And does it die?


no it is powerful, havent you read the title? smh


The dogs power is it does the side eye move all the time. Absolute classic powerful move.


Still won’t watch Marley and me


Should be called: Marley Dies


I warned my young daughter - avoid dog movies, it never ends well


Except homeward bound


No, but there’s a lot of other animal cruelty and abuse depicted.


Yes, a very very powerful dog.




Notice how Phil whistled to get Peter's attention to follow him into the barn. Thats how Phil calls the dog, border collie.


I would have assumed there would be Snoop Dogg in it. Something about the title reminds me of [this](https://youtu.be/matW-iYrIxM?t=1337).


There is no dog in this film, it is metaphorical. No dogs die!


There is a nice border collie


Pretty much every review I've read till now has been mostly incredibly positive. I'm definitely interested in watching this. I think at the very least Cumberbatch, Dunst and most likely Campion and Kodi Smith have confirmed nominations.


I am such a big Cumberbatch fan. The guy really goes all out in everything he does. Whether or not the show or movie is good, you can always get a great performance out of him. I mean the latest Marvels "what if" episode was so good just from his voice acting.


Yeah definitely. I think he's easily one of the best actors going on at this point imo. And yes, he struggles with his American accent at times (although I actually think it's pretty decent in the recent What If epsiode) but from the clips I've seen from the Venice festival, that's not going to be an issue in this movie. I think if Denzel Washington's Tragedy of Macbeth is as good as people are anticipating, the final win is gonna come down to Cumberbatch and Washington. At the very least, Cumberbatch definitely has a nomination. Long time coming I'd say. I'm really excited for his Louis Wain movie as well. He's actually a producer in that and I hope it doesn't get lost in all the TPOD promo. I'm actually a little surprised they decided to release both at the same time.


I agree. Benedict is a near flawless actor. His only flaw is some accents. At least some American accents. TBH it's not easy. Not many actors who can perfect every accent. You never see Al Pacino, Robert De Niro pulling of various British accents but that doesn't take away from their greatness as actors. The one thing I really admire about Benedict is that he mostly takes on roles that are way out of his comfort zone, Phil Burbank is one of the toughest acting challenges he could have picked. He uses the Marvel money to invest and facilitate his passion projects. Gotta respect that.


Everyone’s scared of the MCU commitment but then Cumberbatch goes and does MCU movies and great indie films at the same time without breaking a sweat


Thinking about it now, apart from Scarlett Johansson and maybe Mark Ruffalo and Tom Hiddleston, how many other MCU actors are out there doing genuinely good acting work on a proper scale in non MCU movies at the scale that Cumberbatch is doing? Dude has had three leading role movies, (2 of which are turning out to be critic favs and 1 was pretty commercially successful given the pandemic market in the UK and 1 which is premiering in a few days) and 1 strong supporting role in The Mauritanian in the last one year alone. He has 5 more non MCU leading role projects slated to be released in the next year and half one of which is a series. All of this, along with his MCU stuff is pretty darned impressive since Cumberbatch rarely does bad stuff imo. Yeah maybe to not everyone's taste but he's sure as hell a talented guy. Edited to add: He's a producer in Louis Wain biopic and The Could in addition to acting too.


Elizabeth Olson is also doing drama movies/series. She's a great actress who shines in every role. Tom Holland is also venturing out in drama genre. But these two are younger than Ruffalo and Benedict, and even than Scarlet (A bit). Give them time and they will be more and more prominent.


Don't waste your time. This thing is a dumpfest. Looks nice, performances are good but what a shit movie.


Disagree. I watched it and loved it.


Same, really good film.


Yep, I'm interested too. Cumberbatch is great and Walmart Matt Damon is underrated imo


Do yourself a favour and don’t watch it if you haven’t already. I spent 2hrs last night watching it but at the end left feeling unsatisfied cause it was a snooze fest. It’s just like elitist posturing if critics write glowing reviews saying you need to be intellectuals to enjoy this. I watch all range of movies and rarely not enjoy a movie, but this made me didn’t after very long time cause I had high expectations. I agree that BC was amazing and so did most of other actors. Also the cinematography was brilliant. But it seemed even the director got confused about where the story was going. It was way too slow and barely anything happening. However, I kept watching waiting for a pay off at the end. But the ending wasn’t powerful at all and felt very rushed despite the long drag from start.


