Looking for a great movie on HULU? Got one!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird and sad, but I thought it was okay.

The acting= great
Writing = great
Plot = great

It was good, not great.

Nobody is watching this movie again and again, and rewatching is the mark of a great film.

The plot was different/interesting, but you could see where it was going.

And the lead actor basically made the movie as a vehicle for himself, and he basically played himself (not a lot of real acting going on). The other lead actor was actually very good.

It did tug on the heartstrings (eventually). I think it would have been a much better film had they included more comedic moments.

I’m halfway through. I almost never rewatch a movie unless it’s decades old and replaying, then I might have it on in the background while cleaning (Shawshank, type). So I don’t use the rewatching standard for myself because then I would almost never say a movie is “great.”

At halfway through, I love it! I don’t want more comedy in it. It’s about people in mourning (so far) for various reasons. And I don’t understand why the actor’s reason for writing the screenplay or an actor playing someone who is like himself impacts the enjoyment (or not) of the show.

We all have different tastes, though!

Rotten tomatoes closely tracks what I like most of the time. Is it more spotty for you?

Finish the movie and then post back.

I thought the first half was a lot better than the second half.

The promos billed it as more of a comedy/drama (essentially focusing on the lone mildly-funny scene), basically false advertising. It’s a dark movie, but not a black comedy.

The actor who made the film isn’t really acting. He’s just saying the lines the wrote in his everyday voice. That’s not great acting. The other lead however does a very good job.

Like I said, it’s good…different. I felt sorry for the main character but somewhere along the way I just found him pathetic, selfish, and a touch psycho. I tend to prefer movies where at least some of the characters are likeable and more compelling.

I don’t understand why this bothers you?! And how could it not be acting: when he was obsessively deciding wt work whether to text the twin back after he was blown off? When he confronted the twin in the street? When he told the grief group how his “twin brother” died after he failed to pick him up at the airport? During the one night stand when the men were quietly talking under the sheet and he said he thinks he loves the twin? All seemed like acting to me…emotional, angry, tender, grief stricken, etc…

All the scenes you just listed were the same ones that made me think the lead character was a real a-hole…psycho, really.

Have you heard the actor interviewed? Because he sounds the same as the character, has the same mannerisms and attitude. I really think he was “playing” himself, and that’s not acting.

What sucks you into this movie is how different it is. It has a clever twist, although with the twist comes the shock about the lead character…which was supposed to make you go from liking him to hating him to feeling sorry for him. But he’s not the hero. He’s the psycho.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird and sad, but I thought it was okay.

The acting= great
Writing = great
Plot = great

It was good, not great.

Nobody is watching this movie again and again, and rewatching is the mark of a great film.

The plot was different/interesting, but you could see where it was going.

And the lead actor basically made the movie as a vehicle for himself, and he basically played himself (not a lot of real acting going on). The other lead actor was actually very good.

It did tug on the heartstrings (eventually). I think it would have been a much better film had they included more comedic moments.

I’m halfway through. I almost never rewatch a movie unless it’s decades old and replaying, then I might have it on in the background while cleaning (Shawshank, type). So I don’t use the rewatching standard for myself because then I would almost never say a movie is “great.”

At halfway through, I love it! I don’t want more comedy in it. It’s about people in mourning (so far) for various reasons. And I don’t understand why the actor’s reason for writing the screenplay or an actor playing someone who is like himself impacts the enjoyment (or not) of the show.

We all have different tastes, though!

Rotten tomatoes closely tracks what I like most of the time. Is it more spotty for you?

Finish the movie and then post back.

I thought the first half was a lot better than the second half.

The promos billed it as more of a comedy/drama (essentially focusing on the lone mildly-funny scene), basically false advertising. It’s a dark movie, but not a black comedy.

The actor who made the film isn’t really acting. He’s just saying the lines the wrote in his everyday voice. That’s not great acting. The other lead however does a very good job.

Like I said, it’s good…different. I felt sorry for the main character but somewhere along the way I just found him pathetic, selfish, and a touch psycho. I tend to prefer movies where at least some of the characters are likeable and more compelling.

