Discriminatory? Lol
I know little about her, just that they’re throwing every bit of PR they can at making her happen 😂
I mean, your ores find at the Oscar’s and no one knows who you are. Talk about shoe horning.
This is actually a good thing, I'd rather be curiously intrigued than watch the entire movie in a minute and a half. Which was the trailer for Killers of the Flower Moon, and many others.
While too much is also a problem for other trailers, I literally have no fucking clue what this movie is about. Sex? Family drama? Aliens? Who knows? Not me.
I don't want the full story, but even a tiny clue would be nice. I'm not entirely sure how someone can be intrigued. Nothing in the trailer tells you a goddamn thing.
It feels like it's banking solely on the director and cast, which doesn't really mean anything. It's nice if you're desperate loyal to a certain director, but then why have a trailer at all?
Honestly, at least getting an idea of the genre would be nice. I assume its romance comedy-ish, but if I went to watch the movie, and it turned out to be horror, I would not be surprised (assuming you don't know what those actors usually do).
One of the problems is that this is actually 3 stories in one, a triptych, so that makes a trailer both hard to convey the story and also hard to follow.
I didn't even watch this trailer because I feel they spoil too many aspects of the movie nowadays, I just go to the comments to find out if people like it generally or not. Now idk what to do
I usually do the same but made an exception for this one because it looked interesting and I can definitely say that I have no idea what this movie is about or feel like I've been spoiled in any way
It’s okay to watch. It’s a chunkier version of the previous ‘Sweet Dreams’ teaser but, it is still just as vague and compelling.
This trailer though seems to be pretty focused in on Plemons, so I think they’re gunning for his awards after his Cannes win
From the Wikipedia [article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinds_of_Kindness):
>...described as a triptych fable, consists of three distinct but loosely connected stories. The first segment, *The Death of R.M.F*, follows a man who seeks to take charge of his own destiny after breaking away from his powerful boss. The second, *R.M.F. is Flying*, depicts a man plagued by suspicions that his spouse, who has recently returned after being reported missing, is an imposter. The final segment, *R.M.F. Eats a Sandwich*, revolves around a cultist's task to find a specific person with the ability to resurrection|resurrect the dead.
From wikipedia, Poor Things was filmed in August to December 2021 and Kinds of Kindness was filmed in October to December 2022, in case anyone was wondering
It's not her "new thing", it's her second film by the same director, who creates wildly bizarre odd movies like these. She loves working with him, not specifically because of the theme.
Don't forget about The Curse and Maniac. Different directors than Yorgos, of course, but it shows that Stone likes doing weird projects. Good for her!
Easy A still slaps though.
Same reason actors and crew hang around Wes Anderson and Guy Ritchie movies. Just a group of people that make things and have a good time doing it. It's almost as if you don't have to be a primadonna to make movies like some directors and actors seem to be.
Can you explain this comment? To me, an absurdist dark comedy produced in Europe on a $15 million budget doesn't exactly qualify as a mainstream movie, but I don't know that much about film or the movie industry.
I see where you’re coming from, but if a movie has a worldwide release and is starring Emma Stone, Willem Dafoe and Jesse Plemons, that can for sure count as a “mainstream” movie. Budget notwithstanding.
Still, a mainstream movie that isn’t a sequel/adaptation/etc. is very welcome imo. Not sure why OP’s comment had the tone of an eye-roll.
So basically if it has any known actors or isn’t just premiering at festivals and a very small number of theaters it’s mainstream? Pretty dumb definition of that
> isn’t just premiering at festivals and a very small number of theaters it’s mainstream
I mean yes that's basically the definition of mainstream, widespread availability which indicates widespread engagement.
The problem is conflating mainstream with 'bad'.
Put it this way, if a film opens at only festivals and a small number of theatres, does that mean it isn't mainstream? And if it's not mainstream on that logic, conversely mainstream must mean opening in a lot of places.
That’s just a completely different definition of what the average person considers mainstream. And no, I’m not saying mainstream = bad, despite you assuming I am.