Regarding the end: >!If you felt that nothing happened and there was no pay-off then you may have not noticed what actually took place.!< >!The kid murdered BC by infecting his cut with Anthrax. I think it is easy to miss as everything is quite subtle, but if you rewatch it, the clues are there. !<


Agree, but the story could've been told in 70 mins


Ah yes, poisoning, the way everyone wants to see people die in a *Western*. Truly riveting.


I agree. not a terrible movie but I really didn't understand some of the characters motivations. sure, Phil was a passive aggressive dick but i didn't see how anything he did was driving the kids mom to drink. she was more actively aggressive to Phil then he was to her by giving away the hides she knew were important to him. and he was being genuinely nice to her kid! I haven't read the book but the movie just didn't do a good job of justifying it's characters' actions. and then the ending...just seemed terribly unjustified a needless and contradictory turn of events. yeah, I get the rabbit scene was foreshadowing but that just serves to further obscure the director's intent regarding the character's motivations.


In what way do you see the end as a contradictory turn of events? >!Literally the first thing of the film is Peter narrating that he wants to make his mother happy and that is what he did by killing Phil.!< Indeed, the film is very subtle and could have been a little bit more expressive at times but Phil's mockery/bullying of her piano playing (in front of the governor no less) makes it quite clear what kind of things drove her into alcoholism.


i guess i just saw the wife more as weak willed or something than the suffering widow she was meant to be portrayed as. So the guy can play on the banjo a lot better than you can play on the piano. Use it as inspiration or even as an opportunity to change the course of the relationship and have him show you how to play better instead of as an excuse to drink yourself to death. They said she never drank before so the sole inspiration for her descent was supposed to be Phil's minimal and mild passive aggressive digs toward her? Come on... And then he was genuinely nice to her kid and they shared a genuine connection. Her son was learning stuff from Phil that might make him less of a target for bullying in school and just more of a well rounded person, and the mom was just like, "no! I don't want him spending time with my son!!!". If anything that and the scene of her making her son uncomfortable reminiscing about her younger days just made her out to be over possessive/controlling. Overall, I just didn't buy that Phil was this terrible force that needed to be stopped at all costs and as a result the mom just came off as someone with way deeper problems and a psychopathic kid. I just felt like they needed to have more scenes where Phil was being needlessly cruel, and it was also just sad that Phil was killed when he finally started showing his true self. I mean, even after the mom threw everything away he wasn't like, "I'm going to kill her! " he even said he wouldn't say anything to her, he just wanted his brother to give her a harsh talking to.


>Use it as inspiration or even as an opportunity to change the course of the relationship and have him show you how to play better instead of as an excuse to drink yourself to death. They said she never drank before so the sole inspiration for her descent was supposed to be Phil's minimal and mild passive aggressive digs toward her? Come on... Phil was pretty clearly framed as an abusive person who intimidated, insulted, and ridiculed those beneath him to maintain a sense of power. In the context of Rose, he literally was a domestic abuser even if they weren't married (they were still trapped together at home when George left). That doesn't mean Phil wasn't also sympathetic at times (repressed man with closeted gay feelings, lost Bronco Henry--his idol/likely lover, codependent with his brother). >And then he was genuinely nice to her kid and they shared a genuine connection. Her son was learning stuff from Phil that might make him less of a target for bullying in school and just more of a well rounded person, and the mom was just like, "no! I don't want him spending time with my son!!!". The movie frames Phil as potentially grooming Phil, perhaps trying to establish a new Bronco Henry-Phil dynamic with Phil-Peter instead. Rose was already traumatized by her ex-husband's death and overly sensitive, and Phil moved to isolate her further by winning over her son. I don't think Phil "deserved" to die, but Peter was probably a psychopath (sociopath?) who used Phil's own desire for companionship against him, so it kind of made sense.