I don’t understand why this bothers you?! And how could it not be acting: when he was obsessively deciding wt work whether to text the twin back after he was blown off? When he confronted the twin in the street? When he told the grief group how his “twin brother” died after he failed to pick him up at the airport? During the one night stand when the men were quietly talking under the sheet and he said he thinks he loves the twin? All seemed like acting to me…emotional, angry, tender, grief stricken, etc…

All the scenes you just listed were the same ones that made me think the lead character was a real a-hole…psycho, really.

Have you heard the actor interviewed? Because he sounds the same as the character, has the same mannerisms and attitude. I really think he was “playing” himself, and that’s not acting.

What sucks you into this movie is how different it is. It has a clever twist, although with the twist comes the shock about the lead character…which was supposed to make you go from liking him to hating him to feeling sorry for him. But he’s not the hero. He’s the psycho.

Agree to disagree. Of course it’s acting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird and sad, but I thought it was okay.

The acting= great
Writing = great
Plot = great

It was good, not great.

Nobody is watching this movie again and again, and rewatching is the mark of a great film.

The plot was different/interesting, but you could see where it was going.

And the lead actor basically made the movie as a vehicle for himself, and he basically played himself (not a lot of real acting going on). The other lead actor was actually very good.

It did tug on the heartstrings (eventually). I think it would have been a much better film had they included more comedic moments.

I’m halfway through. I almost never rewatch a movie unless it’s decades old and replaying, then I might have it on in the background while cleaning (Shawshank, type). So I don’t use the rewatching standard for myself because then I would almost never say a movie is “great.”

At halfway through, I love it! I don’t want more comedy in it. It’s about people in mourning (so far) for various reasons. And I don’t understand why the actor’s reason for writing the screenplay or an actor playing someone who is like himself impacts the enjoyment (or not) of the show.

We all have different tastes, though!

Rotten tomatoes closely tracks what I like most of the time. Is it more spotty for you?

Finish the movie and then post back.

I thought the first half was a lot better than the second half.

The promos billed it as more of a comedy/drama (essentially focusing on the lone mildly-funny scene), basically false advertising. It’s a dark movie, but not a black comedy.

The actor who made the film isn’t really acting. He’s just saying the lines the wrote in his everyday voice. That’s not great acting. The other lead however does a very good job.

Like I said, it’s good…different. I felt sorry for the main character but somewhere along the way I just found him pathetic, selfish, and a touch psycho. I tend to prefer movies where at least some of the characters are likeable and more compelling.

I don’t understand why this bothers you?! And how could it not be acting: when he was obsessively deciding wt work whether to text the twin back after he was blown off? When he confronted the twin in the street? When he told the grief group how his “twin brother” died after he failed to pick him up at the airport? During the one night stand when the men were quietly talking under the sheet and he said he thinks he loves the twin? All seemed like acting to me…emotional, angry, tender, grief stricken, etc…

All the scenes you just listed were the same ones that made me think the lead character was a real a-hole…psycho, really.

Have you heard the actor interviewed? Because he sounds the same as the character, has the same mannerisms and attitude. I really think he was “playing” himself, and that’s not acting.

What sucks you into this movie is how different it is. It has a clever twist, although with the twist comes the shock about the lead character…which was supposed to make you go from liking him to hating him to feeling sorry for him. But he’s not the hero. He’s the psycho.

Agree to disagree. Of course it’s acting.

Apparently you haven’t seen the guy interviewed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird and sad, but I thought it was okay.

The acting= great
Writing = great
Plot = great

It was good, not great.

Nobody is watching this movie again and again, and rewatching is the mark of a great film.

The plot was different/interesting, but you could see where it was going.

And the lead actor basically made the movie as a vehicle for himself, and he basically played himself (not a lot of real acting going on). The other lead actor was actually very good.

It did tug on the heartstrings (eventually). I think it would have been a much better film had they included more comedic moments.

I’m halfway through. I almost never rewatch a movie unless it’s decades old and replaying, then I might have it on in the background while cleaning (Shawshank, type). So I don’t use the rewatching standard for myself because then I would almost never say a movie is “great.”

At halfway through, I love it! I don’t want more comedy in it. It’s about people in mourning (so far) for various reasons. And I don’t understand why the actor’s reason for writing the screenplay or an actor playing someone who is like himself impacts the enjoyment (or not) of the show.

We all have different tastes, though!

Rotten tomatoes closely tracks what I like most of the time. Is it more spotty for you?