My whole point is that out of everyone I know, I can probably count on one hand the number of people that will even know what this movie is. For me, it’s not mainstream. The general public doesn’t know an overwhelming majority of the films that even make it up to the festival circuit.
We have different definitions of mainstream and that’s okay. But it just screams that you’re very deep in your own bubble if you run around saying a film is “mainstream” because it’s made it to a festival.
> But it just screams that you’re very deep in your own bubble if you run around saying a film is “mainstream” because it’s made it to a festival.
That's not at all what I said? I said films only available at festivals and a small number of theatres would be considered non-mainstream.
And if that is true, so then is the opposite, that films available in a large number of theatres are comparatively mainstream.
In the grand scheme of things, yes. Compare this to the hundreds of films that come out every year without any big name actors.
I think the point the original commenter is that films like Kinds Of Kindness often develop quite a following of fans who claim it’s an “underground, art house flick” merely because it’s relatively low budget, ignoring the fact that they really only watch movies that have big name actors in them.
Sure, but it’s like a 0.001% of the population watching the types of films you’re talking about. Simply because there are known actors in a film *does not* make it “mainstream”.
Just because you’re so deep into the world of film doesn’t mean everything a single level up from what you watch is mainstream.
There's also a sort of art-house-lite quality too. It's weird compared to the mainest of the mainstream, but it's also not that unpalatable or hyper-niche. Like Wes Anderson. Or Robert Eggers. Outside of the extended scenes of masturbation, I wouldn't say there's much in The Lighthouse that is actually difficult to enjoy for someone without much experience with films outside of the mainstream.
The even lighter version of this would be the films of Christopher Nolan and Denis Villenueve. Supendeously successful filmmakers, and by no means the pinnacle of thematic depth, complex intellectual plots, or out-there concepts. But comparatively intellectual compared to the standard fare of blockbuster filmmakers, so they pick up the reputation as being the thinking man's filmmakers. But actually they're really very accessible still.
Personally, none of it is a negative. But I do have to acknowledge the reputations they get amount 'film bros' is overstated. This film isn't Dogville, or a $10K silent art film. That kind of sentiment just feels like someone who has only eaten at family chain restaurants going to middle-of-the-road proper italian restaurant and acting like it was some you-need-to-reserve-six-months-in-advance-and-if-you-need-to-ask-the-prices-you-cant-afford-to-go French 3 Michelin star establishment. I like McDonalds, I love my local Italian restaurant, but I'm not gonna say I'm a high-end food connoisseur for just rising above the bottom standard.
I don’t think this is a very standard or useful understanding of “mainstream”. Typically, it has more to do with how the work is financed, produced, and marketed than whether or not it happens to use actors who have appeared in other mainstream films.
Just because an actor has been commercially successful doesn’t mean the weird art house stuff they do for fun is automatically “mainstream”. Elijah wood and Daniel Radcliffe have both done some weird shit that definitely did not have mainstream appeal. There are more categories besides “mainstream” and “film student class project”
You’re talking more about the production/pre-release aspect of the film, and that’s true enough. But I am more talking about how the film will do in the market.
Poor Things is the most obvious comparison. Still has that Art House feel, but it made $100 million worldwide and is one of the most-watched films on Disney+. Maybe not a blockbuster, but definitely mainstream.
Prominent Hollywood stars, the trailer focuses on the "weirdness" of the film which is, however, a very predictable kind shown to be tolerable and accepted (see Poor Things, same director, same actors).
It's not mainstream the way say Marvel movies are mainstream, but it is mainstream in that it follows a formula.
Redditor invents a kind of person in their head.
Redditor eye rolls at the existence of such a person.
Redditor smiles to themselves.
“Sure showed them!”
Who cares, Yorgos is a great director, and from everything I’ve heard, this is much more in line with Dogtooth than it is with Poor Things (which was probably is most accessible movie, still loved it though).
