Congrats to Promising Young Woman for 5 Oscar Nominations

Promising Young Woman ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Time to celebrate, if even only one or two of the five nominations come to actual wins. It’s an honor just being nominated and in our opinion this was among the best films released in the last year.

The film made history this week, landing five Oscars nominations: picture, editing and actress (Mulligan’s second run at the award), as well as original screenplay and director for Emerald Fennell. With her debut feature, Fennell has become the first British woman to be nominated for the director prize. This is the first year in which two women (Fennell and Nomadland’s Chloé Zhao) are in the running; they are only the sixth and seventh women to be shortlisted.

‘It’s wild!’ Carey Mulligan and Emerald Fennell on making Oscars history | Promising Young Woman | The Guardian

Will Mulligan win? After seeing the movie, I’m glad we can put out to pasture the ridiculous notion that she didn’t look hot enough for the role (see: Is An Actor’s Physical Appearance Off Limits In Reviews? Carey Mulligan Challenges Variety Review) She should win. Fennell as director? Maybe she should. What about the screenplay? Creative, cool and timely.

The other thing that makes me think this film will win at some of these five nominations is that it fits the current trend (is that the right word?) of women getting more attention for their creative efforts, not only their acting, in Hollywood. I’ve been a fan of several women filmmakers rising in talent and notoriety in recent years.

Have you seen Promising Young Woman yet? If not, take a look, come back, and let’s discuss it in the comments below. How many of these five nominations should win? All five? One or two? None? What do you think?

Monster Hunter ⭐️⭐️½

Originally released in theaters Dec 25, 2020

Monster Hunter – PG-13 – 1 hr 43 min
NO SPOILERS Movie Review
Watched in theater Sunday February 7, 2021
AMC Lakewood 12 – Lakewood, Washington
2nd new movie seen in theater in 2021

A ship is under attack by a massive, angry sea creature during a violent storm. The beast tears through the boat and a man is thrown into the lightning and clutches sand.

Cut to the next scene and a female Army Ranger leads her group toward a lightning storm only to inexplicably be transported to a desert world. They forge ahead and see the prior unit, completely burned to blackened skeletons, spent shell casings, but no footprints or evidence in the sand of who or what took the trained military unit down.

Suddenly, another creature appears and drives the team into nearby caves where giant bug-sized monsters afraid of light await, ready to capture and kill (some of?) the team. It’s not long before the woman meets up with the man from the ship and they try to plot a plan of survival and monster killing to go back to the lightning storm in the distance and return home. In their path are huge monsters that will test their ultimate fighting skills.

The movie starts fast, frenetic and somewhat erratic and left me thinking of something Michael Bay might have directed. Fortunately, once the monster threats are uncovered, it lets off the throttle enough so we can figure out who the main characters are. Turns out, we saw them from the beginning and the central plotline forms. It’s a survivalist adventure story that starts out feeling like a little bit of Starship Troopers meets a Godzilla-like monster movie. It has a pulpy, yet warm feel and design running through it.

At first I wasn’t that thrilled with the story itself — it’s possible for a feature film to be too simplistic story — then I came to like the basic nature of it and warmed up a little. The creature design is good. That must be where most of the money went into this picture. The characters are so thinly drawn you’ll see right through them if you look too long. The dialogue, what little of it there is since one of the main characters barely speaks English, is about as empty as the characterization.

Music? Sort of a weird techno mashup that doesn’t really fit. The action is where everything lives and dies throughout this film. If you are all about action with almost zero exploration in characters, any sort of complex story arc or twisting narrative, you’ll find this film more welcoming. If, like me, you prefer to have flesh on the skeleton, this comes up embarrassingly short.

On a positive note, this movie succeeds well at one thing: it makes you want to play the videogame it was based on. I left the theater longing to slay monsters with primitive weapons. For a movie based on a videogame — a genre that is known for producing awful movies — making viewers want to play the spotlighted game is a good thing. Sony, makers of the Playstation, clearly know how to promote games. This aspect of the movie is solid and rewarding.

Had the movie offered a more definitive ending — and since this is spoiler free, going to be intentionally vague here — I’d have given this a little higher rating. If you want to talk about a blatant sequel play, well, we will save that discussion for later, but come on, be at least a little less obvious. Even so, a better ending wouldn’t have made this rating high enough to recommend because that requires some sort of compelling story that makes me feel something for the characters. When we aren’t able to get to know these characters beyond skin deep flesh wounds, that disappoints instead of entertains.

It’s the monster hunting equivalent of using your weapons on a creature and having little effect. Yeah, that actually happens in this movie — a lot. I mean, how many times can you shoot fire inside a creature and it doesn’t die? The audience can only take so much of that before we start thinking it’s all a little hopeless. I’ve heard the game is pretty difficult, too, but am intrigued to give it a try. That’s the most positive thing I can say about this film. In the crowded space of movies trying to capitalize on videogame IP, it’s somewhere between meh and O…K.

Rating (out of 5 stars): ⭐️⭐️½ (Todd)

Promising Young Woman ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Promising Young Woman – R – 1 hr 53 min
NO SPOILERS Movie Review
Watched in theater Thursday February 4, 2021
Century 16 Sante Fe Casino Station Las Vegas, Nevada
1st new movie seen in theater in 2021

Cassie (Carey Mulligan), a promising med student, drops out of school after the death of her friend and fellow student Nina. Cassie was traumatized by the sexual assault of Nina at a party with a bunch of students and plans to seek a very unique and unusual revenge to everybody who didn’t do anything.

Fogell/Mclovin(!) from Superbad (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) doing cocaine lines and trying to put the move on Cassie was strange, awkward and creepy — precisely the mood the scene was looking for. The entire movie is built from scenes like these, cleverly placing Cassie intentionally in compromising situations where she acts drunk and able to be preyed upon or is confronting those who stood by or actively participated in Nina’s assault.

The screenplay and Carey Mulligan’s performance are both outstanding. Mulligan milks every scene for the ick factor. We want her to enact a special type of revenge — and you have to watch the movie to understand what that is and how it works, because I don’t want to spoil it here. It’s an unconventional, fresh exploration of date rape, primarily from the victim’s perspective, which I found very refreshing, albeit uncomfortable plenty of times, to watch.

Didn’t expect this movie to be this strong, but it was one of the best new movies to come out in 2020, even though it was released at the end of the year. Kara, however, didn’t feel as strongly. You’ll have to watch the video below for more details on how she felt.

Also, it’s the first “leaving the movie theater review” that we weren’t able to record when we left the theater. Long story short, the theater was located inside the casino and we stuck around afterwards for quite some time at the casino, not allowing us to record the “just left theater” experience. We recorded our feelings two days later on Saturday.

Promising Young Woman is showing in scattered open theaters throughout the United States right now as well as on VOD (although we would say wait for the rental to go down to the $5-7 price. It was the first movie we watched in a theater in 2021, at the Sante Fe Station Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hoping more movie watching theater experiences are like this in 2021. Off to a good start. Kara doesn’t recommend this, but I do.

Rating (out of 5 stars): ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ (Todd) ⭐️⭐️ (Kara)

Is An Actor’s Physical Appearance Off Limits In Reviews? Carey Mulligan Challenges Variety Review

Promising Young Woman starring Carey Mulligan currently sits atop our new movies in theaters watchlist.

Yes, very much want to see this movie! Hopefully in the next week or two we’ll have the opportunity.

This film was produced by Margot Robbie and honestly, Mulligan sort of looks a little like Robbie — at least from a distance. Close-up, they look very dissimilar, but before we get into Carey Mulligan reading a review and basically taking umbrage with the reviewer critiquing her appearance and if that should be off limits for a review, let’s talk briefly about the movie itself.

While trying to ignore reviews from others before actually seeing it ourselves (futile these days, I know!), I’ve noticed plenty of positive reviews. Rotten Tomatoes, sort of the go-to source used by media for wide-scale acceptance of reviews (whether or not we agree or disagree with this convention) has overwhelmingly positive reviews for the film to date. Also, at least one reader here has commented at this site already recommending we need to see this movie.

It came out on Christmas, alongside Wonder Woman: 1984. Since theaters in our area have been closed, we’ve been unable to view it on the big screen. It’s still showing at some theaters, so hopefully on vacation we can see it — finally.

On February 5, 2021, theaters in our area will finally be allowed to reopen again, assuming they continue to abide by limited seating requirements. That’s what they were like before, when they reopened for a short time. Regal Cinemas are still closed, but AMC is going to start back up again. I don’t know yet if they will be showing this film still when it reopens, but if we don’t see it on vacation, it will be at the top of the list to see locally when we get back in town.

Anyway, I’ve visited the PVOD and currently Promising Young Woman is available to stream, hoping that it will cost less than $19.99 to rent and/or be available to outright buy at that price. We want to see this in a theater, not pay to rent it at home for $20 (see: Yes, Some Are Paying $20 to Rent New Movies – But Is This The Right Price Point?)

Slightly related, I just watched Carey Mulligan in The Dig now streaming on Netflix and her performance there was very strong. It just takes one or two good performances for an actor to garner my attention. Mulligan is now firmly on my radar.

So, to recap, strong emphasis that we want to see this movie and will see it — soon. Now onto what actress Carey Mulligan is questioning and whether or not it’s fair game for reviews..

In a recently published conversation with fellow actress Zendaya for Variety’s “Actors on Actors” series, Zendaya asked Mulligan about her criticism of the review and the apology from Variety. “I feel it’s important that criticism is constructive,” Mulligan said. “I think it’s important that we are looking at the right things when it comes to work, and we’re looking at the art, and we’re looking at the performance and the way that a film is made. And I don’t think that goes to the appearance of an actor or your personal preference for what an actor does or doesn’t look like, which it felt that that article did.”

Carey Mulligan strikes back at review – CNN

I disagree that all criticism should be constructive. It certainly can help filmmakers do better work in the future if some sort of constructive criticism is provided in a detailed critique, but is it required? No.

That’s like saying we should dance around something we dislike, try and spin positive the negative. No, we just spent a finite amount of our lives with this creative content with the goal of being entertained. We have a right to be as critical and as non-constructive about this work as we want to be. Sorry, Carey Mulligan and anybody else who thinks we’re obligated to go gently with our review, but no, we aren’t.

Regardless her saying otherwise, Carey Mulligan seems to be taking the review personally. She was paid for this work. If a reviewer doesn’t like something about her work, they aren’t required to be “constructive” with their criticism.

Is it nice to be constructive? Sure. But nice, let’s face it, can be kind of boring. Who wants to read some wordy, bloated review that dances around Mulligan’s looks? If you don’t like how she looks in the role, just tell us straight. Shock jock type review writing, perhaps, but I’m in favor of and support reviewers writing their reviews however creatively they want.

Omit needless words! (as Professor Strunk would say)

That said, I don’t think being intentionally mean-spirited is a very good review strategy either. It might be funny to read for some (not those being criticized certainly), but vicious criticism that seems personal can be oft-putting for readers also, so there are lines best not crossed. I’m not going to state where those lines are, it’s up to each individual reviewer and his/her readers to define.

I don’t think telling a critic how s/he should review a movie — when reviews are subjective based on the person reviewing — is a fair criticism of the review process period.

Personally, I think everything and everyone involved with the finished product of the film, the actors — yes, their looks too — are open to criticism and review. That’s story, characters, sound, lighting, cinematography, writing, direction, makeup, wardrobe — again, the actors looks! — editing, runtime, and so on — all very much fair territory for review, critique and criticism. I also think the actors background and experience as regard to casting decisions are relevant. What movies or TV shows have the actors been in before? Are they a good fit for the role? All of this is fair game for criticism.

Lest we forget how many people were upset by how awful the cats looked in the movie Cats? That ruined the movie for many people.

Recently, and more specifically, the subject of what actress should play Lucille Ball (see: Hmm, Not Sure About Nicole Kidman Playing Lucille Ball in Aaron Sorkin Penned Biopic and Debra Messing Is Available To Play Lucille Ball – Again – And Has Family Support)

Can a review about a movie with a woman faking men out that she’s drunk and/or incapacitated so they will take advantage of her opens itself even more to questions about what the actress playing the character looks like? Duh!

Should note that there are all types of women who might play a role like this and there isn’t really a type appearance, except to look slutty. I realize that’s stereotyping, but I’m a guy and we are generally drawn to the way women dress and look. Physical attraction is a relevant review criteria in a movie like this especially.

We can get into the sex of a reviewer. Would women reviewers be less likely to examine Mulligan’s character looks than men? Perhaps. Maybe that’s what she’s trying to say (?) but it gets lost in the fact that she’s making this about all women everywhere.

Here’s the problem. If the reviewer had been more complimentary to Carey Mulligan’s physical appearance, she probably wouldn’t have said anything about this. Only because the reviewer in Mulligan’s own words that she “wasn’t hot enough” to pull off the role, was this an issue. But what if the reviewer had said she was hot enough, would Mulligan have raised the same issue?

I doubt she would have.

It’s almost always the negatives that bring out complaints. If we’re being totally objective — which is impossible when talking about a subjective review — and appearance of the actors is a criteria that the reviewer cannot be critical of, than s/he cannot be positive either. It must work both ways.

This is why I disagree with the premise that an actor’s looks don’t matter in a role as legitimate review criteria. Certain roles, I don’t see how an actor looks as important, but we think of nothing of describing prosthetics and how real people are portrayed (IE. Charlize Theron as Megyn Kelly in Bombshell, see: 20+ Bombshell Reviews – Charlize Theron Portrayal of Megyn Kelly Not Award-worthy), so why shouldn’t how an actor looks be a totally reasonable, relevant part of a review?

Heck, the Oscars give awards for makeup and wardrobe!

The simple truth is physical appearance can be widely changed by hair, makeup, wardrobe and prosthetics, so don’t tell me Carey Mulligan looks exactly like she does in Promising Young Woman in her every day appearance. So, even if the reviewer does criticize that she’s not “hot enough” to pull off the character, the criticism doesn’t seem lobbed at Mulligan directly, but at the way her character is presented in the film. Criticism of her looks then becomes blame that could be assigned to the makeup and wardrobe people. Or, maybe the reviewer doesn’t like Carey Mulligan’s looks compared to Margot Robbie and think Robbie should have been cast instead (a casting criticism). Sorry, Carey Mulligan, but that’s a completely fair review opinion.

Tried to present my argument for why an actor’s looks are not off limits in reviews. I applaud Carey Mulligan for commenting on the review and of course she’s welcome to disagree with it, but don’t think an apology by the publisher, was warranted. Of course I understand why they did it — because Mulligan was offended — but professionally, I don’t think it was necessary. This just props up other actors to complain about reviews and publishers to have a knee jerk reaction and throw their writers under the bus to save face for the publication.

That’s just BS.

Let reviewers review movies however they want. It’s art. Art. We all look at art in our own ways and are free to express our opinion on that art. We should not be limited by what we can and cannot criticize in a review. I think the whole argument over what’s professional or not is bogus. Mulligan cites the size of the publication mattering. That’s also bogus. Whether you have 1 reader or over a million, a review is a review is a review. Review the movie however you feel and by all means be honest. If being brutally honest is your style, take them down, tiger.

Your editor should support and defend your style, not attack it the instant it’s challenged. Even if it’s by the lead actress in the film. So what. Have some backbone already, Variety.

Maybe you rate movies based on how big the guy’s package looks or how how voluptuous the breasts are, whatever. If that’s part of your review criteria, so be it. Not mine — unless it’s a movie where breasts are relevant — but hey, more power to you, the reviewer.

My only request of reviewers are make it clear whether or not you recommend a movie or not in your review. I dislike reading reviews that don’t answer this simple binary choice. In some cases, I’ll leave a comment to this effect, “are you recommending this or not?” Have some sort of criteria, rating score, etc, which answers that simple important yes/no question. Please!

(Our recommended criteria changed Jan 1, 2021, it’s explained here: Effective Jan 1, 2021 We Will Only Recommend Movies 4-Star and Above)

Whatever you say about the movie itself in the body of your review is your opinion and, sorry Carey Mulligan, the reviewer’s personal opinion does matter. What makes all writing unique is the writer’s voice, their perspective.

Lastly, let me give Ms. Mulligan some personal advice: if you’re going to take what reviews say personal, then don’t read them. She admits she was “weak” for doing it, so already is acknowledging that she probably shouldn’t be commenting on reviews of movies she stars in. Um, yeah.

I’ll give Mulligan major kudos, however, for her impassioned explanation of what concerned her about the review. Read it here:

“And I think if women continually look on screen and don’t see themselves, that’s not helpful for women or for anyone, really — that we’re not going to tell authentic stories. So I think in criticizing or sort of bemoaning a lack of attractiveness on my part in a character, it wasn’t a personal slight, it wasn’t something that I felt. It didn’t wound my ego, but it made me concerned that in such a big publication, an actress’ appearance could be criticized and it could be that, you know, that could be accepted as completely reasonable criticism.

Carey Mulligan Responds to Variety’s Apology for ‘Promising Young Woman’ Review

It’s a very eloquent response and almost wins me over to her perspective. Almost.

Do we know absolutely that the reviewer meant to attack Mulligan personally — or more broadly all actresses — through the review? Despite her saying otherwise, she took it personally and responded as if the review was slighting women actresses everywhere. That’s where she lost me in her argument.

And now you have all these people talking about review criteria, what’s acceptable, what’s not, etc. That’s a discussion worth having, hence this post on the subject, but the reality is we’re never, ever, ever all going to agree 100% on an absolute convention for all reviews. Not going to happen. Is it even worth the effort? Maybe that’s the real question.

Now, I leave this to you. Do you think an actor’s looks are fair game for review criteria? Yes, no, why? Why not?