Starts off really strong and fun.
The sets look incredible and its immersive. They had a really great message about body positivity and unrealistic expectations on women & I was all the way behind it.... Then rapidly spirals into a pure man hate / Women supremacy. Its obvious the writers have a huge chip on their shoulders.. It's messaging is so heavy handed it completely took me out of the movie & brings it from enjoyable to a drab 2 hour rant by an angry twitter blue user who think's women's rights is still in the 1800's.
They have this unreal take that you're set for life if you're a man and just get instant success. They think everything's better if you're a man (Guess what, it doesn't work that way. I'm told every day how I'm a bad person because I'm a man, and for only that.... Just like this movie does)...
Being preached at about why being a man is so bad for 2 hours does not make for a fun viewing experience.
It shows the glaring double standards of the current mainstream talking points.
This movie blindly preaches that "the world would be better if the shoe was on the other foot" and it comes across as tone deaf.
Its BAD all one gender "rules the world" but if its women, its A-OK!... which defeats the purpose of feminism.
Women getting equality, not supremacy.
call this a hot take but I think men and women should be equal..... but this movie thinks men don't even deserve a seat on Barbie world's court - that's insane.
Why is Patriarchy bad but Matriarchy good....????
Its either all bad or none of it is, and this man hating director needs to make up her mind.
[5.0/10] Green Book is quaint. It is the cinematic equivalent of a Hallmark card on race relations, there to make you feel good, reflect the real world in only the vaguest, gentlest way, and then be quickly discarded and forgotten. It is thoroughly lacking in incisiveness or genuine insight, and its take on race and overcoming divisions is about as deep as a thimble. The film’s perspective is limited and provincial, when it’s not out-and-out troubling, and at times even insulting, in its oversimplifications.
The movie tells the story of Tony Vallelonga, a hearty spark plug of a man from The Bronx, who drives Don Shirley, a cultured piano player, through the South on the latter man’s music tour. Green Book is founded on the tension between Tony’s salt-of-the-earth, profane, and uncouth manner, informed by his working class Italian upbringing, and Dr. Shirley’s mannered, measured, and at times aloof bearing, informed by his position as a black man who has to operate in white circles. Along the way, the two clash and come into conflict, but inevitably find common ground and camaraderie through their shared experiences.
That in and of itself is not a bad premise for a film. There’s pathos to be wrung from the intersection of a man kept on the fringes of society because of his class and one ostensibly welcomed but always held at arm's length because of the color his skin. There’s a common understanding that can be established between one man who holds prejudices until he’s forced to confront real people and not just abstractions, and another who looks down on those less devoted to dignity until he learns to appreciate the heart that persists even where manners are lacking. And there’s catharsis to be had from the shared realizations of someone who is the master of his own circle but ignorant to the realities of the wider world, and one who’s seen the world at a distance but comes to know the greater warmth of community and family.
Green Book just doesn't actually achieve any of that. It tires. God help it, the film tries. And if you squint, you can see where the movie gestures toward these ideas, and in exceedingly rare moments, even grazes them. But those noble efforts are lost in its crayon-sketched characters and events, its rampant clichés and archetypes in lieu of depth or complexity, and its bent toward reassuring its audience of who’s really good and who’s really bad rather than confronting the gray areas or the systems that reinforces the types of bigotry the film seems to shake off so easily.
Some of that could be forgiven if the movie, for all its attempts at feelgoodery and humor, were more pleasant to watch. It’s characters are, at best, difficult to like. Even setting aside Tony Vallelonga’s racism -- the fodder for his “I’m a real boy!” transformation over the course of the film -- the character is mostly obnoxious. He’s a pale cross between Tony Soprano and Homer Simpson, with an Olive Garden version of the former’s bearing and perspective, and charmless version of the latter’s doltishness, loyalty, and appetite. He is, even at his best, a large foul-mouthed toddler, always having to be told not to give into his worst and easiest impulses. I’m a firm believer that characters need places to go, to grow, in films, but Vallelonga is annoying for too long in the film to find much merit in that approach here.