Holy shit I need to go stare at a wall for a minute. I feel so ADD after watching that. Is this the way trailers are going to be now? Nothing longer than 1.3 seconds before it cuts.
These kinds of trailers are great because you can pick up on theme, tone, and atmosphere, but come away having no idea what you're actually going to see in the movie.
I'd much rather watch a trailer like that over the standard show-all-the-best-parts-and-TLDW-the-story.
Yup! This gave me an idea of the vibe but pretty much nothing about the story, just the way I like it. I HATE those trailers that basically show you the whole movie as a recap.
With the exception of 80’s movie trailers, which were hilariously bad in hindsight, I would say anything that doesn’t cut every 1.3 seconds. Length doesn’t matter.
There’s a big difference between adhd (add doesn’t really exist anymore) and a burnt out attention span from overstimulation. This is like saying spending too much time with cats makes you autistic.
Just important for people to know if your attention span is burnt out, you can fix that. If you have adhd? You’ve got that for life and need to constantly mitigate the effects through behaviour modification and medication.
It’s not really cool to use a disability as a pejorative.
Edit: insane how triggered some people get for asking them not to use a neurodevelopmental disability as an insult.
That statement doesn’t exist in a vacuum. ADHD isn’t taken as seriously as it should, and comments like you’re contribute to that.
Just be better, dude. Costs you nothing.
Can you please not use the word pejorative? As a member of the Pejuta Haka tribe it's very offensive to me. The white man stole that word from us. And here you are just flaunting your theft in broad daylight? Have you no decency boy?
there's a samey vibe to yorgos's movies where they all have the same odd-quirk thing.
we'll see if this one hits right, but too many of these sorts of movies will take away from them feeling unique and special IMO. this coming so quick after poor things is a bit odd to me. if it isn't amazing it'll be very disappointing for a lot of people.
This told me absolutely nothing about why I would want to go watch the movie... I hate trailers that give the entire plot away, but come on seriously..
[удалено]
Walter White by the looks of it. I’ll have to watch the trailer now.
Is he like the new Paul Dano?
"new"
Lol
He's only three years younger.
Jesse Plemons jsut gets better and better for me. And Hunter Schafer is on my radar too.
Yeah Meth Damon is really going all out lately.
Looking forward to 'Cuckoo' coming out in a few months with Schafer and Dan Stevens
They’re trying SO hard to make Hunter happen 😂
[удалено]
Discriminatory? Lol I know little about her, just that they’re throwing every bit of PR they can at making her happen 😂 I mean, your ores find at the Oscar’s and no one knows who you are. Talk about shoe horning.
I have literally no idea what this movie is about from the trailer.
This is actually a good thing, I'd rather be curiously intrigued than watch the entire movie in a minute and a half. Which was the trailer for Killers of the Flower Moon, and many others.
While too much is also a problem for other trailers, I literally have no fucking clue what this movie is about. Sex? Family drama? Aliens? Who knows? Not me. I don't want the full story, but even a tiny clue would be nice. I'm not entirely sure how someone can be intrigued. Nothing in the trailer tells you a goddamn thing. It feels like it's banking solely on the director and cast, which doesn't really mean anything. It's nice if you're desperate loyal to a certain director, but then why have a trailer at all?
Honestly, at least getting an idea of the genre would be nice. I assume its romance comedy-ish, but if I went to watch the movie, and it turned out to be horror, I would not be surprised (assuming you don't know what those actors usually do).
Why do I care what it’s about? It’s Yorgos, Emma, Jesse, Willem, etc. I am ready to go see it.
That's almost exactly what the person you replied to was saying. You just like the director and the cast.
One of the problems is that this is actually 3 stories in one, a triptych, so that makes a trailer both hard to convey the story and also hard to follow.
