So the story is about a brilliant jewish architect in the 1930s who is mistreated by rich wasps, but the movie itself has been made by a brilliant wasp director/screenwriter who is being mistreated by rich Hollywood Jews? Did I get that right?
Exactly what I wrote in a previous comment on a previous post about this movie.
There is even more subtext: the gentile director appears very bitter he had to make the story about "poor defenseless Jews" being abused by wealthy uncaring Gentiles in order to get his artistic vision on cinema. But, realizing what he had to do, the director did so, and didn't bother checking the historical veracity, because his purpose wasn't the surface level story, which he just did to flatter the Jewish producers' pretensions.
I think Steve ought to rank the various Oscar nominated films - including documentaries- he has seen, because as a casual movie consumer it sure seems to me that there really are not a lot of A level offerings these days.
Think about it this way. "The Searchers" directed by John Ford and starring John Wayne received ZERO Academy Award nominations in non-woke 1956. It is probably a better film than any produced over the last thirty years and maybe more. Safe to say, it is better than "The Brutalist." Much better.
The Searchers was good, especially for it's time period, and may be one of your personal favorites, but without even checking, I'm certain there were many movies I enjoyed more since 1995.
That's not what Steve wrote. The sentence in question is "It’s often compared to Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood, but that seems to be more related to Anderson’s failures as a screenwriter than his successes as a director. Imagine There Will Be Blood without Daniel Day-Lewis and on a small budget." means that the comparison of "The Brutalist" to "There Will be Blood" is related to Anderson’s failures as a screenwriter, not that "There Will be Blood" is about PTAs failures as screenwriter.
Yeah, I had my hopes slightly up for it being good. Hollywood can sometimes still make good movies. But good lord, all of the tropes and cliches. There were a few good shots in it I enjoyed. But come on, we've got: drug problems, gay sex, the evil American rich guy...give me a damn break. Do something different for a change. Definitely too long for what it was. Yet another evil Americans film.
The BBC famously had Jodie Turner-Smith, a black woman, play Ann Boleyn recently. As to whether that film was high brow, I have no idea.
Hamilton isn’t yet a film, but if you’d care to wager on Alexander Hamilton being played by a white man, I’ll entertain whatever odds you care to name.
Ok, so now you have your answer to your former question. There is no high brow or serious biopic where they made the main character black when they were white. Not a single one. It's important to remain acquainted with reality, no matter how much you want to whinge.
Thanks, I was wondering if I wanted to clear a day to sit through this. You´ve saved me time and money with an informative review. I shan´t bother. Even the title puts me off. The term brutalism came from the French word brut meaning raw as in ´beton brut´= raw concrete. Nothing to do with the english adjective ´brutal´
What is it with films today and 3 hour + run times? An epidemic of filmic obesity.
The funny thing about "The Brutalist" is the intentional effort they made in every trailer to not show a single building because it's really hard to sell them as worth seeing.
Four decades ago, the critics loved "My Dinner With Andre." I don't know a single normal person who didn't think it a bore. Most didn't last a half-hour watching it. It's even more boring than Paul McCartney singing "The Long and Winding Road."
What? I enjoyed it as a kid and have rewatched it within the past decade. It's not amazing entertainment and it's not for everyone, but it is intriguing enough to make it through. I assume critics love it because it's a good execution of such an obviously anti-cinematic premise...you know, kinda like making Stephen Seagal into a movie star.
"Cut to the next morning and a shot of a maid carrying towels. After about two and a half seconds, I’m thinking to myself, “OK, I get it: the maid is bringing the towels. That’s been established. Cut to the next scene.”
Yet, on she walks.
And on and on.
And still she trudges ever onward. Does Corbet show you 20 seconds of the maid bringing linens? 30 seconds? 40 seconds?"
I'm sorry, while reading these lines I subconsciously swapped out the Brutalist for Lawrence of Ararbia. It's like, it's the desert, it's hot, the sun's anvil makes it even hotter, especially with little going on in wide swathes of the film. Don't need to see endless desert for tens of minutes at a stretch with no action. Everyone gets it, move on and turn the page.
"I don’t know, but what I do know is the whole movie is like that. I could cut 90 minutes out of The Brutalist and keep 99% of what’s interesting in it."
Same exact thing was thinking about Lawrence of Arabia. That part.
You know, perhaps there's a legitimate reason why the President tends to fast forward films to the good parts while watching them on TV and that one of his favorite action films is Bloodsport. Not saying that Bloodsport is as good as the Brutalist, but, when you can endlessly forward to the good stuff, then it definitely sounds as if the Brutalist isn't all that.
So basically it boils down to is that The Brutalist doesn't have much of a real story, or that the story isn't fully focused on. Yet another example of why studios during the classic era of Hollywood tended to have control over the editing process and would often take the film away from the director and edit it on their own.
Keep it moving. And in this instance the Brutalist massively fails to do so.
Yes it is.
But it isn't the frontrunner, at least not according to Sasha Stone at AwardsDaily who had Anora as the frontrunner this whole time. :)
So the story is about a brilliant jewish architect in the 1930s who is mistreated by rich wasps, but the movie itself has been made by a brilliant wasp director/screenwriter who is being mistreated by rich Hollywood Jews? Did I get that right?
Exactly what I wrote in a previous comment on a previous post about this movie.