While Dr. Shirley is, at least, not so eminently grating as Tony is, the film still needs him to grow and change as well, and so makes him rude and condescending for much of the picture. It’s easier to swallow here, since while Don Shirley is occasionally a bit unreasonable, he’s mainly either having to navigate spaces where he’s made insecure or even at risk because of his skin color, or responding to one of Tony’s immature missteps. What’s more, Shirley has the benefit of being played by Mahershala Ali, who deserves better than this film and its script, but who adds layers to Don’s emotional reactions to the different challenges he faces, and breathes life into the relationship between him and Tony that’s poorly written, but nevertheless the backbone of the film.
The best things you can say for Green Book apart from that performance (wasted on a film that doesn't deserve it), is that it’s nice to look at and listen to. Cinematographer Sean Porter not only captures the scenic beauty as Vallelonga and Shirley traverse the American South, but uses a wide shot of Dr. Shirley surrounded by isolated by his possessions to convey his inner loneliness, and communicates Dr. Shirley’s awkward place between white and black society better visually than the film can ever manage with its ham-handed dialogue.
At the same time, so many films try to frame a main character as a virtuoso or a talent or a star, and the actual presentation falls flat. That’s a pitfall Green Book avoids entirely. When Don Shirley sits down to play the piano, his performance takes your breath away, and the audience is not only knocked back by the sumptuous melody and talent put on display, but understands how even hardscrabble Tony could be moved by it too. Between the music itself, the masterful playing from double and real life pianist Kris Bowers, and the nuanced acting of Ali, each time Dr. Shirley sits down in front of a Steinway, it’s a treat.
But those gifts are squandered on a story of friendship that’s as predictable as it is unearned. The film is rife with questionable moments. (For example, in one scene Tony cajoles and eventually persuades his African American counterpart on the merits of fried chicken.) Green Book is going for the old chestnut of the prejudiced but well-meaning man with a heart of gold. But it’s take on racism is so archaic, its prelude to Tony’s changes so full of slurs and backwards views and general prickishness intended to somehow be endearing, that when he finally does come around, it’s too little too late. Tony loves his family and eventually does right enough by his partner, but the film gives us too few reasons to root for him, and is often misguided in how it tries to demonstrate his decency or Don’s failings and peccadillos.
There is occasional warmth, and even joy, in Green Book. But in the final tally, it’s a film that seems built for 1989 instead of 2019. Its “can’t we all just get along” and “both sides need to grow” messages ring hollow in the current era where there’s a growing acknowledgment that our cultural ills are neither so simple nor succinct. Even apart from its dime store observations, hacky dialogue, and mealy racial pablum, it just doesn't present much in terms of its story or characters worth investing in. Not every Oscar-calibrated film has to make a truly powerful statement, but it should at least make for engaging cinema, and despite its strenuous and strained efforts, Green Book fails on both fronts.
Look you don’t have a lot to work with here, so this is probably as good as it could be. I like it more than the live action adaptations from the 2010s, that’s for sure. The plot and characters are nothing special, it’s really the stylistic animation and score that carry the entire movie. I also quite liked the voice acting, the turtles all feel distinct and I’m not surprised that Ice Cube’s expressive voice (given his background) works really well for animation. The problems start to reveal themselves as soon as you start to pay attention to the material that the actors are working with. The comedy mostly sucks and tries way too hard, as expected for mainstream American movies now. Some of the banter and dialogue felt like it got a pass by Marvel’s staff, it’s that embarrassing. It also has some of the weirdest, out of place pop culture references I’ve seen in a long time (you’ll know when you see them), as well as 90s needle drops that serve no purpose besides serving up empty nostalgia (seriously, even Transformers: Rise of the Beasts had the decency to at least set their film during the 90s). Its moments of action can be fun, but unfortunately it zips through a lot of them by montage during the first half, which was the wrong choice. The second half is definitely more entertaining in that regard. Overall, I don’t recommend this if you’re past the age of its target audience, but the beautiful visuals definitely made it more palatable compared to other movies like it.
