the beginning of the movie his friend Gi seems much more interested in this than him and considering the fact that he's into Gabriel, that entire bottle kissing scene was just like really, really?)... There were some sweet scenes.

The reviews and ratings for this film are positive, I just wish I could feel the same. I really really loved Moonrise Kingdom and I'm a big fan of Wes Anderson's style. But this movie bored me and also confused me. After an hour I just started skipping towards the ending. A part of my dislike is that I've been reading a lot of discussion on representation and social justice and how crowds in movies tend to be 17% women and yadayada, and yeah gotta ask: Where are the women? Almost all the main characters in this movie are men. I'm not going to go through and count but I'd say about 95% of the people in the movie are male. And of that only two were PoC. And also am I totally confused or did they somehow make a boy who looks of Indian descent grow into a white man? Anyone? Anyone? Obviously I'm misunderstanding something here, in which case- I don't know! I don't know. (In fact, I am not and I suppose a passable theory is that the older man claiming to be Zero is in fact Gustav.) How are more people not disturbed that this movie couldn't even bother to add a 3rd PoC to its cast so that, you know, ethnicity could stay the same through aging?
Plus, there were some homophobic/racist jokes. I wasn't in a mood to look past this crap. I expect better.
I was so looking forward to this movie and I'm quite disappointed. ++I enjoyed watching the few scenes Adrian Brody had in here.

...What to say about this movie. Definitely suffered from the leads not having good chemistry. I really liked Kazan in The Exploding Girl but not in this. Lots of crude jokes. It tries for whimsical and quirky but it's just meh.

Thought this would be a so-so movie but the conversation they had on sex was quite funny and nice to see in a hollywood film. It went into generalizations but still nice. No cliteracy. Sad, sad. Do not play that music. Really. I have never seen such a weirdly done sex scene.

Well developed characters, good soundtrack. Kind of formulaic. The characters had pretty good chemistry.

Funny, beautiful, sweet and with great special effects that don't look fake. Amazing, amazing retelling. Just a little too fast in parts and it felt like parts that were supposed to be suspenseful weren't actually. There were also like these moral ambiguities or holes- what about the mother's suffering that must have happened? And yeah her father was evil but still they didn't even show her reaction to his death. Felt like it could've used another 20 minutes.

Poor adaptation of book. Relationship is shallowly formed, the flashbacks are NOT done well- it's supposed to be a story about a girl in a hospital reliving her memories and choosing whether to live, which just does not come off- and the acting was also pretty shady. Disappointed as I hoped it would improve on the book. Their relationship was so thin I felt like I was just watching 2 actors kissing.

To save you the confusion, it's about a boy (almost) convinced by racism ideology that his father purposely killed his mother. I don't really know what to make of it. I suppose I appreciate it for its social justice aspect but not much else. I think the title implies the adoration of his ~white mother in contrast to his father and yeah it would probably go well with some class or analysis on racial issues in America.

-Many Rene Magritte references-the green apples, the pipe, the foot shoes. I am not sure how to interpret their interrelation to the story. For example, with "this is not a pipe", it's not a pipe, it's a representation of a pipe. I'm not an art history buff or anything but perhaps indicating the socially constructed nature of the world and how we use those constructions as if they were real.- The father pulls the pipe off of or almost seemingly out of the piece of paper, the two dimensional becomes real.
-Bit of a low budget film though it mostly hides it.
-Love the beginning half. Original world, love story, likeable characters and actors.
-Not so sure about the Mozart beginning immunization thing, Westerncentric.
-Felt like the ending explanation was kind of lacking, disappointing.
-Comments on freewill, fate. I'm sure there could be some deeper analysis of the movie but as the characters say in the end, "Does it matter [that there isn't free will?" "No."
-Quirky enough so I very much enjoyed it but it leaves itself open to interpretation.

Unique plot, realistically done, really. Good chemistry. Kind of found the main character a teeny bit irritating. The ending was boring in its predictability. Overall, I just enjoyed how realistically it was done. Needed something a bit more to make it have more spark.

