Ordinary People

Not rated yet!
Director
Robert Redford
Runtime
2 h 04 min
Release Date
19 September 1980
Genres
Drama, Experimental, Underground
Overview
Beth, Calvin, and their son Conrad are living in the aftermath of the death of the other son. Conrad is overcome by grief and misplaced guilt to the extent of a suicide attempt. He is in therapy. Beth had always preferred his brother and is having difficulty being supportive to Conrad. Calvin is trapped between the two trying to hold the family together.
Staff ReviewsAround the Web ReviewsAudience Reviews

Check back soon when the reviews are out!

Or why not join our mailing list to stay up to date?

 

SIGN UP!

Box office recaps sent twice a month (maximum).

( ̄^ ̄)ゞ (☞゚ヮ゚)☞ No spam! ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)




 ✍🏻  > 🗡️   Want to join our team? Email us!  
PJ Media Staff 3
PJ Media



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The 20 Best Films of the 1980s
    Lifestyle var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'Arthur (1981) Trailer', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); Editor's Note: This is an expansion of Kyle Smith's list of the 10 best films of the 1980s published here in June. I've asked Kyle to expand his series as PJ Lifestyle begins offering more lists, articles, essays, and blog posts exploring culture, art, technology, and history by decade. Do you disagree with Kyle's choices? Do you have your own ideas for lists of movies or other cultural subjects? Which years and what subjects would you most like to see covered at PJ Lifestyle? Email: DaveSwindlePJM [@] gmail.com Also check out Kyle's top 10 movie picks for the '30s,  '40s, '50s, '60s, '70s,  '90s, and the '00s before he expands them to top 20s.20. Arthur (1981)A throwback to '30s screwball comedies, this light confection about a drunken playboy (Dudley Moore, in his prime) and the caustic butler (Oscar-winner John Gielgud) who serves as his counselor, nanny and father figure showcased Moore’s comic gifts but was also an oddly endearing buddy movie. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/9/12/the-20-best-films-of-the-1980s/ previous Page 1 of 20 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The 10 Best Films of the 1980s
    Lifestyle var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Official Trailer #1 - Steven Spielberg Movie (1982) HD', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); 10. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)Possibly the greatest film about childhood ever made, Steven Spielberg’s fairy tale is a little too sweet and simple to withstand lots of viewings, but the feel for the pangs and yearnings of youth is deep and generous, and the scene in which Elliott kisses a girl in school is among the best Spielberg ever shot. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/6/19/the-10-best-films-of-the-1980s/ previous Page 1 of 10 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Bill Ayers: Our Terrorism was Totally Different From Their Terrorism
    (”Ordinary People” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Ed Driscoll Totally, you guys:Left-wing radical Bill Ayers, a longtime friend of President Barack Obama, recently defended the series of bombings that he carried out as a member of the Weather Underground, saying that his bombings were not like the Boston Marathon attack and that America is the most violent country that has ever been created.Ayers — who participated in a series of anti-Vietnam War bombings in the early 1970s including an attack on New York City police department headquarters and the Pentagon — answered an Akron Beacon Journal reporter’s questions after giving a keynote speech at an event commemorating the anniversary of the 1970 Kent State National Guard shootings.Ayers said that there is no equivalence between his bombings and the deadly bombings that rocked the Boston Marathon.“What I did was some destruction of property to issue a scream and cry against an illegal war in which 6,000 people a week are being killed,” Ayers said.Ayers reportedly said that the United States is the most violent country that has ever been created, and said that Republican Senator and Vietnam War hero John McCain committed daily war crimes.“Six thousand a week being killed and I destroyed some property. Show me the equivalence. You should ask John McCain that question … I’m against violence,” Ayers said.Well, the Weathermen certainly had a funny way of expressing their pacifism back then.  These days, we tend to remember the Weathermen solely for the Pentagon incident (particularly after the New York Times' fawning profile of Ayers that ran, with horrible synchronicity, on September 11th, 2001), and the botched Fort Dix bomb, but according to Jonah Goldberg in Liberal Fascism, they were remarkably active in the late '60s and early '70s:Many of us forget that the Weather Underground bombing campaign was not a matter of a few isolated incidents. From September 1969 to May 1970, Rudd and his co-revolutionaries on the white radical left committed about 250 attacks, or almost one terrorist bombing a day (government estimates put that number much higher). During the summer of 1970, there were twenty bombings a week in California. The bombings were the backbeat to the symphony of violence, much of it rhetorical, that set the score for the New Left in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Rudd captured the tone perfectly: “It’s a wonderful feeling to hit a pig. It must be a really wonderful feeling to kill a pig or blow up a building.” [Mark