Killer of the flower moon trailer ruined the movie for you? Like there are several example to pick from
I didn't even watch this trailer because I feel they spoil too many aspects of the movie nowadays, I just go to the comments to find out if people like it generally or not. Now idk what to do
I usually do the same but made an exception for this one because it looked interesting and I can definitely say that I have no idea what this movie is about or feel like I've been spoiled in any way
It’s okay to watch. It’s a chunkier version of the previous ‘Sweet Dreams’ teaser but, it is still just as vague and compelling. This trailer though seems to be pretty focused in on Plemons, so I think they’re gunning for his awards after his Cannes win
S&M?
The ~~joke~~ CANNES merit is probably ~~porn~~ sex.
And I’ll be there day 1
From the Wikipedia [article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinds_of_Kindness): >...described as a triptych fable, consists of three distinct but loosely connected stories. The first segment, *The Death of R.M.F*, follows a man who seeks to take charge of his own destiny after breaking away from his powerful boss. The second, *R.M.F. is Flying*, depicts a man plagued by suspicions that his spouse, who has recently returned after being reported missing, is an imposter. The final segment, *R.M.F. Eats a Sandwich*, revolves around a cultist's task to find a specific person with the ability to resurrection|resurrect the dead.
I still know I need to see this movie though
I’m here for Jesse plemons and dogs driving cars.
I loved Poor Things, and I'm interested in this, too. Also, great speed in creating the next film, Yorgos!
From wikipedia, Poor Things was filmed in August to December 2021 and Kinds of Kindness was filmed in October to December 2022, in case anyone was wondering
I was, thank you
Emma Stone is so fine.
I'll watch anything that has both Emma Stone and Meth Damon or whatever his name is, keep forgetting.
Is this Emily Stone's new thing, weird fetish movies where the main characters have an intelligence mismatch and still go at it?
Well the first one got her an Oscar nom and the second got her an Oscar win, so why fix what ain’t broke?
It's not her "new thing", it's her second film by the same director, who creates wildly bizarre odd movies like these. She loves working with him, not specifically because of the theme.
3rd film (This, Poor Things, The Favourite)
Whoops! I don't know how I forgot about The Favourite, we just watched it again the other day!
I forgive you!
I don't!
GET HIM!
Don't forget about The Curse and Maniac. Different directors than Yorgos, of course, but it shows that Stone likes doing weird projects. Good for her! Easy A still slaps though.
Same reason actors and crew hang around Wes Anderson and Guy Ritchie movies. Just a group of people that make things and have a good time doing it. It's almost as if you don't have to be a primadonna to make movies like some directors and actors seem to be.
lol who the hell calls her Emily?
Is Jesse Plemons morphing into Michael Shannon?
Somebody needs to stop Emma Stone. Someone has to stop her. She needs to stop. She needs to **be** stopped. Think of the poor awards.
The next mainstream movie for people who "don't like mainstream movies".
AKA *a movie*.
Can you explain this comment? To me, an absurdist dark comedy produced in Europe on a $15 million budget doesn't exactly qualify as a mainstream movie, but I don't know that much about film or the movie industry.
op was being an edgelord
I see where you’re coming from, but if a movie has a worldwide release and is starring Emma Stone, Willem Dafoe and Jesse Plemons, that can for sure count as a “mainstream” movie. Budget notwithstanding. Still, a mainstream movie that isn’t a sequel/adaptation/etc. is very welcome imo. Not sure why OP’s comment had the tone of an eye-roll.
So basically if it has any known actors or isn’t just premiering at festivals and a very small number of theaters it’s mainstream? Pretty dumb definition of that
> isn’t just premiering at festivals and a very small number of theaters it’s mainstream I mean yes that's basically the definition of mainstream, widespread availability which indicates widespread engagement. The problem is conflating mainstream with 'bad'. Put it this way, if a film opens at only festivals and a small number of theatres, does that mean it isn't mainstream? And if it's not mainstream on that logic, conversely mainstream must mean opening in a lot of places.
That’s just a completely different definition of what the average person considers mainstream. And no, I’m not saying mainstream = bad, despite you assuming I am. My whole point is that out of everyone I know, I can probably count on one hand the number of people that will even know what this movie is. For me, it’s not mainstream. The general public doesn’t know an overwhelming majority of the films that even make it up to the festival circuit. We have different definitions of mainstream and that’s okay. But it just screams that you’re very deep in your own bubble if you run around saying a film is “mainstream” because it’s made it to a festival.
> But it just screams that you’re very deep in your own bubble if you run around saying a film is “mainstream” because it’s made it to a festival. That's not at all what I said? I said films only available at festivals and a small number of theatres would be considered non-mainstream. And if that is true, so then is the opposite, that films available in a large number of theatres are comparatively mainstream.
In the grand scheme of things, yes. Compare this to the hundreds of films that come out every year without any big name actors. I think the point the original commenter is that films like Kinds Of Kindness often develop quite a following of fans who claim it’s an “underground, art house flick” merely because it’s relatively low budget, ignoring the fact that they really only watch movies that have big name actors in them.
Sure, but it’s like a 0.001% of the population watching the types of films you’re talking about. Simply because there are known actors in a film *does not* make it “mainstream”. Just because you’re so deep into the world of film doesn’t mean everything a single level up from what you watch is mainstream.
There's also a sort of art-house-lite quality too. It's weird compared to the mainest of the mainstream, but it's also not that unpalatable or hyper-niche. Like Wes Anderson. Or Robert Eggers. Outside of the extended scenes of masturbation, I wouldn't say there's much in The Lighthouse that is actually difficult to enjoy for someone without much experience with films outside of the mainstream. The even lighter version of this would be the films of Christopher Nolan and Denis Villenueve. Supendeously successful filmmakers, and by no means the pinnacle of thematic depth, complex intellectual plots, or out-there concepts. But comparatively intellectual compared to the standard fare of blockbuster filmmakers, so they pick up the reputation as being the thinking man's filmmakers. But actually they're really very accessible still. Personally, none of it is a negative. But I do have to acknowledge the reputations they get amount 'film bros' is overstated. This film isn't Dogville, or a $10K silent art film. That kind of sentiment just feels like someone who has only eaten at family chain restaurants going to middle-of-the-road proper italian restaurant and acting like it was some you-need-to-reserve-six-months-in-advance-and-if-you-need-to-ask-the-prices-you-cant-afford-to-go French 3 Michelin star establishment. I like McDonalds, I love my local Italian restaurant, but I'm not gonna say I'm a high-end food connoisseur for just rising above the bottom standard.
I don’t think this is a very standard or useful understanding of “mainstream”. Typically, it has more to do with how the work is financed, produced, and marketed than whether or not it happens to use actors who have appeared in other mainstream films. Just because an actor has been commercially successful doesn’t mean the weird art house stuff they do for fun is automatically “mainstream”. Elijah wood and Daniel Radcliffe have both done some weird shit that definitely did not have mainstream appeal. There are more categories besides “mainstream” and “film student class project”
You’re talking more about the production/pre-release aspect of the film, and that’s true enough. But I am more talking about how the film will do in the market. Poor Things is the most obvious comparison. Still has that Art House feel, but it made $100 million worldwide and is one of the most-watched films on Disney+. Maybe not a blockbuster, but definitely mainstream.
I don't think the average person knows who Willem Dafoe or Jessie Plemmons are beyond "the guy from _______".
Movie is staring multiple Hollywood Superstars. Half the people that will see this movie will literally only see it because of the cast.
Prominent Hollywood stars, the trailer focuses on the "weirdness" of the film which is, however, a very predictable kind shown to be tolerable and accepted (see Poor Things, same director, same actors). It's not mainstream the way say Marvel movies are mainstream, but it is mainstream in that it follows a formula.
Redditor invents a kind of person in their head. Redditor eye rolls at the existence of such a person. Redditor smiles to themselves. “Sure showed them!”
This is of course only trumped by the ever present "meta redditor" who is of course above the mere "redditor".
You say this is mainstream, but I guarantee you 90% of average people you ask about this movie won’t know it exists.
the next A24 movie without the logo
Hey, that’s me!