Finish the movie and then post back.

I thought the first half was a lot better than the second half.

The promos billed it as more of a comedy/drama (essentially focusing on the lone mildly-funny scene), basically false advertising. It’s a dark movie, but not a black comedy.

The actor who made the film isn’t really acting. He’s just saying the lines the wrote in his everyday voice. That’s not great acting. The other lead however does a very good job.

Like I said, it’s good…different. I felt sorry for the main character but somewhere along the way I just found him pathetic, selfish, and a touch psycho. I tend to prefer movies where at least some of the characters are likeable and more compelling.

I don’t understand why this bothers you?! And how could it not be acting: when he was obsessively deciding wt work whether to text the twin back after he was blown off? When he confronted the twin in the street? When he told the grief group how his “twin brother” died after he failed to pick him up at the airport? During the one night stand when the men were quietly talking under the sheet and he said he thinks he loves the twin? All seemed like acting to me…emotional, angry, tender, grief stricken, etc…

All the scenes you just listed were the same ones that made me think the lead character was a real a-hole…psycho, really.

Have you heard the actor interviewed? Because he sounds the same as the character, has the same mannerisms and attitude. I really think he was “playing” himself, and that’s not acting.

What sucks you into this movie is how different it is. It has a clever twist, although with the twist comes the shock about the lead character…which was supposed to make you go from liking him to hating him to feeling sorry for him. But he’s not the hero. He’s the psycho.

Agree to disagree. Of course it’s acting.

Apparently you haven’t seen the guy interviewed.

I did. This one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdCm66lFrlQ

He was acting in the movie. Again, a range of anger, sadness, anxious, tenderness, etc. was in the film. All of those emotions were acted. The fact that he is soft spoken in both film and real life, doesn’t mean he wasn’t acting.

But you have your own opinion and that’s fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird and sad, but I thought it was okay.

The acting= great
Writing = great
Plot = great

It was good, not great.

Nobody is watching this movie again and again, and rewatching is the mark of a great film.

The plot was different/interesting, but you could see where it was going.

And the lead actor basically made the movie as a vehicle for himself, and he basically played himself (not a lot of real acting going on). The other lead actor was actually very good.

It did tug on the heartstrings (eventually). I think it would have been a much better film had they included more comedic moments.

I’m halfway through. I almost never rewatch a movie unless it’s decades old and replaying, then I might have it on in the background while cleaning (Shawshank, type). So I don’t use the rewatching standard for myself because then I would almost never say a movie is “great.”

At halfway through, I love it! I don’t want more comedy in it. It’s about people in mourning (so far) for various reasons. And I don’t understand why the actor’s reason for writing the screenplay or an actor playing someone who is like himself impacts the enjoyment (or not) of the show.

We all have different tastes, though!

Rotten tomatoes closely tracks what I like most of the time. Is it more spotty for you?

Finish the movie and then post back.

I thought the first half was a lot better than the second half.

The promos billed it as more of a comedy/drama (essentially focusing on the lone mildly-funny scene), basically false advertising. It’s a dark movie, but not a black comedy.

The actor who made the film isn’t really acting. He’s just saying the lines the wrote in his everyday voice. That’s not great acting. The other lead however does a very good job.

Like I said, it’s good…different. I felt sorry for the main character but somewhere along the way I just found him pathetic, selfish, and a touch psycho. I tend to prefer movies where at least some of the characters are likeable and more compelling.

I don’t understand why this bothers you?! And how could it not be acting: when he was obsessively deciding wt work whether to text the twin back after he was blown off? When he confronted the twin in the street? When he told the grief group how his “twin brother” died after he failed to pick him up at the airport? During the one night stand when the men were quietly talking under the sheet and he said he thinks he loves the twin? All seemed like acting to me…emotional, angry, tender, grief stricken, etc…

All the scenes you just listed were the same ones that made me think the lead character was a real a-hole…psycho, really.

Have you heard the actor interviewed? Because he sounds the same as the character, has the same mannerisms and attitude. I really think he was “playing” himself, and that’s not acting.

What sucks you into this movie is how different it is. It has a clever twist, although with the twist comes the shock about the lead character…which was supposed to make you go from liking him to hating him to feeling sorry for him. But he’s not the hero. He’s the psycho.