Rudd is now is now "a math teacher at a community college in Albuquerque, New Mexico," Jonah adds elsewhere -- Ed] “The real division is not between people who support bombings and people who don’t,” explained a secret member of a “bombing collective,” but “between people who will do them and people who are too hung up on their own privileges and security to take those risks.”Wikipedia has a page titled "List of Weatherman Actions." It's certainly extensive; it may even be accurate.At Hot Air today, Allahpundit adds, "Good news from Bill Ayers: My terrorism was nothing like the terrorism in Boston:"The Tsarnaevs wanted to kill people, whereas the Weather Underground mostly wanted to blow up property except for that time they built nail bombs to kill soldiers at a dance at Fort Dix but ended up blowing themselves up instead. Oh, and the time they probably killed a cop in San Francisco and wounded nine others. There’s the big distinction.Two mild surprises here. One: Ayers doesn’t attempt to defend the Tsarnaevs’ motive, even though it was anti-war of a sort. This is a prime opportunity to lecture about “blowback” by the oppressed people of the Muslim world who object to U.S. imperialism, etc etc etc, even while condemning the tactics, but he doesn’t take it. Maybe the politics of defending the Tsarnaevs, however mildly, are too toxic even for him. Two: Almost 50 years later, he’s still looking for ways to defend the Weathermen’s tactics even though he loses more than he gains by it. You would think he’d regret setting bombs, even “just” to destroy property, if only because it made it easier for hawks at the time to discredit the wider left as radicals and terrorists. Nope.Regarding those who would lionize such tactics, Jason Mattera asks the questions the MSM refused to when they gave Robert Redford's new film an extensive tongue bath: var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'Robert Redford, the Terrorist Sympathizer', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); In his review of Redford's pro-Weathermen movie (which he grades as a "B" -- insert your own jokes here), Burlington (NJ) County Times film critic Lou Gaul writes:Redford, who earned an Oscar as best director for “Ordinary People” (1980), obviously wanted to tell this cautionary story, and his limited production budget of $2 million caused the film to look more like a cable movie than a major motion picture.Thanks to his filmmaking status, Redford was able to attract top talents willing to work for much less than their usual salaries to be part of the ensemble. They include Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci, Anna Kendrick, Terrence Howard, Chris Cooper, Brit Marling, Richard Jenkins, Brendan Gleeson, Julie Christie and Nick Nolte.A throwback film, “The Company You Keep” provides a welcome twist at the end and enough political ideas to generate post-screening discussions.Funny though, as Ed Morrissey writes, linking to Mattera's new video, "Hey, didn’t Redford make The Company You Keep to start a 'conversation'? Looks like Redford isn’t interested in conversing these days." Well, it depends on who he's conversing with. Compare the inconvenient truths Mattera asks with this "interview:"$(document).ready(function() { $('.audio-video-player').mediaelementplayer();});Though to be fair, fellow leftist George Stephanopoulos was at least able to get this moment on record:Reminiscing on his own past, the liberal Hollywood star recounted, “When I was younger, I was very much aware of the movement. I was more than sympathetic, I was probably empathetic because I believed it was time for a change.”After Stephanopoulos wondered, “Even when you read about bombings,” Redford responded, “All of it. I knew that it was extreme and I guess movements have to be extreme to some degree.If the budget of The Company You Keep was indeed two million dollars, as Gaul wrote in his review, then it's turned a profit at the box office; though a very small one. I don't think Redford's going to keep up the payments on his environmentally correct estate on its royalties, however: var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'Robert Redford Hypocrite', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); Oh, and speaking of "the company you keep," at the end of a lengthy round-up of Ayers' recent appearance in the news, Jim Geraghty adds the Obama connection:Ayers recently elaborated on his relationship with Barack Obama and his political allies earlier in life:David Axelrod said we were friendly, that was true; we served on a couple of boards together, that was true; he held a fundraiser in our living room, that was true; Michelle [Obama] and Bernardine were at the law firm together, that was true. Hyde Park in Chicago is a tiny neighborhood, so when he said I was “a guy around the neighborhood,” that was true.As Ben Smith summarized:Ayers and Dohrn, who have been semi-officially rehabilitated in Chicago but still inspire a wide range of feelings, played a modest but real part in launching Obama’s political career.Fancy that: Even Obama flack Ben Smith can airbrush Ayers' Obama connection away through sufficient Bensmithing.Finally, some food for thought as an exit quote:"You need to find a way to live your life, that it doesn't make a mockery of your values." - Bill Ayers— Great Minds Quotes (@GreatestQuotes) August 19, 2012Great minds, indeed. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/5/6/otally-different-from-their-terrorism/ ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Soiled Sinema 1
Soiled Reviews



