mcintyre03

First time I watched it, this movie was perfect. Tightly written with several memorable one-liners. Economically executed by Reiner who isn't fluffing it up visually and chooses a modest style. The acting was fine although I think in a realistic world, Carrie Fisher would be cast in Meg Ryan's role. Fisher's a lot smarter and is forced to play the less assertive friend. Nora Ephron seems to be fascinated with old school romance (patriarchal) and you can see that in her other films as well (Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail, My Blue Heaven). OR as some Ephron-enthusiasts claim she's presenting what men were (and still are). No male character in this film deserves a chance at romance. They're far from their ideal versions and yet they expect women to constantly put out to validate their self-worth. You could either see yourself loving it for its bubbly misogyny or you could agree that this is a relic much like Billy Crystal's tired standup routine as he launches from one mundane monologue about "wimmen" to another.

Is it funny and entertaining? Yes, but if you decide to analyse it, it's gonna get satirical and very dark.

Lastly, I don't want to offer what she's having.

As a blue-eyed youngster, I found the nihilism of these thirty-somethings to be funny. I watched it again as a twenty-something myself and I felt that some of the discussions hit home for me. I watched it recently - now close to the age of these characters - and I liked it lesser. It was a lot more obvious. These characters grew up with a chip on their shoulders. They are elitists of the worst kind - the opposite of the youths on Return of the Secaucus Seven. They didn't care about the common people, the SEC or even the ghetto. They were drug-using navel gazers who didn't care about the rest of the world. I had a different kind of thirties. I became more caring of the world and its people. My opinion today is that it's not an everyman story neither does it fit into a niche as I thought it did twenty years ago. The Big Chill could be renamed The Big Chip On Their Shoulders.

Oh, antisemitism! How are you still the most relevant antagonist? According to Hollywood: if you want to make a film set in the early or mid-twentieth century, antisemitism is your go-to antagonist. In the same way, if you want to show colonial India, the British are your go-to villain, because everyone conveniently forgets about the brahmins and the caste system.

The fact that this movie about a supposed Hungarian Jewish architect/genius turns into just another drug addicted genius template is hilarity. This 3 and a half hour-long film is a ringing endorsement of heroin, the cheap wonder drug that takes pain away.

The Brutalist plays all the greatest hits of Oscarbait: gratuitous nudity (male and female), scenes from actual p"rn (they use old, old p*rn), drug abuse, sexual assault, ambitious but misunderstood geniuses, men who look cool while smoking, rich brats and their equally bratty fathers, blonde and brunette dichotomy... it's insane how The Brutalist is just a checklist, a boring, meandering checklist. Had this film been two hours, I'd still have disliked it but I wouldn't have hated it.

Slow-pace is one thing. This is dead in the tracks, pseudo-existential claptrap.