I really like that it's a self-aware romantic comedy and there are definitely some funny moments. But it feels like a series of skits and it's kind of a bit tedious to watch. I think the main problem is that it's more of a commentary on romantic comedies and less of a story in its own right. You're not made to care about the characters. Maybe it's lack of chemistry? I don't know. You're made to feel it's all contrived and while that can make for an interesting watch, I think if they had a non-cliched love story underlying it all (one that was trying to come through or beginning to come through etc.), it would've been more satisfying both as a story and a commentary.
The reaction at the dinner table scene was particularly hilarious.
Keep thinking that they should have had Judy Greer play one of the friends as she has been in so many rom coms in that position.
I hate the misunderstanding-breakup so I wish they would have poked more fun at that. I feel like towards the end it was less commenting on the cliches and more just doing the cliches.
+Humor was a bit cruder than I usually enjoy.

Had very low expectations of this movie but watched it anyway bc Scott Speedman. Kept feeling like I was about to turn it off. First they set up his character to be a total womanizing toolbag- whatever counts for cool and 'edgy' these days, but then they make him encourage a psych patient to leave the hospital (which maybe I could kind of understand due to the sexual assault but that's a common trait of mentally ill people- they don't want to stay on meds, they don't want to be hospitalized etc.) and on top of that he freaking abducts her for his daddy-gambling issues. Then the twist occurred and I was like :O, maybe this movie has something going for it, like maybe we're not supposed to find his character likeable and it's supposed to be some come look at this disaster thing, but then it went back into romcom mode and his reaction after the twist was pretty unrealistic. So...
-Didn't anyone notice that she was kind of not right? Didn't he expect they would notice?? It takes a panic attack? And why can't any of them recognize a panic attack?
-Don't really care enough to finish. His actions are not understandable. Evan Rachel Wood acts v. well, almost too well. And I like Scott Speedman but the idea that he's supposed to be romantic towards this child-like psych patient kind of creeps me out and makes me dislike him.

I was expecting a lot more out of this. It's basically just a clones left to die in space drama. It's revealed pretty early on that they're clones and then nothing really happens... The end hints that the clone thing is revealed but it's not shown and nothings done with it. We're not even shown anything about the original guy or how it came to be. It ends suddenly. Bleh, I just don't feel I got anything out of it, wasted my time. It was frustrating in that a lot of the obvious questions that should have been immediately asked took their sweet time coming to the characters.
Also moon gravity- put some floating.
The acting was also not that great.
Another film on the ethical issues of cloning? Don't even know what to rate it because it's passable as a film but it doesn't really go anywhere or do anything.
Why does this movie have such a high rating? Maybe it's because I've watched too many movies but it really didn't seem all that shocking. I was expecting a lot more twists and turns. It's not that kind of film.
What was with the faces drawn on the wall or his hallucinating his fully grown daughter? No answers.

-It's nice to see a movie centered around two women.
-Dialogue centered.
-Definitely a thinking person's movie. There are multiple layers.
-There is also more friction between M+V than seems normal for an employer-assistant relationship,like she's not afraid to go against her boss.
-V. long movie. 2hr. But it really develops the story.
Oh you have got to be kidding me! What is with the shit endings! Oh god. There was so much development, like 100 minutes of development, and maybe it's my fault, maybe I always go forward too much and predict what's coming and when it doesn't come or get wrapped up like I think it will I get dissatisfied, but wtf. Like I don't even care about spoilers, Val just freaking disappears and never appears again? Really?!! What about the LGBT undertones? No? And I just really feel like the movie was about them, their chemistry was good, but in the end you're just left with Maria and I feel like nothing gets solved or comes to fruition or maybe it does and it's some you have to interpret it for itself crap but damn!
This movie really- it was character driven, dialogue driven, blended fiction with reality, I liked it. Like what kind of ending is that, what kind of ending is that.
I really enjoyed the tone of this movie but fuck it.
And on another note, for a movie based around a lesbian play, it could have had more representation. I mean I guess it kind of makes sense to me now Val's leaving proved the point that Helena didn't necessarily disappear to commit suicide and that she didn't have to be read as a weak character. But I really just want more resolution to their relationship! Gah. Lots of mixing of the H + S roles.
Queer baiting or just subtle?
And for a movie which features so much suicide, I would think there would be more comment on it.
I'll probably watch it again in the future.

