Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, didn't you get the message? You're not allowed to criticize the slave movie.

There are valid criticisms and then there's "melodramatic" and "unintentionally funny." Those aren't tenable positions.

NP here. I disagree. I think the previous PP was saying it's an important movie but not done well. Criticisms including melodramatic and unintentionally funny may be appropriate (I don't know, haven't seen the movie). S/he didn't say the movie was funny, but script and some of the acting was so bad it was unintentionally funny. That's not making fun of slavery.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that those are untenable positions for a movie, or for a movie about slavery. Of course they could be. I'm saying that for THIS movie, which I have seen, those are not valid. Steve McQueen didn't do melodrama. Maybe the actions in the movie struck OP as so outrageous that they seemed overblown. I think that's the fault of the viewer, not the filmmaker.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, didn't you get the message? You're not allowed to criticize the slave movie.

There are valid criticisms and then there's "melodramatic" and "unintentionally funny." Those aren't tenable positions.

NP here. I disagree. I think the previous PP was saying it's an important movie but not done well. Criticisms including melodramatic and unintentionally funny may be appropriate (I don't know, haven't seen the movie). S/he didn't say the movie was funny, but script and some of the acting was so bad it was unintentionally funny. That's not making fun of slavery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, didn't you get the message? You're not allowed to criticize the slave movie.

There are valid criticisms and then there's "melodramatic" and "unintentionally funny." Those aren't tenable positions.

OP here. When Sarah Paulson, who is a fine actress, is reduced to handing out cookies to her "slaves" in the movie and running in to say "I baked treats for you!" -- yes, the script needs fine tuning. Please be able to view the film through honest eyes. It's not a masterpiece. The content of the film is to important -- to me too -- to include vignettes like this.

Did you miss the rest of Sarah Paulson's role? Context is everything.

^^^ that should happen in the proposed "mercy of the innocent " movie. The gentle aborted baby souls are interceding with God on behalf of their mothers and the mothers go "look I baked treats for you" to try and get more brownie points for forgiveness .

Blockbuster.... Zero awards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, didn't you get the message? You're not allowed to criticize the slave movie.

There are valid criticisms and then there's "melodramatic" and "unintentionally funny." Those aren't tenable positions.

OP here. When Sarah Paulson, who is a fine actress, is reduced to handing out cookies to her "slaves" in the movie and running in to say "I baked treats for you!" -- yes, the script needs fine tuning. Please be able to view the film through honest eyes. It's not a masterpiece. The content of the film is to important -- to me too -- to include vignettes like this.

Anonymous wrote:Someone needs to do a movie with tons of special effects and outstanding acting/writing where the hero convinces gay people to resist homosexual activities and turn to God. Then they all get saved from hell (again with amazing afterlife special effects). Then have all the proud Christian bashers and ten commandment deriders facing hell and weeping. The hero (who God loves) begs God to save them as they are in their knees worshiping and admitting they were wrong. God has mercy and the hero turns out to be Jesus!!!

It would break every attendance record and get zero awards.

Actually, abortion would be the similarity tie in. You could have the gentle souls of the babies interceding with Jesus and asking God to save the mothers and aborters . Blockbuster .

Anonymous wrote:OP, didn't you get the message? You're not allowed to criticize the slave movie.

There are valid criticisms and then there's "melodramatic" and "unintentionally funny." Those aren't tenable positions.

Anonymous wrote:Watched this last night after looking forward to it for a long time. I was very disappointed. Perhaps I should say upfront that I read the book and there's always that "But it wasn't like the book" letdown. But DH was not impressed either. Yes, the topic is important and it has "IMPORTANT MOVIE" all over it. I just felt that it was melodramatic, at times gothic in its melodrama. The female characters were one-dimensional and even unintentionally funny. The Epps really needed to be hauled away to the insane asylum, both of them. The Benedict Cumberbatch owner was off, course "the good owner." Brad Pitt saves the day, and sounded like he was on set for 20 minutes reading his lines from a teleprompter. The two leads had great performances but I felt the material they had to work with script wise just was not strong enough. Plot, script -- all could have been much more nuanced.

Ah, the perks of being a producer.

Someone needs to do a movie with tons of special effects and outstanding acting/writing where the hero convinces gay people to resist homosexual activities and turn to God. Then they all get saved from hell (again with amazing afterlife special effects). Then have all the proud Christian bashers and ten commandment deriders facing hell and weeping. The hero (who God loves) begs God to save them as they are in their knees worshiping and admitting they were wrong. God has mercy and the hero turns out to be Jesus!!!

It would break every attendance record and get zero awards.

OP, didn't you get the message? You're not allowed to criticize the slave movie.

Nope, you're wrong. It was moving for its lack of melodrama. That's just what happened and there wasn't anything funny about it. If you found the characters unintentionally funny, you need to watch it again with a more open mind and open heart.

I sort of felt the same way -- the performances rose above the script. I think one issue was that they based it on the real memoir and didn't augment it to make it more of a story appropriate for a 21st century movie.

We could easily say the same for the movie Lincoln. The movie was touching and moving and made its point. What more could be expected in Hollywood film and length? Seriously?

Poorly made. Hate on me all you want, but it was a poorly done movie on an important topic.

Watched this last night after looking forward to it for a long time. I was very disappointed. Perhaps I should say upfront that I read the book and there's always that "But it wasn't like the book" letdown. But DH was not impressed either. Yes, the topic is important and it has "IMPORTANT MOVIE" all over it. I just felt that it was melodramatic, at times gothic in its melodrama. The female characters were one-dimensional and even unintentionally funny. The Epps really needed to be hauled away to the insane asylum, both of them. The Benedict Cumberbatch owner was off, course "the good owner." Brad Pitt saves the day, and sounded like he was on set for 20 minutes reading his lines from a teleprompter. The two leads had great performances but I felt the material they had to work with script wise just was not strong enough. Plot, script -- all could have been much more nuanced.