Agree to disagree. Of course it’s acting.

Apparently you haven’t seen the guy interviewed.

I did. This one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdCm66lFrlQ

He was acting in the movie. Again, a range of anger, sadness, anxious, tenderness, etc. was in the film. All of those emotions were acted. The fact that he is soft spoken in both film and real life, doesn’t mean he wasn’t acting.

But you have your own opinion and that’s fine.

Google an interview of Meryl Streep and then watch clips from some of her films to get a sense of how good actors disappear into the character they are portraying.

This guy in the linked interview is the same guy in the movie. Sure, he smiles, frowns, laughs, cries, etc. but he’s still not acting. That’s just emoting.

And that interview is just dumb. She leads with researching twins and the movie really isn’t about twin relationships. I mean, you know that the lead guy doesn’t even have a twin. So weird.

PS - The other main character does a great job acting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s weird and sad, but I thought it was okay.

The acting= great
Writing = great
Plot = great

It was good, not great.

Nobody is watching this movie again and again, and rewatching is the mark of a great film.

The plot was different/interesting, but you could see where it was going.

And the lead actor basically made the movie as a vehicle for himself, and he basically played himself (not a lot of real acting going on). The other lead actor was actually very good.

It did tug on the heartstrings (eventually). I think it would have been a much better film had they included more comedic moments.

I’m halfway through. I almost never rewatch a movie unless it’s decades old and replaying, then I might have it on in the background while cleaning (Shawshank, type). So I don’t use the rewatching standard for myself because then I would almost never say a movie is “great.”

At halfway through, I love it! I don’t want more comedy in it. It’s about people in mourning (so far) for various reasons. And I don’t understand why the actor’s reason for writing the screenplay or an actor playing someone who is like himself impacts the enjoyment (or not) of the show.

We all have different tastes, though!

Rotten tomatoes closely tracks what I like most of the time. Is it more spotty for you?

Finish the movie and then post back.

I thought the first half was a lot better than the second half.

The promos billed it as more of a comedy/drama (essentially focusing on the lone mildly-funny scene), basically false advertising. It’s a dark movie, but not a black comedy.

The actor who made the film isn’t really acting. He’s just saying the lines the wrote in his everyday voice. That’s not great acting. The other lead however does a very good job.

Like I said, it’s good…different. I felt sorry for the main character but somewhere along the way I just found him pathetic, selfish, and a touch psycho. I tend to prefer movies where at least some of the characters are likeable and more compelling.

I don’t understand why this bothers you?! And how could it not be acting: when he was obsessively deciding wt work whether to text the twin back after he was blown off? When he confronted the twin in the street? When he told the grief group how his “twin brother” died after he failed to pick him up at the airport? During the one night stand when the men were quietly talking under the sheet and he said he thinks he loves the twin? All seemed like acting to me…emotional, angry, tender, grief stricken, etc…

All the scenes you just listed were the same ones that made me think the lead character was a real a-hole…psycho, really.

Have you heard the actor interviewed? Because he sounds the same as the character, has the same mannerisms and attitude. I really think he was “playing” himself, and that’s not acting.

What sucks you into this movie is how different it is. It has a clever twist, although with the twist comes the shock about the lead character…which was supposed to make you go from liking him to hating him to feeling sorry for him. But he’s not the hero. He’s the psycho.

Agree to disagree. Of course it’s acting.

Apparently you haven’t seen the guy interviewed.

I did. This one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdCm66lFrlQ

He was acting in the movie. Again, a range of anger, sadness, anxious, tenderness, etc. was in the film. All of those emotions were acted. The fact that he is soft spoken in both film and real life, doesn’t mean he wasn’t acting.

But you have your own opinion and that’s fine.

Google an interview of Meryl Streep and then watch clips from some of her films to get a sense of how good actors disappear into the character they are portraying.

This guy in the linked interview is the same guy in the movie. Sure, he smiles, frowns, laughs, cries, etc. but he’s still not acting. That’s just emoting.

And that interview is just dumb. She leads with researching twins and the movie really isn’t about twin relationships. I mean, you know that the lead guy doesn’t even have a twin. So weird.

PS - The other main character does a great job acting.

Huh?? This is a major theme of this movie: The interconnectedness of twins.