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • Ordinary People
    Ordinary People is a hopeful film about a Bourgeoisie family with WASP psychosis that is cured by a magical Jewish psychiatrist. The film w...
    ...
    (Review Source)

Kyle Smith 5
National Review



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • More on the Overrated "Raging Bull"
    I wrote this morning about “Raging Bull” vs. “Ordinary People.” Here’s an essay I wrote about “Raging Bull” for The Weekly Standard a couple of years ago. Down for the Count Brutality, boxing–and what else? by Kyle Smith 12/26/2005, Volume 011, Issue 15 RAGING BULL has been acclaimed as a great American movie since the day it was released 25 years ago. Writing in the New York Times, Vincent Canby found it “a big film, its territory being the landscape of the soul,” while Newsweek’s Jack Kroll called it “the best American film of the year” and the best film about boxing ever. If Martin Scorsese’s adaptation of middleweight boxer Jake La Motta’s autobiography was initially heaped with praise, today it is buried in it. Among its eight Oscar nominations, it won two (although not Best Picture, which went to Robert Redford’s family drama Ordinary People). Today, Ordinary People is derided as pretty and emotional, if it is remembered at all. Raging Bull was called the best film of the 1980s by Siskel & Ebert, Premiere, USA Today, and a poll of film critics published in American Film. A 2002 survey of directors by the British magazine Sight & Sound called it the sixth best film of all time; the American Film Institute survey of film professionals ranks it 24th, ahead of every film that has come out since except Schindler’s List. The November 25 issue of Entertainment Weekly declares that “any list of greatest movies begins with Martin Scorsese’s black-and-white epic about Jake La Motta.” But is any allegedly great movie so unpleasant to sit through? With its corrosive language (the film’s favorite epithet appears 128 times, reports EW), its claustrophobic scenes of family brawls, and its greedy eye for ring violence–the scene in which sportswriters are splashed with what looks like a gallon of La Motta’s blood is particularly grotesque–Raging Bull is a 129-minute storm of hostility. After a quarter-century in which I could sit through only portions of it on television, I finally managed to endure the whole unnerving experience for the first time last winter, when the movie was rereleased in Manhattan in an effort to guilt-trip Academy members who have never awarded an Oscar to Scorsese into voting for his latest, and far more nuanced, release, The Aviator. The ploy didn’t work. Raging Bull’s interest is brutality. But just as a film about boredom shouldn’t be dull, this one shouldn’t make the viewer feel as though he’s taken a pounding. After a brief introduction, Scorsese bursts into the middle of La Motta’s life. The fighter, ferociously played by Robert De Niro, suffers a beating in a fight; then, in his kitchen, starts a screaming match with his wife over a steak. Out of control, La Motta flips over the kitchen table. The pattern continues throughout: professional violence followed by the recreational kind. Only about 10 minutes of the film actually take place inside the boxing ring, but La Motta fights in nearly every scene, either with his second wife Vickie (Cathy Moriarty) or his brother Joey (Joe Pesci). He finally alienates both so much that he is left to pound away at himself. In the climactic moment, when La Motta is jailed on a morals charge, he attacks the stone walls of his cell with his fists and his head, crying, “Why? Why? Why? . . . They said I was an animal. I’m not an animal.” But that is exactly what he is; De Niro himself, Scorsese says in a documentary included with the DVD, compared the Bronx Bull to a crab, and animal noises such as an elephant’s roar frequently appear in the sound mix when La Motta is in tantrum mode. For all of its technical mastery–the sound effects by Frank Warner and Michael Chapman’s black-and-white photography are monuments to their craft–Raging Bull is not what Roger Ebert called it: “an Othello for our times.” Tragedy presupposes downfall, but a roach can’t fall. Nor is the film an investigation into evil; this guy is just a jerk. At the beginning he is a fit jerk, at the end he is a fat jerk, and he is a jerk at every point in between. Even when La Motta wins the championship belt, neither Scorsese nor De Niro can locate much triumph in the moment. Jake goes home and accuses his brother of sleeping with his wife. He scares away one, then beats the other. Has any character study shown so little interest in character? Who is La Motta? Why is he so angry? Is he insane? Where did he come from? Scorsese made a conscious decision not to tell us any of these things, or even to hint at them, because he thinks to do so would be a cliche. Tackling La Motta’s background, the director says in a commentary to accompany the DVD, would have “smacked of kind of an old-fashioned way of making movies and writing stories which made the audience feel, let’s say, at ease. . . . You would feel that, ‘Well, okay, he came from a bad neighborhood, he became a thief in order to survive. Now we understand that.’ . . . It kind of makes them stop thinking . . . the idea was we wanted to make it more powerful and do him as a human being. Accept him as he is. Or not. And not relying on antiquated ideas of motivation because nothing’s that simple.” Bravo for rejecting the idea that a wayward individual is just a feather on a polluted breeze. But in stripping away any hint of what is going on inside La Motta, Scorsese goes too far in the other direction. Motivation is not “an antiquated idea,” but the essential component of character, and the boiling anger of De Niro’s performance does not “do him as a human being.” That makes the film, for all its beautiful images, shallow. It is a celluloid bimbo, because Scorsese doesn’t care what’s going on inside his protagonist. “Why should anybody say anything came from anywhere?” Scorsese asked the Times in 1980. “Reasons? We never discussed reasons.” That existential shrug is chilling. Does any allegedly great film have less inventive dialogue? Even the most ardent fans of Raging Bull do not walk around with its words on their lips, because the lines are so utilitarian, so undistinguished, that if you cited them in conversation no one would guess what movie you were referring to. There is “Shut up, I’m gonna smack you in the face” and “You f–my wife?” and “You’re so stupid,” and much more of the same. Even 2001, a film whose dialogue is tightly rationed and purposefully anodyne, has its “Just what do you think you’re doing, Dave?” Critics of Raging Bull generally find its barbarism vital: Some people are like this, they say. It doesn’t take long to figure out which people they are talking about. Wrote Kroll, “Scorsese shows the whole 1940s macho Italian Catholic Mafia culture of the Bronx as an inside-out world, a Vatican of violence . . . violence is the sacrament of this culture.” Canby praised the film for refusing to “explain away in either sociological or psychiatric terms, or even in terms of the Roman Catholicism of [La Motta’s] Italian-American heritage.” So Canby thought the three possible reasons for La Motta’s outbursts are: He’s poor, he’s nuts, he’s Catholic. De Niro and Scorsese’s La Motta is so lacking in awareness of himself or his achievements that, when he needs bail money, he mindlessly hammers the jewels out of his championship belt one by one instead of taking the whole belt to the pawn shop. Only for one moment does he seem to reflect. After he is robbed of a victory on points, La Motta tells his brother, “I done a lot of bad things, Joey, maybe it’s coming back to me.” That’s early in the film. By the end, when he’s tired and fat and reduced to giving halting performances of the I-coulda-been-a-contender monologue from On the Waterfront at night clubs, he has, Scorsese tells us, learned nothing. The Terry Malloy speech is about how throwing a fight destroyed his life. In choosing Malloy’s words, La Motta seems to reveal that, after a lifetime of thuggery, he still thinks the only thing he ever did wrong was to take a dive against Billy Fox. Contrast the character’s lack of perception with this man’s: It’s impossible to describe the smell of a tenement to someone who’s never lived in one. You can’t just put your head in the door and sniff. You have to live there day and night, summer and winter, so the smell gets a chance to sink into your soul. There’s all the dirt that the super never really manages to get clean even on the days when he does an hour’s work, and this dirt has a smell, gray and dry and after you’ve smelled it long enough, suffocating. And diapers. The slobs who live in tenements are always having kids and naturally they don’t have the money for any diaper service, so the old lady is always boiling diapers on the stove and after a while the smell gets into the walls. That’s La Motta, in his book, Raging Bull. In a few lines we understand everything about this man: who he was, where he came from, the color of his soul. He sees and he feels. The film lies. He is not an animal. ————– Kyle Smith is movie critic for the New York Post.]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The 2018 Oscar Race Is Well Underway
    (”Ordinary People” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Which film will win the 2018 Oscar for best picture?
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Bill Gates's Favorite Movie of All Time
    (”Ordinary People” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    It’s “Ordinary People,” a nearly perfect film I have never grown tired of praising (see this Gates interview, last couple of lines). And this gives me yet another opportunity to mention my piece on why “Raging Bull,” the movie the chattering classes believe should have stomped all over “Ordinary People” at the Oscars, fails on so many levels.]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • In Praise of the Oscars
    (”Ordinary People” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    As a matter of fact, “Ordinary People” was a better movie than “Raging Bull.” Dull and pompous as the actual Oscar ceremony may be, the reason we watch is that the Oscar voters actually get it right, or close enough to generate an argument, surprisingly often. Who bothers to argue about the Golden Globes? More in my Sunday column.]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