5/10
This movie has a complete lack of any kind of self-awareness or introspection.
Through direct exposition, I think directly to camera, we receive a monologue about society's unrealistic expectations for women's appearances. Meanwhile, it continues the Hollywood tradition of having an absolutely jacked and ripped and never-not-flexing Ryan Gosling walking around shirtless almost all the time.
We're treated to another long exposition in which one of the protagonists lists society's unfair expectations of how women should behave (be nice, but not too nice). I found this crazy. Most of these grievances are about things we all have to grapple with as human beings. Others... Who is society? Where are these expectations made? How do we change them? How do they compare to expectations placed on men to get jobs, go to work, learn plumbing, listen and provide feedback to women, but never explain anything? We never even consider. This movie literally lists "anxiety" as a women's issue. It's lack of ability to understand or interpret its own message is telling.
There's a segment in which men trick women to quit their jobs and take on the roles of supporting men (what!?) and women have to break each other out. At the same time, the men want nothing and do nothing except to drink beer and play guitar and ruin society and have wars because stereotyping is great as long as it's men.
There is some commentary (again, through direct exposition) about Ken's role in Barbieland, how he doesn't have a job or a purpose except to be a guy. We discover pretty quickly that we're supposed to interpret that as, "See? This is what it's like to be a woman [in the 1820s]." And what's the solution? No. No. Ken should continue to have no agency or purpose in Barbieland and that's a hilarious joke.
Every actor, though, is fully committed and doing great work.
This movie is bad. It never heard of, "show, don't tell", and instead has writers repeatedly monologuing directly to the audience. It's a ham-fisted delivery of a message that the movie doesn't itself understand, let alone interpret. The most memorable part, based on comments from women who walked out of the theater, was also the most joyous, a song and dance number starring only (ironically) men. Everyone seemed to like that part and wanted to talk about it, which is an indication of how poorly this movie communicates and entertains.
Watched 3 episodes and it just got dumber and dumber.
Not only that, but no one is actually paying attention to details in the filming of it. Here's a couple of examples..
1. She's at the pool with her daughter. she's wearing a grey/white T-shirt. She leaves and gets into her car. She arrives at the destination wearing a yellow top and yellow jeans - huh?
2. Twice she tracks somebody down using her mobile phone - it shows us her doing it. How does she track someone she doesn't know? does everyone in Barcelona have a chip embedded that anyone can use to keep track of them?
3. She goes to meet somebody but parks literally 2 miles away. She stuffs a gun in her waistband but we never see it until she needs it then it appears again
4. She plays a game of tennis - doesn't sweat at all. Walks away and her mobile phone just appears in her hand!!
5. Someone shoots out her rear window and she drives to her destination.. with the window in tact
6. She runs away from the bad guys who jump into their Range Rovers and pursue her only to appear from two different directions to block her!!!
I could go on, but you get the picture.
1/10
I really don't get why everyone praises this movie. Great idea and I liked the music and style. Cinematography and acting weren't bad either.
But the protagonist makes horrible decisions throughout the movie and you can't help but think she's dumb. The forced perspective doesn't work so you feel superior to her. Nothing proved that Howard was lying about the outside, but in the end, instead of killing him she goes outside. The burnt lady and Emmett should've been proof enough. It was obvious what the blood on her car meant (or at least could mean to her).
Even though in the end Howard is a killer, up until then you think she's just paranoid. He reacts the way he does because Michelle acts rude. And he might be a bit off, but he saved her and nothing really looks like he kidnapped her.
You can see through the plot and know where things are going. Some things only occur to help the character(s) later or to make Michelle think Howard's a psycho. He really only poses a threat because of the girl he kidnapped. Everything else is understandable. I even get why he shoots Emmett (although it is extreme). Because Emmet poses a threat and Howard fears that they could kill him due to paranoia.
Dialogue and character backgrounds are generic (crazy kidnapper/killer, highschool dropout and relationship problems).
AND OH GOD THE ACTIVITY SCENE