There is even more subtext: the gentile director appears very bitter he had to make the story about "poor defenseless Jews" being abused by wealthy uncaring Gentiles in order to get his artistic vision on cinema. But, realizing what he had to do, the director did so, and didn't bother checking the historical veracity, because his purpose wasn't the surface level story, which he just did to flatter the Jewish producers' pretensions.
Uhh… why is everyone pretending this director isn’t Jewish. His mother is Jewish.
I think Steve ought to rank the various Oscar nominated films - including documentaries- he has seen, because as a casual movie consumer it sure seems to me that there really are not a lot of A level offerings these days.
Think about it this way. "The Searchers" directed by John Ford and starring John Wayne received ZERO Academy Award nominations in non-woke 1956. It is probably a better film than any produced over the last thirty years and maybe more. Safe to say, it is better than "The Brutalist." Much better.
The Searchers was good, especially for it's time period, and may be one of your personal favorites, but without even checking, I'm certain there were many movies I enjoyed more since 1995.
Funny last line. Have a good weekend mr sailer
brutal-ist
What do you mean in last sentence where you say there will be blood is more about PTAs failures as screenwriter than successes as director?
That's not what Steve wrote. The sentence in question is "It’s often compared to Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood, but that seems to be more related to Anderson’s failures as a screenwriter than his successes as a director. Imagine There Will Be Blood without Daniel Day-Lewis and on a small budget." means that the comparison of "The Brutalist" to "There Will be Blood" is related to Anderson’s failures as a screenwriter, not that "There Will be Blood" is about PTAs failures as screenwriter.
Yeah, I had my hopes slightly up for it being good. Hollywood can sometimes still make good movies. But good lord, all of the tropes and cliches. There were a few good shots in it I enjoyed. But come on, we've got: drug problems, gay sex, the evil American rich guy...give me a damn break. Do something different for a change. Definitely too long for what it was. Yet another evil Americans film.
I must protest again that it’s good! If you can’t love Guy Pearce, love VistaVision!
To paraphrase Siskel or Ebert, is it better than a VistaVision of the actors having lunch?
"shaky-cam with excessive close-ups"
That's all I need to hear to avoid it.
Why wasn’t a black man cast as Toth?
Is there a single biopic or similar film, that is high brow, in which they make the real life white main character black?
The BBC famously had Jodie Turner-Smith, a black woman, play Ann Boleyn recently. As to whether that film was high brow, I have no idea.
Hamilton isn’t yet a film, but if you’d care to wager on Alexander Hamilton being played by a white man, I’ll entertain whatever odds you care to name.
Ok, so now you have your answer to your former question. There is no high brow or serious biopic where they made the main character black when they were white. Not a single one. It's important to remain acquainted with reality, no matter how much you want to whinge.
Hamilton will be played by a paraplegic trans black woman
Bummer. I want to like this movie because Adrien Brody often turns in an interesting performance. But 215 minutes of bad movie? Wow…
Thanks, I was wondering if I wanted to clear a day to sit through this. You´ve saved me time and money with an informative review. I shan´t bother. Even the title puts me off. The term brutalism came from the French word brut meaning raw as in ´beton brut´= raw concrete. Nothing to do with the english adjective ´brutal´
What is it with films today and 3 hour + run times? An epidemic of filmic obesity.
The funny thing about "The Brutalist" is the intentional effort they made in every trailer to not show a single building because it's really hard to sell them as worth seeing.
Four decades ago, the critics loved "My Dinner With Andre." I don't know a single normal person who didn't think it a bore. Most didn't last a half-hour watching it. It's even more boring than Paul McCartney singing "The Long and Winding Road."
What? I enjoyed it as a kid and have rewatched it within the past decade. It's not amazing entertainment and it's not for everyone, but it is intriguing enough to make it through. I assume critics love it because it's a good execution of such an obviously anti-cinematic premise...you know, kinda like making Stephen Seagal into a movie star.
"Cut to the next morning and a shot of a maid carrying towels. After about two and a half seconds, I’m thinking to myself, “OK, I get it: the maid is bringing the towels. That’s been established. Cut to the next scene.”
Yet, on she walks.
And on and on.
And still she trudges ever onward. Does Corbet show you 20 seconds of the maid bringing linens? 30 seconds? 40 seconds?"
I'm sorry, while reading these lines I subconsciously swapped out the Brutalist for Lawrence of Ararbia. It's like, it's the desert, it's hot, the sun's anvil makes it even hotter, especially with little going on in wide swathes of the film. Don't need to see endless desert for tens of minutes at a stretch with no action. Everyone gets it, move on and turn the page.
"I don’t know, but what I do know is the whole movie is like that. I could cut 90 minutes out of The Brutalist and keep 99% of what’s interesting in it."
Same exact thing was thinking about Lawrence of Arabia. That part.
You know, perhaps there's a legitimate reason why the President tends to fast forward films to the good parts while watching them on TV and that one of his favorite action films is Bloodsport. Not saying that Bloodsport is as good as the Brutalist, but, when you can endlessly forward to the good stuff, then it definitely sounds as if the Brutalist isn't all that.
So basically it boils down to is that The Brutalist doesn't have much of a real story, or that the story isn't fully focused on. Yet another example of why studios during the classic era of Hollywood tended to have control over the editing process and would often take the film away from the director and edit it on their own.
Keep it moving. And in this instance the Brutalist massively fails to do so.