John Podhoretz 1
Commentary Magazine



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • A Valediction
    (”Ordinary People” is briefly mentioned in this.)

VJ Morton 2
Right Wing Film Geek



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)
  • Sundance 2019 Wrap-Up: 75 Movies in Brief
    (”Ordinary People” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    The best, the worst, the most political, the biggest crowd-pleasers and more.
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Sundance Update: Saturday, Feb. 2 | "Give me Liberty","Imaginary Order"&"Queen of hearts"
    (”Ordinary People” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Paradise Hills, The Death of Dick Long, Queen of Hearts, Imaginary Order and more
    ...
    (Review Source)

The Federalist Staff 2
The Federalist



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • It's Not The Envelope—The Oscars Keep Choosing The Wrong Film
    (”Ordinary People” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    When the Best Picture award was given to “La La Land,” it was not a surprise. Hollywood loves musicals, and is always seeking to present musicals with awards. While not a fan of musicals outside of “The Blues Brothers,” this makes sense: musicals are difficult to make. They combine elements of music, acting, singing, and dancing all in one production. Alas, the euphoria for the producers of “La La Land” was short-lived. As it turned out, Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway were given the wrong envelope. Minutes later, we found out the Best Picture winner was Barry Jenkins’ coming-of-age film, “Moonlight.” This time the envelope was correct. Unfortunately, the choice of “Moonlight” for Best Picture was not. Instead, it appears to have fallen victim to the “message movie” trap of choosing the best movie of the year. When Did Best Picture Choices Go Wrong? Voting-based awards will invariably lead to debate—because for the most part, it is a subjective issue. When “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” won in 1975, it was not difficult to make a compelling case for “Jaws” or “Dog Day Afternoon.” That’s not to say “Cuckoo’s Nest” didn’t deserve the award—but that other choices would have been just as worthy. However, since 1980, Best Picture winners usually fall into specific categories. First, there are the “socially aware” movies: Academy voters focus on the social aspect of a film and choose to award it over something more deserving. The Academy also, at times, has a penchant for choosing films that elicit the response, “What the hell were they thinking?” In that vein, it would be hard for anybody to make a case for “Ordinary People” winning in 1980 over “Raging Bull.” The former is a terrific film with stand-out performances from Donald Sutherland, Timothy Hutton, and Mary Tyler-Moore. It touched on themes such as suicide, the loss of a child, feelings of inadequacy in the face of siblings, and more. “Raging Bull,” on the other hand, is a masterpiece and arguably Martin Scorsese’s best film. Some have argued that the Academy simply was not ready for the impact of “Raging Bull.” But it was recognized by voters. Robert De Niro won Best Actor for his portrayal of boxer Jake LaMotta. “Raging Bull” stood out in every aspect of filmmaking—from the acting to direction, cinematography to script and story. The Oscars Often Go To Bewildering Choices That blunder aside, no Best Picture winner encapsulates the combo of head scratcher and blockbuster favoritism better than “Titanic.” The film was a box office juggernaut, knocking “ET” from the perch of the highest grossing film of all time. It made Leonardo DiCaprio a household name for young teenage girls everywhere. Despite being a special effects stand out, “Titanic” was plagued with a hokey script, a well-worn storyline, and mediocre acting. That didn’t matter. The movie was nominated for 13 Oscars and won 10, including Best Picture. Meanwhile, “L.A. Confidential” is a film that wraps up every element of the “Best Picture” category into its two-hour running time—story, directing, acting, script, and production value. It remains one of Oscar’s biggest snubs. Other odd choices include “Shakespeare In Love” over “Saving Private Ryan,” arguably one of the best war movies ever made. Another is “The English Patient” over “Fargo.” Have you ever watched “The English Patient” more than once? “Fargo,” meanwhile, demands