I like how it covered the language barrier at least in part. So many dystopian tales erase it. But still the language most spoken was english somehow.
Why is humanity on a train
Comical at times but not in a lol way.
Kind of unrealistic that they would survive the axe fight.
Lots of images of dead animals. No.
How the hell was it made sure that he would get the food with the message.
Quite a violent movie.
What are we to believe he's the last one left? No one else hid, got away?
I'm sorry but this movie is over the top ridiculous. You can laugh at almost every section of it.
The version I watched didn't have subtitles. Did I miss some redeeming quality in the Korean?
It was fucking terrible.

A psycho ex-boyfriend mob story with a puppy, robbery, and Tom Hardy's handsome face and nice-noble-quiet-but-still-involved-with-the-mob-and-in-denial-and-can-cellophane-wrap-an-arm character. The ending really didn't make sense. Why would he take over the business if he doesn't consider himself a part of it?? You'd think that would be a wakeup call to get out? Plus, the fact that she was cool with him being a murderer was a bit... So a little disappointing and really the plot is rather ridiculous, but I liked his acting and the character. A bit more development of their motives/pasts would've helped.
+There isn't any great twist you wouldn't already be expecting based on what's been set up so it being marketed that way is a bit eh.
+It's never explained who cut off the arm, how they knew about the cousin or how they knew he wasn't involved in it.

Clive Owen's character comes off a bit too egotistical and pretentious. I just really don't like his character. But I like a story based in art. I don't think I've ever disliked Clive Owen in anything but he absolutely irks me in this.
-If they do a redemption story for the racist sexually harassing bully I'm going to be pissed.
-When he calls her for the first time and asks if he can come over.... Really?
-I don't feel like they had chemistry.
-Simplistic, unrealistic, bleh.
Promising concept but poor script.

A movie shot more in grey than in black and white (little contrast) + the stillness of the main actress= not a very exciting sight. But the story is compelling.
-A movie will show a character slowly walking to a door but when it comes to showing how two characters ended up outside together- nothing.
-Not sure if making her eyes so dark was on purpose. They're the darkest thing in the movie.
-Horrifying, as all holocaust movies are. But not overly emotional. Almost too quiet.
Okay, so considering this is supposed to be the "best movie of the year", I am really surprised. Summary of events in movie: Basically, she finds out she's Jewish and that her name isn't even her birth name, spends some time with her aunt, finds the graves of her parents and learns their horrible story, meets a sexaphone player, goes back to the nunnery (this is about 3/4ths of the movie), her aunt commits suicide, she leaves the nunnery, takes up with the saxaphone player, and then goes, assumably, back to the nunnery, finding the idea of life with the saxaphone player unappealing (for reasons unexplained). Really this all may make the movie sound more interesting than it was because through out the main actress is basically a statuette. There is very little emotion expressed even at horrible events. And though it is a pretty movie with an alright story, the lack of emotion just kind of leaves me with nothing. I don't even know what to rate it.
Maybe there's some great symbolism I'm missing, but I have quite lost faith in people's movie recommendations.

Rewatch.
I know it's not a masterpiece of cinema but it's a classic in my book and enjoyable to watch. Yeah, the interactions aren't realistic, but it has some pretty good acting, great chemistry, sexual tension, an amazing soundtrack, and a sad ending to boot. There is some ridiculousness too. Their relationship isn't given much basis I have to say. And lots of cliches.

-misogynistic gender role spiel. 2015 anyone? Like hearing that is so freaking shocking to me and completely unnecessary, if this movie is seriously going to use misogyny to drive itself forward fuck you.
-One of those movies where somehow all the characters are white men. Assumably because all the women never leave the house and PoC don't exist in Canada.
-I like the premise though-small town doing everything to get a man to move there. Humorous.
-How does the doctor get paid? And how do people fill prescriptions?
-Ah yes a rom based on looks. No development whatsoever insta-love.
-And how he behaves isn't iffy at all considering engaged. Sigh...
-Considering that the movie is based around Kitsch, he doesn't really get that much screen time.
-It's a very funny premise- a town built around the likes of a single person but it's too fucking much 14th century West and I don't mean the actual 14th century West as much as I mean the ideology of the 14th century West both in front of and behind the camera.
-Really just not my type of movie. There's basically no character development.

