sporina wrote: »
watched Nomadland during the week - lovved it.. a feast for the heart and soul as well as the eyes.. wudda loved to have seen it in cinema.. the soundtrack was bang on too.. felt almost transcendental at times.. and there wer so many scenes that tugged hard at my heart strings... it reminded me of the book Grapes of Wrath and the movie Into the Woods.. McDormand was 1st class.. fair play to The Oscars for honouring this one.. and I didn't know she co produced it too.. hats off to her!
flasher0030 wrote: »
Seems like you are on a one man quest for putting some positive into Nomadland. I presume it was you who posted something similar a few days ago. Same lingo in the other post anyway.
Seems you're in the minority with favourable reviews. Everyone I know who have witnessed it seem to slate it.
Would you call it an "arty" movie where it can be hit and miss?
I saw the film 3 Billboards outside Missouri, and whilst that was a tad slow, I thought it was brilliant. Is Nomadland something similar.
DaSchmo wrote: »
I wouldn't be in a rush to watch that again - Frances McDormand's performance was good and some of the shots were great but I found it quite plodding and was checking how long was left on it for the last half an hour or so wishing it to be over. Very depressing film too - just looking at Fern would get you down!
NIMAN wrote: »
Could it be the most boring film ever to win Best Picture Oscar?
Doesn't say much for cinema if that was the best film of the year.
Beechwoodspark wrote: »
Watched it last night. Bit meh
To thine own self be true
The Princess Bride wrote: »
I liked it, it almost felt like a documentary however, not a film.
I really like Frances McDormand, and she was very good in this.
I'm glad I've seen it, but it's not the sort of film I'd imagine most would relish watching again and again.
In my opinion, for what it's worth.
retalivity wrote: »
watched it with my oul fella a few weeks back. Its boring enough, but McDormand does put in a great performance.
Purple Mountain wrote: »
Where can one see it? I think I'd like it.
dark crystal wrote: »
I was so looking forward to watching this as Frances McDormand is, in my humble opinion, one of the top three actresses working today. But, my God, it was so dull and pointless.
Fine performances all round I guess, although nothing really happened. Like, nothing.
Now, I don't necessarily need a strong plot, a scintillating storyline, or an interesting payoff (although at least one out of those three would be nice), but sweet Jesus, a film about a woman driving around in a van, working banal odd jobs and standing around talking to other people who drive around in vans - well, that's literally it. The most exciting scene was when the main character took a funny turn and had to sh*t in a bucket.
Not a strong year for films generally I guess, but this one certainly won't be going down in the annals of Oscar history as one of it's best.
sporina wrote: »
oh gosh - didn't you watch the trailer etc before watching it?
Sounds like you wer expecting something like Fargo or 3 Billboards, just cos Frances McDormand was in it - ekk
dark crystal wrote: »
I did watch the trailer, yes. However, trailers only contain excerpts, so it's hard to gauge an entire film from a 30 second trailer. I generally really enjoy slow-paced 'slice of life' movies, I just happen to think this particular one was dull and pointless.
Fargo and Three Billboards were completely different films, so I've no idea why you'd think I expected Nomadland to be similar based on the actress alone. That's like watching 'Sophie's Choice' and expecting it to be something like 'The Deer Hunter' because they both star Meryl Streep
soap1978 wrote: »
Why does most films that win Oscars are rubbish,this is complete rubbish, everything about it,has to be a much better movie then this