multiple viewings. “Moneyball” was so much better than “The Artist.” And all I remember from “Chariots of Fire” are guys running in slow motion to Vangelis’s synthesized score. The movie that should have won, “Raiders of The Lost Ark,” is close to cinematic perfection. Films Often Win For Their Message, Not Their Merit Despite all these bewildering moments the Academy has provided over the last 36 years, it’s nothing compared to the head-shaking moments they’ve bestowed upon audiences. Nary a chance exists when voters, examining Best Picture nominees, choose films that convey an “important message” to audiences. Channeling a message via film is not necessarily a bad thing. But it’s bad when films wins because of their message, and not because they’re superior. The following all fall into that category: “Dances With Wolves.” Used as a means of highlighting the plight of Native Americans. The film does not hold up well and is filled with cartoonish stereotypical characters, none of which are memorable. What should have won: “Goodfellas.” Scorsese unfairly snubbed again. “American Beauty.” Highlights suburban white families and the issues they deal with on a daily basis. It’s loaded with clichéd characters doing clichéd things along with a clichéd script. What should have won: “The Insider.” Michael Mann’s film, which explores the intersection between corporate America and journalism, is a tour de force. Al Pacino and Russell Crowe both delivered Oscar-worthy performances. “Million Dollar Baby.” It “created a dialogue” about issues such as women in sports and assisted suicide. What should have won: “Sideways.” Alexander Payne’s road trip comedy/drama served up equal parts of laughter and heartache. Pinot Noir was never more popular as a result. “Crash.” Forget about undeserving. This overrated muck shouldn’t have sniffed a nomination, let alone take home the big prize. It’s the kind of film about racism that is safe for people to say they liked because it blends clichés and narratives about racism people aren’t afraid to discuss. Complete with unrealistic, wooden characters, a lousy script and giant plot holes, it’s one of the worst choices the Academy has ever made. What should have won: “Brokeback Mountain,” ‘Capote,” “Good Night, and Good Luck,” or “Munich.” Any of them were more deserving. ‘Moonlight’ Is Very Good, But Not Oscar-Worthy “Moonlight” fits the criteria of the “message” movie. It’s a beautiful film with standout performances from some of the cast. It’s a moving film that allows the viewer to connect with the main character through three stages of his life. The story of Chiron, shown in three separate stages of life, is illustrated in believable detail. He grows from an innocent, young black boy into a hardened drug dealer in 12 to 14 years. The fact that Chiron is gay makes his story that much more compelling. That said, the film suffers from familiar tropes: the drug addicted mother, poor casting (Trevante Rhodes is just not believable as the adult Chiron), and it doesn’t quite have the courage to explore the issue of sexuality with the two gay characters. Critics were united in their praise, and therein lies the problem. Because of the subject matter—and the fact that the entire cast and director are black—it would seem some critics are hesitant to point out the film’s flaws, for fear of being criticized themselves. Movie critic Owen Gleiberman talks in great honesty about the politicization of film criticism in a podcast with Bret Easton Ellis (Go to minute 70), using “Moonlight” as the springboard for the conversation. They both agree that identity politics is what keeps people from being negative about the movie. The Film With The Greatest Artistic Value Should Win It’s a shame this happened because the film is worth seeing. I would recommend “Moonlight” to anybody, but it is not a better film than either “Hell or High Water” or “Arrival.” Both of these films explored familiar territories but in a way that elevated them from run of the mill dramas to Oscar-worthy art, aided by standout performances by cast members in both films. The fact that “Moonlight” creates some societal discourse about race and sexuality does not mean it is the best movie of 2016. Hopefully, at some point, the Academy will put aside the tendency to judge Best Picture based on societal trends, and instead just choose the best movie of the year. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