It could be an interesting concept- being able to talk to and feel another person in your head, but it's done pretty badly. For example, when the characters first start talking to each other (shown as talking to themselves), the acting/writing is not good. The "my favorite part of myself is you" scene was sweet but then there's the "I want to know what you feel like" scene where they have sex with each other through themselves. Anyway, when you have a scene like that- which is just kind of unbelievable, I don't know. I'm not an expert film critic, but it takes more fineness and for the love of god do not play corny love music to it.
Don't even care about spoilers, because one second she's like gotta stay with the husband and the next her husband is locking her up and suddenly she's fine with leaving him.
+Why wouldn't he hide under a car and why would she run towards the woods. If people are trying to illegally lock you up, I would probably want to go public with that.
+A sudden ending which doesn't explain what ends up happening for the characters.
Kazan was in one of my favorite movies (The Exploding Girl) but everything I've seen her in since I've basically hated. I keep holding out hope but I just don't think I like the projects she chooses. I mean she's a good actress and I enjoy watching her, but the movie was not good.

-LGBT rep.
-Realistic human awkwardness.
-I love movies with (kind of) polyamorous relationships. I don't know why. I just do. Not that this movie goes there, it's more like a he's dating her who's best friends with she but whatever.
-Little bit of biphobia I think.
-Around 1hr:10, the acting gets a bit fuzzy. Predictable.
-It was a sweet movie, kind of realistically done. Pretty light though. A snapshot into their lives... Meh don't know what to rate it.

Been looking forward to this movie for so long. Rom coms are my bread and butter I guess.
-Never seen Keira Knightley in a role like this before. At places she almost comes off as a stoner. Childish, immature. Kind of makes me dislike her a little in beginning parts but the movie does a good job developing her character.
-Actually really like Sam Rockwell in this.
-Don't feel a lot of like sexual chemistry between them but their verbal chemistry is good.
-As usual the ending isn't as great as the rest of the movie.
-As a divorce lawyer I would think he would have something to say about the beginning of a marriage based on cheating.
-There really wasn't much of a good explanation for ending things with her fiancee. Like at all. That would've been another chance to develop her character, his character and her relationship history but instead she basically just tells him they're in the past and it's supposed to explain everything and be some grand revelation.
-Another movie about a character going through an existential/growing up crisis that could be inspirational if it it had more of something to say on the matter...
-I don't know. Basically your run of the mill, pretty good rom com.

A social justice comedy centered around the voices of people of color in the US? I am so fucking there. Been looking forward to this movie for a while.
-Covers internalized racism.
-LGBT rep.
-Has rom + good chemistry.
-Ugh, disgusting racism.
-Wanting to fit in vs. wanting social change vs. resisting assimilation.
-I can just imagine some non-black people watching this and the references just going over their heads.
-You can tell it was kind of low budget. Think maybe it could've used a bit more editing.
+Justin Dobies has chubby cheeks that remind me of Jason Dohring from Veronica Mars.
+It amazes me that some (racist) white people would find this movie offensive. Considering all the fucked up scary stuff white people have done, the film wasn't harsh in the least.
-"Tell me, man-what’s harder? Not being black enough for the black kids, or not being black enough for the white ones?"

Wouldn't mind a sequel. It was pretty enjoyable. I thought it was going to be more of a didactic social justice movie but it has it's own story and characters. Tension arises at a university when the house which is the center of black culture is set to be disbanded. The host of the radio show "dear white people" takes up a leadership role to protest what is occurring and reveal often denied racial tensions, all the while dealing with all the other stuff going on in her life. Eh, rough synopsis. The film does a pretty good job developing its characters.
Hope to see the actors in other things.
+It even has good rom.

I like movies about mental illness, madness, appreciating life. Good soundtrack and I like SMG. I want to read the book now because I expect it will flesh it out more. The relationship the movie kind of forms itself around is kind of shallowly formed. The love curing illness and making life worth living is a bit iffy. I get that finding each other made each other's lives better but it could have been done better.

