There are moments in this movie that are wonderfully done. The scene where Monica tells Jacob she has lost faith in him for example. But this story really does struggle with the narrative. It just tumbles from emotional moment to moment. It is never entirely clear what this family actually wants. Perhaps this is intentional; the family members themselves can't seem to agree. Still, I think it's an important part of story telling, and for the audience to be invested in the characters, for them to know what the objective is. The American Dream; prosperity; security: all of these things are too general.
It is good that the film avoids the 'fish out of water' tropes. Unfortunately it engages in a pointless inversion of the trope by making the locals weird, and for no good purpose. The tobacco chewing kid with the deadbeat dad; the religious lunatic farmhand; the church caricatures. Pointless.
The script too is predictable, which is saying something for a story that doesn't tell a story. We know from the beginning there will be one or more calamitous setbacks. We know from the instant Grandma arrives that she will either be an agent for hope or chaos.
The acting is first rate. The cinematography contrived and ugly. The script fails to tell us anything. Had this film revolved around a white working class family looking for a tree change I have no doubt it would have been panned.
Can't find a movie or TV show? Login to create it.
Want to rate or add this item to a list?
Not a member?
Reply by tmdb53400018
on March 13, 2022 at 2:40 PM
Of course, the critics don’t always get it right. We’re people with opinions like anybody else.
Reply by Jacinto Cupboard
on March 13, 2022 at 8:37 PM
I meant professional critics. When it's people like you and me it's just opinions.
Despite the internet flowing with consumer reviews of everything from restaurants to underwear, I believe there is still a place for the professional critic to contextualise, inform and explain. Depending on where you get your information and from whom, this is still possible with theatre, book and art reviews. I no longer believe professional film critics offer much value.
A part of that is market and social dynamics. Books are read by thousands, movies are watched by millions. The blowback from a book review that is discordant with public sentiment will usually be minor; get out of step when it comes to a movie and that can be life changing. It would have been a brave film critic to have called Chadwick Boseman's Oscar nomination sentimental and un-deserved. Minari on Rotten Tomatoes has critics rating of 98%. This is higher than The Godfather II.
What the thread title really means to say, is that movie critics cannot be trusted.
Reply by tmdb53400018
on March 13, 2022 at 10:42 PM
There you go again, ranking people on the internet message board.
I'll inform you that I am a "professional critic." For what it's worth, I became what you call a Vine Voice for Amazon last year. And this is only the latest phase of my calling as a critic.
You should've written, "When it's people like me, it's just opinions."
Reply by Jacinto Cupboard
on March 13, 2022 at 10:52 PM
'Again'? You make it sound like we have had this discussion before. We haven't. It's exactly that sort of failure to properly understand what one is reading, hearing or seeing that is at the heart of the complaint.
You made the thread about you. Not only a thread hijack but a conceited one at that.
And I don't give a damn what you do in your spare time. On here your opinions are worth no more or less than anyone else's.
If you have something to say about Minari, I might be interested to read it. Save the other stuff for pick up lines in bars or your CV.
Reply by tmdb53400018
on March 13, 2022 at 11:27 PM
We have had a dialogue like this before, Jacinto Cupboard. Not long after you and I began exchanging messages here--and I may always remember this as long as I post here--you once stated to me that you might not "take (me) seriously" for doing what I had done back then. It was your wording that implied hierarchy, as far as I am concerned. You probably don't recall this incident. I do.
Maybe I should've left your post alone, because in retrospect I feel baited into a fight for trying to reply to you politely.
Reply by Jacinto Cupboard
on March 13, 2022 at 11:46 PM
I haven't had any conversation with a person claiming to be a professional film critic. Not here nor anywhere else. I have had a rather strange series of exchanges with a person who was trying to break into script writing. That person claimed to have had 'history' with me but when challenged was unable to find anything. That person also, eventually, conceded they have mental health issues.
I'm not going to waste my time trolling back thru years of my own posting history, or yours, but it is reasonable for me to think you are the same person.
I'm sympathetic to your situation. But I will not be drawn into a quarrel with you over the value of professional movie reviews since your position seems to be based on your own self esteem issues. I am not your therapist, nor am I a sounding board for your ideas about the 'hierarchy' of opinion.
My position is simple: critics get it wrong and they got it wrong with Minari. I explained why on both counts. If you have a counter position that involves reference to the actual movie or the conditions in which cultural commentary are taking place, then that's a legitimate thing to do. But your personal situation should never enter into it.
Reply by tmdb53400018
on March 14, 2022 at 12:19 AM
I feel you ought to calm down, Jacinto Cupboard. Some points about this exchange: 1. You made the thread, to an extent, about me; I didn't. You did this back when you implied that I am not a professional critic, in the third post down. 2. You seem unusually angry about something or things by some of your writing in the thread, and not your usual cool, logical self. Maybe take some time to figure out what's really bugging you. 3. I don't want a quarrel either.
Reply by Jacinto Cupboard
on March 14, 2022 at 12:38 AM
I'm not in the slightest angry. I feel you waste my time with conversation about yourself and some imaginary slight.
Fwiw, I do put some thought into my comments and I have a reasonable expectation that others do the same. I'm not a bomb thrower who just starts or adds to a thread something explosive for shit and giggles. It's a conversation about something one assumes to be of shared interest. Otherwise, why would anyone be here or bother reading?
So when I get an alert that someone has replied to something I have posted and I discover that it is just some personal nonsense of no interest to me and which entirely ignores the subject, that's a nuisance.
Reply by tmdb53400018
on March 14, 2022 at 3:37 PM
About the "nuisance"- so what? It's an open forum, and I can reply any way I please, Jacinto. To get nerdy & hyper judgemental about your posts - you like to "innocently" post topics here - often no one responds to them but me, and it's for a reason. It's called baiting. But no worries Mr. Cupboard. I'll just put you on block. I'm all about minimizing the conflict.
Reply by Jacinto Cupboard
on March 14, 2022 at 8:24 PM
Lots of people cause a nuisance on threads. It's the internet after all. Most of the time it can be passed over without a second thought. But your replies directly addressed me, and in the form of an accusation.
I took the opportunity in replying to that accusation, to expand on the point I made originally. When I saw that you again replied, the hope was that you had decided to say something about the actual movie, which by the way, you have given no indication that you have even seen.
Yes, you can reply in any way you choose. I am telling you it is thread hijack and a nuisance.
As for 'no one responds': there are possibly more threads on these boards that have no replies than ones that do. Many movies have no comments whatever. I see the same few handles repeatedly and very little new ones. That's not a criticism of this site; one hopes that over time it will spring into life. And even modest discussion is better than none at all. But for you to point to a lack of participation with the inference that it is because my posts are 'bad for business' is a cheap shot and indictive of how poorly you understand the nature of discourse.
As for blocking me: that saves me the trouble of blocking you.
Reply by tmdb53400018
on March 19, 2022 at 1:10 AM
BTW:
Your words to me up above didn't seem calm at all (such as "I don't give a dam what you do in your spare time"). And also, the way you invent new rules as to how we should post (no defending yourself!) is hubris at its worst.
Your words up above are the prosaic equivalent of noise. They have very little to do with my posts nowadays. And why would you be here? To bait me so that you could undercut me in front of others, of course. Your view is a delusion. And you threw a bomb -- at me.
And you are, without question, the worst excuse for a "critic" I have ever seen at this site -- with maybe not a constructively posed sentence to all of your posts.
Reply by tmdb53400018
on March 19, 2022 at 1:24 AM
Your earlier reply directly addressed me in the form of a false statement about me.
It's strange. I've said it before that the lack of replies to posts here at this site often 'says' more than the replies do. And anyone who can think for themselves, instead of following your poppycock, will get it that there's something very strange about that.
Do what you will.
Reply by Jacinto Cupboard
on March 19, 2022 at 1:34 AM
The sort of thread hijack you pulled here would have got you banned on a lot of forums.
I don't believe you've even seen the movie. Nothing you have posted so far indicates that you anything to say about it.
Reply by tmdb53400018
on March 19, 2022 at 1:45 AM
Again, you're making up rules as you go along as to what I / others can post.
There are plenty of threads here wherein posters stray off the original topics of the threads, and the discussions go just fine if you ask me. Plenty. Why single me out?
Reply by Jacinto Cupboard
on March 19, 2022 at 1:48 AM
I wasn't making any rules. You are functionally illiterate.