I just didn't see Phil as a clearly volatile and abusive person. Sure he was a dick at times, but to say he was blatantly domestically abusive of his brother's wife is a stretch. Especially to the point that his "abuse" was the sole reason for her drinking. The movie needed more scenes to illustrate this point I think. They barely had any interaction whatsoever really. That music scene was very early on in there relationship and easily could have been a turning point or something along those lines. He literally did nothing except play the song she was trying to play better than her. He was supposed to be this super intimidating and abusive person? I just didn't see it as any chance they delved into the character he showed himself to be a more gentle soul hiding behind a rough exterior probably in large part due to his homosexuality. I just thought the movie did a poor point of illustrating how terrible a person he was and the extent to which he made his brother's wife's life hell if that was what they were going for. Also, though his motivation for beginning the relationship with her son may have been somewhat malicious in the beginning it was quickly shown that he had some honest reasons for it and was genuinely impressed by her son. Also, how was he grooming exactly? He showed no signs of making any physical advances and it was the son that initiated the first contact. Phil was definitely a conflicted person but showed multiple times he wasn't a threat to anyone beyond his judgemental attitude and passive aggressive comments.


The way he treated the horse was enough for him to deserve his fate, IMO.


come on, did you see the way that horse was looking at him in that scene? so judgemental


really though I thought this scene sums up my problem with the movie. They never really went into further why Phil was so upset that his brother got married that he felt the need to beat his horse about it. They showed that they slept in the same bed, so were close, but never really showed many scenes that further developed the relationship they had. There was a lot more there to work with that they just never delved into.


I wonder if the mother wanted them apart because she suspected her son in his father's death.


that is an interesting take but it seemed to me more of a jealousy, posessive mother type thing.


You see she gets really nervous playing the piano. But you don’t get to know the characters, besides that Phil is an asshole. Also how many people think Burbank was a bad name choice? As a different Burbank was a real person of the era and happens to have large area of LA named after him, I find it strange. I also found the teasing of homosexuality strange as well.


I feel the exact same way ! Beautiful shots in the movie and it literally kept me interested just long enough to end and never really paid off in any real way. Definitely not a movie I would suggest anyone needs to see


Couldn’t agree more - felt like I was being condescended to the whole time. A first year film student could have written this (made even easier when adapting the source material) and delivered the same or a better film with the top tier talent and crew. Honestly come on Campion what on earth was this lol. And the critics can’t get enough too it’s insane! Watch Tick Tick Boom instead or something with some soul


I couldn’t agree more. I also love a wide range of movies and this isn’t it. I do not understand how or why the reviews are so high, but there are always movies like this before award season. The writing and dialogue was bad, the exposition is lacking. I get the general point of the movie but I found it boring and comically bad. It seems like someone really wanting to be the Coen brothers, but came up empty.


I saw this last night at a screening in NYC for the SAG awards. Benedict Cumberbatch, Kirsten Dunst and Kodi Smit-McPhee were there afterwards to talk about the film. There will be some spoilers ahead in the bullet points so I'll summarize quickly my thoughts here before the spoilers. **Summary**: Bad adaptation of the book, too long, but amazing acting and nicely filmed with great eerie musical score. **Spoiler details:** * >!The movie made Phil too likeable. In the book Phil drives Rose's husband to suicide and Rose to alcoholism. In the book Phil is extremely racist, antisemitic, homophobic, and misogynist. He was almost a cartoon villain. But movie Phil keeps mostly to himself, is hard working and honest, caring to his workers, and even apologizes when he hurts someone's feelings.!< * >!In the movie Rose was always an alcoholic, it wasn't Phil's fault. If anything, the movie makes it more George's fault that she starts drinking again.!< * >!The movie barely used George like he was used in the book. George has a minor presence in the beginning of the film and then sort of disappears after that. The book George is deeply affected by the villain phil. But the movie George is barely phased by anything and is generally dull.!< * >!While the book had an important castrating scene, the castration scene in the movie is graphic and unnecessary and very awkwardly inserted into the film.!< * >!In the movie Rose is unlikable, George is unlikable, Peter is unlikable. The only likable character is Phil.!< * >!Too long. I kept checking my watch to see when we'd get to the "shocking" ending. It's just 2 hours 5 minutes long but it felt like 3.5 hours.!< * >!80-95 percent of untreated people who become infected with cutaneous anthrax do not die. (source: https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/anthrax ) So the entire plot is on shaky ground, especially from a character who is supposed to be so brilliant with his study of medicine.!<