Old movie from my childhood featuring Enya's Only Time. More ridiculous and contrived than I remember it, but funny and sweet. Yeah, upon rewatching I kind of hated it. Keanu Reaves couldn't cry once? Just a very cliched rom. I suppose it's harsh to judge it by current standards.

This was very bad, laughably bad. And I actually paid money to see it in theaters. Still, I'd give it one star for its mood and everything I hoped it would be- beautiful, epic space royal family drama with a kick-ass heroine. Oh, if only.
Let's start:
-Plot summary: A girl is ascertained to be a royal incarnation by an alien family who try to kill her like 20 times as she is the only thing standing between them and killing everyone on earth, and she is saved 20 times by guard dog dude. That's it. That's literally it. There's also an incesty scene where a son attempts to marry his mother's incarnation and it doesn't even warrant a wtf reaction from her. The entire movie is basically you sitting around for guard dog to come rescue her.
-Horrible acting. Really shockingly, laughably awful. Oh my god.
-Inexplicable character reactions.
-This is not a female version of Star Wars. I don't know why anyone would say that is was. Girl power? Fuck no. The movie is called JUPITER ASCENDING like SOME BAD ASS BITCH TAKES HER SPACE THRONE RIGHT? NO. The movie is marketed with her in this fancy red flower dress with the head thing, like HAIL THE QUEEN, but in the film she wears it in a scene where she's being manipulated into a marriage that she literally gets saved from at the last second by guard dog guy for the umpteenth time. Can a woman not save herself in 2015? Please? I honestly didn't know they were still doing this shit.
-There is a scene where she asks to change into pants which is probably better for kicking ass and not looking like a doll, so kudos to the movie for that. And she gets in a few punches. And were told that she's really smart and that she can memorize things fast. But then there's all the above. He couldn't lend her his boots or give her some kind of fancy alien tech?
-Instalove.
-So she's dropped into this world she is woefully unprepared to fully understand. Can they not actually do some planning? Like when the inevitable ultimatum happens when they threaten her family- she could have negotiated for more and called laughably evil, but still attractive Eddie Redmayne's bluff. If he killed her family he would have had no leverage over her.
-A chase scene which is ten minutes too long. A scene where a building just collapses around her for five minutes while she moves around. It really felt like the movie was playing filler.
-The way the suicide "hate my life" aspect was dealt with was pretty poor. She no longer hates her life because she's a space queen who found a partner? Life lesson?
-Corny writing.
+The animal advocate in me was humored at their "painless" and "quite humane" harvesting process.
-The 3D involves a bottle of vaseline coming at you. Why?
-Then there's the fact that she kept saying it was none of her business. You are in an alien world where people are trying to kill you, it's your right to figure out what's going on, please.

I hate the plot but the chemistry is so outstanding I almost have to forgive it.
Good acting. Really everything you want out of a rom com at least in the first half, with the slowest, most excruciating (almost) kisses ever. However, as it goes on it becomes more and more irritating and cliched the things that are keeping them apart. It's kind of unrealistic that they would have so many almost moments and yet act unaware of each other's feelings. And I wish it was more original, human and honest, and that these effing characters would stop entering into and staying in relationships they don't really want.
Suffers from the same thing as a lot of modern media which is that it knows how to do forbidden love drama but it does not know how to develop and represent an actual human relationship, as if the 'after' of two characters deciding to be together is so very uneventful and boring. Or maybe it has something to do with being unable to develop interesting characters as their own in the first place.
Shall we queue TSwift's Speak Now?
Also, I know the whole friends turned to lovers thing is nice and makes good drama, but it kind of teaches an unhealthy lesson on (heterosexual) female-male relationships.
It's just annoyingly, unnecessarily convoluted. It's basically a PSA on telling people how you feel.
In short, he feels rejected, jumps into a relationship even though he's clearly not over her, so she jumps into a relationship because that's what you do when you have feelings for someone else naturally, and this goes on and on, with each using the relationship the other person has as an excuse to not express their feelings even though they're 'best friends'. Dear god, let these people not exist outside of fiction.
+ There's a scene where a couple fights to show how bad their relationship is (because healthy relationships never involve fights) and the argument is literally over him not cleaning up after himself? Like?
+Visually, though, this movie is very pretty.