It’s almost like New York is a character in this film, and that character is Pittsburgh.

I think the big problem with that scene is Tarantino couldn’t resist using an icon to show how FUCKING AWESOME his main character was, maaaan. Like, this guy’s so badass, he once roughed up Bruce Lee!

This is odd- I’ve seen some ads for this film on TV and there is 0 evidence johnson is even in it. I assumed it was a dramedy about an aging star and her too cool long time manager finally admitting their love, based on the ads

Tracy Ellis Ross is divine so it is too bad that isn’t what the movie actually is

This is the hulu/ tv/ website ad trailer

That is strange, and if I had seen the movie, as I was going to do, I would have felt betrayed. I like DJ well enough in an modern rom-com kind of way, but I could only imagine that it would have felt like a drag if she was occupying screen time that would be much funnier centered around Ross or Ice cube.

Yeah, this is very weird. I’m seeing daily ads for this on TV as of late, and Dakota is oddly an afterthought stuffed in the last frame before the title card.

As someone that lives in the predominantly white state of Vermont, I can confirm that we have the same ads.

Gonna post the same thing. I have seen the commercial for this about a dozen times and haven’t seen a single clip featuring Johnson. What kind of crazy marketing is this?

Wait, The commercials made this seem like a Tracy Ellis Ross movie, about her comeback with Ice Cube as boyfriend/manager, that dakota johnson minimally supports.

Right?  I couldn’t get past the first couple episodes of MM for that exact reason.

A work of art or entertainment doesn’t have to say anything new to be valid. It just has to be well crafted with its own internal integrity and some measure of individual vision. The history of film is rich with the work of journeymen directors like Michael Cutiz, Anthony Mann or Raoul Walsh whose movies are often as…

I just saw 1917 yesterday, as both a veteran and student of WWI (and many other wars), your review of AV’s critics strike me as true. Excellent writing, I think your reply is more satisfying a review than Rife and Dowd’s... I hope Rife and Dowd read your comments and learn something from you.

There is so much to - I don’t know if “like” is the right word - acknowledge that is good about this movie. How it presented the gore of World War I better than any file I’ve seen on the topic, including They Shall Not Grow Old. How dismissive the Colonel Mackenzie is of Schofield at the end. That for a war movie it…

Thank you for writing this. I think a big part of the problem is that Rife has nothing to say in general. Everything she does has the feel of filler. Also, she’s made her trade making outrage clickbait, so it’s no wonder she has nothing to say about the film except to complain that it isn’t a movie about women.

Does a war movie *have* to say something about the war? Can’t it just be a movie that takes place in the war?

—>“Little Women vs Joker, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, or The Irishman is probably a more illuminating example.”

I think 1917's ultimate failure is that it wasn’t whatever movie these people are upset didn’t get more Oscars attention. 

Don’t watch their older video “Schindler’s List Made the Holocaust Look Rough...But Did It Say Anything New? And Why Were All The Characters Straight and White?”

Does it have anything new to say about war? That’s an odd question to ask but whatever. My takeaway is that if you have the chance to kill a German who wants to kill you, you kill him first and humanity be damned. But that’s just me.