The Weekly Standard Staff 1
The Weekly Standard



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Substandard Show Notes, Episode 1-10 (Actor-Directors)
    (”Ordinary People” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Endnotes and digressions from the latest show : * I'm not sure how often we'll be talking sports on the Substandard, but I'm glad we got a chance to talk about 4th and 26—a play so famous that it has its own Wikipedia page. If you're part of the Philly diaspora and want to revel in it, here's a mini-documentary starring some of the folks from WIP. Totally worth five minutes of your time. * Sonny Bunch mentioned the comedic genius of Matt Damon. Here's his cameo in Euro Trip . I'm mor
    ...
    (Review Source)

The Weekly Substandard Podcast 1
The Weekly Standard



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Substandard Podcast: What We Really Want to Do is a Podcast
    (”Ordinary People” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    During an erudite discussion of the NFL playoffs, Golden Globes, and actors becoming directors, a bottle mishap nearly derails the episode. Plus JVL dismantles the Skins Bandwagon. Sonny breaks down the Fourth Wall. And Vic mentions The Big Hunt for no apparent reason. All on this week's Substandard! This podcast can be downloaded here . Subscribe to the SUBSTANDARD on iTunes or on Google Play . Endnotes and digressions from the latest show: * I'm not sure how often we'll be tal
    ...
    (Review Source)

Want even more consensus?

Skip Rotten Tomatoes, they’re biased SJWs too afraid to criticize things like the Ghost Busters reboot. Avoid giving them ad revenue by using the minimalist alternative, Cinesift, for a quick aggregate:

 🗣️ Know of another conservative review that we’re missing?
Leave a link in the comments below or email us!  

What’d you think? Let us know with a video:

Record a webcam review!

Or anonymous text review:

Submit your review
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Submit
     
Cancel

Create your own review

Average rating:  
 0 reviews
Overall Hollywood Bs Average rating:  
 
Anti-patriotism Average rating:  
 
Misandry Average rating:  
 
Affirmative action Average rating:  
 
LGBTQ rstuvwxyz Average rating:  
 
Anti-God Average rating:  
 

Buy on Amazon:
⚠️  Comment freely, but please respect our young users.
👍🏻 Non PC comments/memes/vids/links 
👎🏻  Curse words / NSFW media / JQ stuff
👌🏻 Visit our 18+  free speech forum to avoid censorship.
⚠️ Keep your kids’ websurfing safe! Read this.

Share this page:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail