pancake bacon

That's a fair statement. Winning accolades/Oscars is far more complex in what it takes. This is why, personally, this version of Little Women pains me. Greta Gerwig let me down. But as seen in this thread… that's just one point of discussion.

What do you think that would be? (Honest question.) Micarah (the YouTuber) makes very valid points how the progress of fashion could've have helped support the non-linear timeline, and even more valuable, the relative lesser wealth of the Marches and how this status plays in the economics of what had the Little Women had to face was way, way far from reflected in the costuming of Marmee and the March girls. The approach of Durran takes away what the March family stood for, and way it was important. Maybe Durran had a fantastical, "unconventional" philosophy to the costuming, and as I said, this is a bad decision to me. Through the movie, either we are grounded in the harsh realities of what marriage meant (Amy's big, showstopper monologue) and defying the publishing norms (Jo's book), or the movie focuses on a critical and symbolic attempt to revise the female experience. That's a tough call to pull off both, and Greta struggled with it. She had a surer vision in Ladybird (which I loved).

"Where's the real Meg? Oh wait… I found her! She's still in 1994, uh… wearing a bonnet." While this reaction video (since gone viral with over 2 million views) by this YouTuber is a humorous critique of the Oscar-winning costuming in 2019's Little Women, you get to learn that costuming isn't just about beauty and dazzle, but underscores character and storytelling. The numerous bad choices by Jacqueline Durran and ultimately director Greta Gerwig, to me, further demonstrates that the 2019 version is merely political point of view (one that I actually support in real life) in search of movie. It's bad cinema.

I thought Emilia was marvelous in Solo too, the best I've ever seen her in. She was in the pocket, without going over like she did in roles like Me Before You. And honestly, one reason Emilia was great in Solo was that Ron Howard was able to tame her hammy eyebrows! Seeing those brows overdo it on the big screen in Me Before You is a horror I still haven't shaken off…

Different strokes, for sure. The 1994 version was wonderful, with director Gillian Armstrong able to make very interesting and engaging while retaining the linear storyline. Give it a go.

@sel — please, why are you in my brain? 😄 The 2019 version of Little Women has a lot of great things going for it: generally worthy performances, great dialogue (it just didn't belong in the movie, I thought) and Greta Gerwig's love for the book ensured that every moment was put together with care and attention. But that care and attention also led to some very wrong choices. The non-linear storytelling was very confusing for newcomers to the Alcott tale, and for those who knew the story, many iconic moments felt ungrounded or didn't land emotionally. One thing that irked me the most, is that characters kept saying, and not showing. Marmee saying she's "angry." Jo's speech about the value of women, and you can still be lonely (I know that's a bad recap) was lovingly written and performed – as a speech. Thanks for the spoon feeding, IMO. (And I guess they had to resort to saying because the story was non-linear*?) This aspect makes the 1994 version stronger in comparison. Susan Sarandon's Marmee was angry too, and you felt it in every nuance. Jo is shown in many scenarios how women have been denied so much, simply for being a woman. That scene about arguing over women's suffrage (with an early Donal Logue!) communicates that 2019 speech made by Jo, into action and storytelling in 1994. Beth's story wasn't Beth's story anymore too – it was the story about Laurie's grandfather. Timothee Chalamet and Florence Pugh looking the SAME all throughout the movie hurt the non-linear style's chances of working. There are other several instances of bad choices for this film. But all told, Greta Gerwing getting a nomination for Best Director would have been a vital leap forward for diversity at the Oscars, but in a filmic dimension, I thought the 2019 version was badly directed. *Side note: not saying non-linear never works… it has worked beautifully in many movies. Arrival and Manchester by the Sea come to mind. Cried buckets for both.

But at least Randy Newman has an Oscar already. Thomas hasn't even landed one. But yes, the Newmans should be recognized alongside the Coppolas and the Hustons as an Oscar family. Matt Damon's performance is one of the high hallmarks of cinema acting I've seen ever. He earned a pancake bacon Eternal Pass (and it gets close to being revoked sometimes; why are you problematic, Matt?) and it's the kind of smart, internalized role that the Academy doesn't reward so much anymore, which leads me to… New Unpopular Opinion (from me, but maybe not this thread): I'm still have faux-PTSD from Leo diCaprio's extreme campaigning on his Revenant run. Apart from totally playing up the "he's due" card (and really, Leo could still wait), campaigned hard core that he even got an audience with Pope Francis (could that ever be topped?) – for a role that for me, was three hours of parlor tricks acting. That year, I wished the Academy had given the Oscar to… Matt Damon for The Martian.

I'm not a super fan of Bradley Cooper, but the guy learned to sing, learn to play guitar, lowered his voice and sang LIVE for the camera. (Oh, he also wrote, produced and directed the movie.) What else does he have to do? Rami was good in getting the choreography of being Freddie right, but other than that, there really wasn't much to his performance. (I AM a super fan of Queen and Freddie, and while I wasn't looking for accuracy, Rami's Freddie just didn't have spirit.) So Rami's win (and I love the guy too, don't get me wrong) double snubbed Cooper and Taron Edgerton who had to take on a 1970s flamboyant musician, with more substance an depth. But my real heartbreak on this topic is composer Thomas Newman, who has lost a record 15 nominations, the most recent one for 1917. He's done amazing scores for The Shawshank Redemption, Little Women, Finding Nemo, Wall-E, American Beauty, so much more. His work is heard all the time as trailer music for other movies, montages on the news – his work is iconic and stands the test of time. I can't annoyed when the "they're due!!!" card is played, because many of the choices can take a seat, please. Good thing Roger Deakins (13 losses before he won) and sound designer Kevin O'Connell (21 losses before he won) have gotten their statues already. (PS. Thomas' father, Alfred Newman – he of the 20th Century Fox fanfare logo music – won 9 Oscars himself. I hope this isn't an added torture for Thomas.)

I can't quite reconcile how I feel about Florence Pugh. She's a great actress and put in a great performance in Little Women, but she's not quite the best Amy… not entirely. Kirsten Dunst was an absolute delight as a young Amy with her comic timing and ability to make the saga of pickled limes the right amount of silly, charmed nonsense. When she burns the book, the performance feels consistent of what a indulged youngest March girl would do to an elder sister. The 1994 version also sets up the Laurie/Amy adult romance much better, but I'll direct that position in the Little Women thread. Florence Pugh is the best adult Amy with one good monologue on marriage? I just didn't buy Pugh as the 12-year-old (13? 14?) Amy, and found those young Amy scenes painful to watch.

So… James Bond. My Dad collected all of them on home video, and he loved re-watching Bond movies from the Connery-Lazenby-Moore era. I really wasn't into them at all despite seeing various sections/scenes in passing. Too noisy, kind of corny and just not that interesting to me. I finally chose to see a James Bond movie and it was A View To A Kill. Because: Duran Duran sang the theme song, and I sure was a Duranie! (Now you know me age, lads and lassies!) Despite Roger Moore being quite handsome, Christopher Walken as the villain and Grace Jones as a fantastic Bond girl/villainess, and the movie was more of the what I already saw at home. The second and third Bond movies I willingly saw were the unpopularly loved yet lovingly enjoyed by me, Timothy Dalton pair of The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill. This time, I was heavily crushing on Dalton and his buttery, buttery voice, especially after watching The Lion In Winter, his debut movie. (Side note: Go see this! The dialogue is just the tastiest snark.) I wasn't into Brosnan, so I skipped all his Bond ventures. So when Daniel Craig was announced as the new James Bond… I was all: Huwatt? That's a step down for Craig! I already was a Craig fan, and the Bond franchise sure was lucky to have him! So for me, Casino Royale and Skyfall are the best picks of the franchise. His other two were… acceptable. I love the Little Women saga, and I loved Ladybird, and with all the glorious reviews for Greta Garwig's adaptation, I was ready to be amazed. But I found this 2019 version painful. The 1994 version was just the zenith of how warm, delightful and powerful the March story can be expressed in film form. Winona Ryder was a sensational Jo – I loved how she can convey so much with just her face. She didn't monologues to push out the limitation and the potential of women in her era. Same with the Marmee character – Laura Dern got points for saying how "angry" she was every day of her life, but the anger was felt in Susan Sarandon's every gesture. Show don't tell, and that's how the 1994 version remains the best for me. Also, Gabriel Byrne was just aces as Friedrich Bhaer. He was romantic and it was a love story of equals despite many differences.

It's still the third time! We had Raja and Manila Luzon in Season 3!

It's not just my birthday AND Christmas, but you brought some ice cream too, @Danny Franks! I've always been perplexed that Christian Bale gets automatic Oscar consideration for every role he plays, and I don't think he's been good in almost all of them: not even in Empire of the Sun, not in American Psycho, and most of all not in American Hustle. (Renner was more affecting with his performance, so he got robbed.) I don't watch a lot of Bale's work because, well, I'm not fan. He does have nothing going on behind his eyes! I've never felt greatness beaming out of him in his performances. PS. Thanks to all of you for getting what I was trying to say in my initial post, despite a crucial missing word/typo! ("I'm just not into the worship of him.")

It was just Christmas and it must be my birthday too, because I feel this way about Hugh Jackman. Wolverine ate up the whole X-Men movie series. I avoid movies with Jackman too… I'm just into the worship of him. To compound this unpopular opinion, I thought Jackman was overacting and sang TERRIBLY in Les Miserables. I'd taken Russell Crowe in that movie any day. Russell acted that movie well, though I can can his voice was not the "Broadway" standard.

Patrick Wilson was the best in that movie. Do audiences really like The Phantom? (Don't answer. Just being rhetorical.) And in a slight inverse to the forum topic, I was supposed to like Emmy Rossum's Christine, but Emmy's acting was absolute crap in that movie (ALL her scenes she has her mouth open. ALL).

I've seen both versions as well (Jonny as the Creature thrice, and the Doctor once). Jonny is definitely the more compelling, affecting, haunting Creature than Benedict Cumberbatch. And Benedict is strongly suited to the Doctor: sharp, self-assured, quite magisterial. Somehow dovetails to their respective Sherlock Holmes portrayals!

I posted too soon… but I'm so happy to see the love for the 2000 production on this thread! This 'updated' version provided a valuable framework for the most recent NBC Live presentation, which evolved it further in many ways that I loved. You can't just knock the music and libretto of Jesus Christ Superstar — it's memorable and pretty substantial in its approach on Jesus, and the accounts leading to his crucifixion. (Personally, seeing the humanity of Jesus adds to his divinity.) Anyone else sang along the entire show when you watch it again?

Jerome Pradon was pretty good vocals-wise (Carl Anderson from the movie and Murray Head from the cast recording are usually considered the best), but his guilt, pain and yes, love for Jesus was beautifully portrayed. The 2000 performance wasn't live, but the used their camera work brilliantly. Apart from the capturing Judas' narrative with well-timed cutaways, Glenn Carter's Jesus and his growing dismay and fears were also shown. Showing these played out are crucial — the play gets so much substance out of it. That was the real let-down for me in this recent version: during the Hossana/entrance into Jerusalem, I wished there was shot of Brandon Victor Davis' Judas at some point, and worst of all, saw John Legend looking dopey/out of the moment during the sections of "won't you fight for me" and "won't you die for me." That said, the I loved the energy of this new production – the ensemble really brought it up! Like many on this thread, this musical is imprinted so deeply on me; parents played the cast album all throughout my youth every Holy Week, and I can sing along the entire musical, really. I'm not surprised this 2018 staging did well. It's a terrific musical that is entertaining and spiritual. Nearly everyone was fantastic — a great Judas makes or breaks JCS, and Davis was excellent! John Legend and Sarah Barielles (sp?) were a mixed bag: some great high points, but they were a bit of shambles, acting-wise.

No, you pick up Kevin early from camp… Or if the camp was "close by", how about dropping by to visit him, and surprise Kevin that they were going to have some cabin fun nearby when camp was done. They could've thought more about it, but they didn't. Yes, hindsight is 20/20, and not thinking a bit more doesn't mean bad parenting. But it's realizing things weren't perfect.

Plus, he broke up with the mother of his child (Isabelle Adjani) through a fax message. You nailed the problem with Daniel Day Lewis, @NUguy514! He's good, but he hardly deserves getting an Oscar by default. There is no magic in his acting. All technique, no artistry.

By sheer volume and story quality, Claire & Jamie's story is very well told. The show's not a zero sum game, in my probably unpopular opinion. Adding dimensions to Frank makes this a better show.

Neglected Jamie? He's the lead character of the show. Frank has been in a handful of episodes. How much build-up could've happened? We've seen a lot of Jamie compared to Frank, so in that comparison, he's not neglected at all. Now, if you had said too much Black Jack, then have it.

We can change a character into a person of color (which is great!) but we can't change the color of Poirot's mustache? What gives!? [end sarcastic mode] [Just in case]

I liked having movies like Gifted available to see in the cinema. It's a wonderful moviegoing pleasure to see 'human' stories on the big screen. I'm glad Chris Evans opted to make a movie like Gifted, given what he has license to do based on his successful Marvel films. And he's a wonderful actor – he should drama more often, and he's always been a terrific comedy actor. I didn't enjoy this movie a lot though. Giving the mother more dimension and space as a character would have made the conflict have more substance and stakes. For instance, I liked seeing how genuinely happy Diane looked in her photos with her mother; there was an aspect to Diane that enjoyed Math, and probably had an actual relationship with her mother. It seemed the script were giving more dimension to Evelyn and Mary's relationship when Mary was excited and looked forward to solving Millennium problems one day. I guess I personally would've have found the story more moving to have Frank and Evelyn see what see each other brought to the table to provide better for Mary. (Making it cold, academic AND British [!] versus honest, hardworking bathed in sunlight was a bit much. I got it, movie!)

This is the mic drop of the "Need a Good Cry" thread. How. Dare. You. (Haha)

I could be on-board with that idea! But realistically, I would settle for Randall getting the screen-time/writer time that Kevin got in Season 1. Just to even out the balance of the show… We've seen a load of Randall's parent issues already (and Kate's too), but mysteries abound about Kevin and his relationship with Jack and Rebecca. How about a scene with young Kevin building planes with Jack? What does Rebecca even think of Kevin – young Kevin, teen Kevin and most intriguingly, adult Kevin? We have no idea!!