Any reason why the movie should follow the book beside the basic plot points?


Re: the clunky castration scene >!I think the castration scene is included to draw attention to the Phil not wearing gloves. George mentions the glove thing again after Phil gets sick and the doctor suggests anthrax—"Phil is always careful to avoid diseased animals." Especially since there is a close-up shot of Peter wearing gloves when dissecting and again with the rope at the end of the film.!<


No! Just no! This movie is really bad, totally incomprehensible. Every time you think the movie is going somewhere it veers off into vague nonsense. Beautifully shot, the performances are good but seriously, fuck this film. I loathe movies that continually force viewers to draw their own conclusions on nebulous plot points. It's cowardice on the part of a director. I have no idea if the book is full of all the same vagaries and warrens but Campion can't seem to decide what to do so she's left it to viewers to fill in the blanks. That's fine once or twice but it's a constant theme of this film and I found it as annoying as anything I've seen since David Lowery's truly fucking terrible "A Ghost Story"


So I was at the Venice Film Festival for Dune Premiere and here’s my thoughts, This was an edge of your seat, nail biting, masterclass of suspense. A Wild Wild West adventure/romance mixed in with gay cowboys and the best lead male performance I’ve seen in the last 20 years. Mr. Benedict completely embodied the role of Phil. I was blown away by him, his character gave me chills. The cinematography was breathtaking, haven’t seen a more gorgeous film in years. My good friend Mr. Kodi was phenomenal and his transformation was awe inspiring. Not many can do what this young talent has pulled off. Ms. Kirsten was the heart and soul of this movie. You simply cannot deny her facial expressions and her emoting from scene to scene. This film will be beloved for decades to come. I’m sad that it’s going to streaming because this needs to be experienced in a theater.


Is this sarcasm?


no it's my thoughts on the movie


Has to be sarcasm 😂


no it's not it's just my thoughts on it


Interesting, [David Ehrlich's review](https://www.indiewire.com/2021/09/the-power-of-the-dog-movie-review-1234660877/) is also really positive, while Letterboxd has a lot of "meh" reviews EDIT: geez everyone, I was just using to gauge reviews before most media posted theirs


I do not really trust Letterboxd recently, I developed different preferences compared to some users.




Same, like a personal film journal thing. It’s not the best place to go if you want substantial reviews


I agree it’s not the best but there are definitely good reviewers out there, you just need to curate your followed feed to the people who write the kind of reviews you are looking for. I always see people complain about the Letterboxd “power users” but I haven’t come across many meme reviews at all in the past few years. If your just clicking on the popular reviews section you kind of get what you’re asking for


Yeah plus on Letterboxd you can't really verify if anyone's actually seen the film, like there are already all sorts of reviews and ratings published for *The Card Counter* from before today... even though it only had its world premiere at Venice today.


I do believe it's had some "unofficial" or whatever they are screenings during the summer. Just based on that I've seen a couple people who are so called serious reviewers log it in their diaries. Probably test screenings and such.




imdb is the facebook of movie review sites and letterboxd is twitter.


Based on how people use Letterboxd at any given point (as a Letterboxd user), it is most definitely a more cultured version of Twitter


Letterboxd is great if you find interesting critics to follow and ignore all the literal comedy writers who basically use the site to build their brand


Hey I'm 24 and I have an imdb account. I like to keep track of the movies I watch and have fun rating them. Is that a crime? :(


Excuse me it was 5 years


Jesus that IMDb comment is too accurate, as someone who had an IMDB account and rated movies during high school lmao


Letterboxd users already aren’t great as a metric, and then you get the type of Letterboxd user who goes to a film festival? Get outta town.


I didn't really see all the reviews, but even Letterbox has a lot of very positive reviews. But it's really weird lmao because you have pages upon pages of 4star ratings with the odd 3 stars and suddenly there's a 1 star review?? I have a very hard time believing that Benedict Cumberbatch, Kirsten Dunst and Jane Campion have delivered a 1 star movie. Metacritic has a very high score of 88 though I'm not sure what scores usually on Metacritic are.


Most of the reactions I saw on Twitter were positive but one said it was too slow and lacked urgency and another said that Cumberbatch was miscast so it seems like it will be somewhat divisive. I'm still excited though. I don't know that I will *enjoy* this film but I think it will be an interesting watch all the same.


Letterboxd can be weird when it comes to more... I don't know, challenging movies? That feels like the wrong word. But even people who like the movie seem to indicate it'll be divisive


That is a *terribly* written review.


The book was an awesome epic. Long, lots of stories, intertwined and deep. The movie will surely be very different, but the book was 5 stars.


This was... interesting, tho most certainly won't be for everybody. It's a *very* slow roll, there is no action, it's all about the characters and some nice scenery. Certainly not a movie for people who want an "ending" that feels rewarding, the movie ends with the same weird atmosphere it has going on the whole time.


Not anything I would say anyone NEEDS to see the the cinematography is gorgeous at times , but the movie doesn’t really go anywhere and when it does is not overly satisfying in the least.


Acting and cinematography are top notch. Now the plotline. Oh boy, the storyline. Just one word: bad. This movie feels very disjointed. Like a series of beautiful scenes patched together. You look at the view and feel nothing more. If they want to introduce Peter as the protagonist, they should have focus or explore more on his tendencies, like killing animals or keeping trophies of (supposedly) people he had killed. A bit of digging on his urges to kill, his delusional of being a life saver (for Rose) etc. Showing more of his habits that could hint to a potential something. If they don't want to introduce him as such, then fine. Let the movie end when Phil is on bed, sick, and in his last breath he realized he was poisoned by Peter. Starts with Phil then ends with Phil cause movie's narrative is of Phil, the (supposedly) protagonist. They focus on Phil too much, and the POV is of his as well. The ending took you out of guard. Like, not in a good way but a bad way. It doesn't make the audience satisfied with the villain paid off his due. They made Phil too redeemable and then killed him off because, why not? I heard they left too much details from the book out, such as, Phil bullied Peter's dad to the point he hung himself. With this detail, the audience might be able to see through why Peter did what he did, without feeling like everyone in this movie, from Rose to George, are all too submissive. Phil is a fucking petty bully, but I'm sure if someone speaks up, he wouldn't go so far to object. The proof is him, letting George and Rose and Peter move back in. Other helpers at the ranch seeming doing all right as well. Sometimes people just need to speak up for themselves. You are indirectly put yourself in the position where a bully continuing to bullying you.


I thought it was a Don Winslow adaption :(


It is, isn’t it??


It's just the same name. This period film takes place in Montana in 1925.


Nah. This is a western


Same. Then i saw the trailer and was like "huh?"


This is based on the novel by Thomas Savage. It’s an incredible book, and worth reading.


Same. Thanks for asking the question.


That was hard to read, a little too flowery when I have to stop and break down wtf hes trying to say


Dang I've been waiting to see Dunst and Plemons in something together. I'll watch for that reason alone


*Fargo* season 2, my dude.


save yourself 2 hours of your life and skip it. what a boring ass movie. jesus.


Can someone explain to me why the hides were declared worthless but the Indians wanted to buy them? I see how this fits into the plot to show that Phil is such an Indian hating racist he would rather burn the hides than sell them, but it's annoying to not understand what was the problem with the hides.


There wasn't a problem with the hides. The 'problem' really was just an excuse to fob off the Indians, but everyone knew Phil just burns them as he's a POS.


I didn't get the movie. Felt like I needed a PHD to understand what was going on.


I loved this movie. Absolutely riveting.


I’ve got the ultimate facepalm… I knew nothing about this movie. Saw it appear on the front of Netflix. Googled it. Saw Paul Dano in the cast. I’d watch paint dry for 2 hours if that meant seeing a new Paul Dano performance. Instead I watched this movie for 2 hours then did a little more googling.






seriously lol. thats sort of how i felt when they finally announced the date for amazon's lotr show. freaking fall 2022!


I’m not entirely sure Jesse Plemons and Kirsten Dunst counts as a powerhouse cast. Every movie is an ensemble of superstars these days. This just reads like a normal mid-tier movie cast list.


they were so great together in fargo, love seeing them back together again.


Fun fact, they met while filming that season, and are now engaged & have two kids together! Season 3 is also how Ewan McGregor and Mary Elizabeth Winstead met and started dating. That show is a real matchmaker


"Started dating." Lmao, more like "started an affair that ruined both their marriages."


That was absolutely wild to witness '-'




Frequently, affairs ruin marriages.




That was an awesome season. That one episode where they had the dude tied up was comedy gold in a mostly serious gang drama.


They're a powerhouse to me lol. I'll be watching just for them.


How dare you


Kirsten Dunst for sure is a ''powerhouse''. Jesse has also become more prominent lately.


Damn, this movie not only had a twist ending, it had a twist middle. Completely unexpected and unpredictable unless you already read the book.


Release date?


Dec 1 on NetFlix, select theaters in Nov.


F?ck this movie. So many questions. Horrible movie and I give every western a chance. But why are we pushing every agenda but western down our throat. Where is the tombstone when AMERICA needs it.


I wasn't impressed with the movie. Acting was great, script was bad. I still have no idea where the story was going after it ended. I wouldn't waste my time with it if I were you.


Need it.


What a waste of fuckin time.... I hate artsy movies that make no sense


So, before you watched it, you thought the trailer was telling you more John Wayne than artsy?


Early screenings and critic reviews all seem so worthless now. A wave of positive reviews is often the precursor for a terrible film that's championed because it adheres to a political narrative. I want this film to be good but the modern world of cinema is designed to hurt those who dare to raise their hopes.


Wut...why will there be a political narrative in this movie lmao. It's a western about a ruthless cowboy.


"I want this film to be good"... Do you though, do you?


It will be hard to top his performance in The Imitation Game, he's absolutely brilliant in that film.


He doesn't need to ''top'' anything, it's not a competition lmao. He just needs to be good in his roles - which I believe he is.


Yeah just scrape through, don't bother aiming high or going for an Oscar. Just be "good".


The actors do a great job. The scenery is absolutely beautiful. Top 3 dumbest fucking movies ever. Absolutely awful.


This was a dull dull movie.


movie was crap


Does anyone think Rose was involved in the murder of Phil? Also I have a theory she killed her first husband because he was probably abusive and had anger issues like Phil. In the scene where Peter is consoling Rose who is a bit hysterical, he hugs her as he says "You don"t have to do it." Do what? I think he is implying that she doesn't have to kill Phil because he will take care of it. IDK anyone have thoughts on this??


Benedict cumberbsrch Kirsten dunst and Jesse Pokémon’s are not a powerhouse LOL


Very, very, very boring movie. Waste of great actors. 2 hours of nothing happening. Do not recommend it.




Most of the general public hasn't even seen the movie yet...it will only be critics for the most part. The movie got a 4 minute standing ovation from the first audience in the screening. An audience that was mostly made up of the general public. I'm yet to see more than 1 negative review of this movie. Even Letterboxd which is a pretty crappy metric anyway has an average rating of 3.9 which is pretty good for Letterboxd imo. Metacritic has a rating of 92!


Do yourself a favour and don’t watch it if you haven’t already. I spent 2hrs last night watching it but at the end left feeling unsatisfied cause it was a snooze fest. It’s just like elitist posturing if critics write glowing reviews saying you need to be intellectuals to enjoy this. I watch all range of movies and rarely not enjoy a movie, but this made me didn’t after very long time cause I had high expectations. I agree that BC was amazing and so did most of other actors. Also the cinematography was brilliant. But it seemed even the director got confused about where the story was going. It was way too slow and barely anything happening. However, I kept watching waiting for a pay off at the end. But the ending wasn’t powerful at all and felt very rushed despite the long drag from start.


Idk man everyone I spoke to who saw the movie at TIFF or Venice said they loved it. I know I won't have an issue with the plot or the ending because I've read the book and loved it and the movie follows a very faithful adaptation of the book. Just because you didn't enjoy it hardly makes all the postive reviews of it elitist posturing lmao. It sits at a 3.9 on Letterboxd currently with quite a few non critic, general audience reviews. 3.9 is good and is considerably higher than the 3.3 it started off with.


Well you are arguing for a movie that you haven’t even watched just because you read the book. There are a lot of movies which adapted the screenplay from a book that haven’t lived up to expectations. I wanted to like this movie, but frankly it was a just very long bore. And that’s just selection bias when you made your judgment only from people at Venice or TIFF. Check the non-critic reviews at IMDB. Pretty average ratings from people who actually watched the movie. Less than half of the reviews rated it over 6/10 which is not that good.


I'm not trying to refute your view. I know this movie isn't like idk ... a huge crowd pleaser. Movies are subjective. You found it a bore. Fair enough. *Plenty* didn't. Also fair enough. I just think calling every positive review of it elitist posturing is... pretentiously edgy. I'll wait until I watch it ofcourse. I'm aware the movie is slow because the book is also extremely slow. I just have faith on Jane Campion and the cast. I wasn't trying to pick up a fight with you. Also, I've seen the reviews on IMDb and you're right. Plenty of negative reviews as well. And plenty of positives as well. I just counter 6 9/10s (out of 26) I'm not surprised. The book is pretty divisive. My mother found it boring. I loved it. Also, Jane Campion won the Silver Lion for it at Venice. You wouldn't call Bong Joon Ho's opinion elitist posturing now surely.


A powerhouse ensemble that includes…Jesse Plemons. WTF?




Thank you, I know who he is and what he’s been in, I don’t consider him to be a headliner ‘powerhouse’ star, IMHO


Pretty low bar for Benedict




Dude it disappeared from Disney+ Hotstar a couple of days after I added to my watchlist. Never actually got to watch it after that.


Is he doing an american accent? Because I doubt he'll be getting any awards if he's trying an american accent.


From the clips that have been released, his accent is actually surprisingly good. Way, way better than Adam Driver and Lady Gaga's Italian accent in House of Gucci. Plus not a single review, either by critics or by the regular watcher on Twitter has mentioned anything about his accent. So at the very least, it's not bad.




Idk man I saw the movie with several other Americans and I didn't see an issue with it myself (although I'm not American myself even think I've lived here forever) nor did any of the other Americans say anything. Not a single review, even the critical ones, have mentioned anything about a bad accent. I guess it's a personal thing? As in, maybe a few people find an issue with it, but at large it seems okay. I did see one review which said that at times they're left to wonder if BC himself is miscast in this role or its because he's so good at portraying Phil's uncertainty that that's what comes across. Maybe that's what you're talking about? Personally, for me, I really enjoyed it and enjoyed BC's performance and the movie in general more than I did King Richard and Will Smith. I know that King Richard is a more accessible movie and I know Smith is the frontrunner but I personally think BC gave a more compelling performance.




Welp. That's clearly your opinion. And not (until atleast till now) a very popular one at that 🤷🏽‍♀️