MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > The most pointless and overrated movie o...

The most pointless and overrated movie of the year just got some Oscar nominations.

posted 6 years ago by samoanjoes (51385)
8 replies | jump to latest

A story that literally defines itself as "coming-of-age" with absolutely no major plot points and uninspired direction relying on quirk to disguise itself as clever. I'm referring to you Lady Bird.

A nomination for writing and best picture? Seriously? It was about nothing. I've seen it before and done a lot better. Props to Saoirse Ronan though, who completely saved the film from being utterly forgettable. Laurie Metcalf was acting the same way as she did in "Roseanne". A nomination for directing? For what? It was mostly static shots that weren't even masterfully framed and I can't even thinking of a single shot that was worthy of framing.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Same as Boyhood a few years ago.

[–] samoanjoes (51385) 6 years ago

At least Boyhood had the age gimmick. You could watch that movie and analyze the performance and watch him get older on screen. It at least tried to be different.

[–] iceflamez (102) 6 years ago

Thanks for this post. I watched this atrocity yesterday, to say it was horrendous is an understatement. It's the typical routine that you have the critics locked in the echo chamber and initiate their circlejerking motion, it's another of those oscar-baiting shams, think Moonlight for something similar, but at least that one was vastly superior in comparison (yet again overrated). These type of films to receive the maximum praise is an insult to the true masterpieces of cinema, to equalize Lady Bird with unsurpassed achievements like Tarkovsky's Mirror is absurd in my book.

[–] samoanjoes (51385) 6 years ago

Honestly, I think the hype is because it's written and directed by a woman. Susanne Bier, Agnes Varda and Agnieszka Holland are all talented women directors who have made some truly made some great films, but they won't get the recognition like Lady Bird has because it didn't go through the Sundance-type circuit. Then, anytime something quirky like Lady Bird comes around, you have to applaud or else it makes you look sexist even though you might have like a lesser-known film directed by a woman that same year.

I read an article that was written by a woman that said: "Unpopular Feminist Opinion: "Lady Bird" was just okay". It's almost as if if you are a feminist, you must immediately like it.

[–] iceflamez (102) 6 years ago

That's exactly what i was implying, they are intentionally conflating irrelevant social criteria with cinematic ones to hail or dismiss movies which consists blatant intellectual dishonesty from those critic circles. But even when they do that there is further favoritism towards specific names that from a point onward they conform as a hivemind, if the establishment chose Ladybird's director then everyone will blindly follow, if we are looking genitalia here to share movie awards where's Julia Ducournau with Raw or Hope Dickson Leach with The Levelling ? (disclaimer : neither of those movies are oscar-worthy but Lady Bird pales in comparison).

[–] samoanjoes (51385) 6 years ago

The real question is: if this movie was the exact same, but directed by a man, would it be getting the same hype? I highly doubt it.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

What about Boyhood ??

[–] Renovatio (2990) 6 years ago

Boyhood was shot over dozen years with the same cast and director... As a directorial and filmmaking feat, that part on it's own is nothworthy...