Le Cinema?
Who cares, Yorgos is a great director, and from everything I’ve heard, this is much more in line with Dogtooth than it is with Poor Things (which was probably is most accessible movie, still loved it though).
I don't understand. This is original content with some pretty well known actors. Doesn't reddit always complain there isn't more of that?
Holy shit I need to go stare at a wall for a minute. I feel so ADD after watching that. Is this the way trailers are going to be now? Nothing longer than 1.3 seconds before it cuts.
These kinds of trailers are great because you can pick up on theme, tone, and atmosphere, but come away having no idea what you're actually going to see in the movie. I'd much rather watch a trailer like that over the standard show-all-the-best-parts-and-TLDW-the-story.
Yup! This gave me an idea of the vibe but pretty much nothing about the story, just the way I like it. I HATE those trailers that basically show you the whole movie as a recap.
"come away having no idea what you're actually going to see in the movie." Well that certainly worked in this case.
Yes exactly. We don't want a 4 minute Steven Seagal movie trailer.
I think it’s also not clear that this movie is actually 3 shorter movies with the same cast playing different characters
The PERFECT trailer!
I happy with this. Did you like it when trailers were 3 minutes long and spoiled a ton of the movie?
With the exception of 80’s movie trailers, which were hilariously bad in hindsight, I would say anything that doesn’t cut every 1.3 seconds. Length doesn’t matter.
Thank social media for killing attention spans. The whole damn world is becoming ADD
There’s a big difference between adhd (add doesn’t really exist anymore) and a burnt out attention span from overstimulation. This is like saying spending too much time with cats makes you autistic. Just important for people to know if your attention span is burnt out, you can fix that. If you have adhd? You’ve got that for life and need to constantly mitigate the effects through behaviour modification and medication.
Im happy with this. Did you like it when trailers were 3 minutes long and spoiled a ton of the movie?
It’s not really cool to use a disability as a pejorative. Edit: insane how triggered some people get for asking them not to use a neurodevelopmental disability as an insult.
If that sentence offends you then I recommend staying off the internet.
That statement doesn’t exist in a vacuum. ADHD isn’t taken as seriously as it should, and comments like you’re contribute to that. Just be better, dude. Costs you nothing.
As someone who’s been diagnosed with ADHD: Grow up.
Did you just use the word disability, as if they are less able than you?!
Can you please not use the word pejorative? As a member of the Pejuta Haka tribe it's very offensive to me. The white man stole that word from us. And here you are just flaunting your theft in broad daylight? Have you no decency boy?
Boy? Did you just assume their gender, or are you just racist? /s
Assuming gender is an integral part of our religion. It's a holy tradition. Don't blaspheme our prophets. You are probably a white dude aren't you?
Is that sketch?
I swear to god there must be at least 3 Emma Stones around how is this woman in every movie
Going to see this 100%
Yorgos movies are all I'll go to the theater for.
at 10 seconds in, I thought that was Martin Kove (Kreese from Karate Kid)
Meth Damon is on fire recently
Loved him in Like Mike
Meth Damon somehow became the go-to indie actor of this generation. Good for him!
there's a samey vibe to yorgos's movies where they all have the same odd-quirk thing. we'll see if this one hits right, but too many of these sorts of movies will take away from them feeling unique and special IMO. this coming so quick after poor things is a bit odd to me. if it isn't amazing it'll be very disappointing for a lot of people.
This told me absolutely nothing about why I would want to go watch the movie... I hate trailers that give the entire plot away, but come on seriously..
Hong Chau has worked with Matt Damon (Downsizing, 2017) and now she’s working with Fat Damon in this
I'm getting "overly serious tone/editing" movie fatigue.
feels like there are 10 films that are like this
I don’t think he is a great filmmaker.. his movies are just dumb
Hard disagree, Lanthimos movies are very funny dark comedies.
Looks pretentious AH.
Ugh, this looks like utter drivel.
Mmm, yes. Shallow and pedantic
Your comment is utter drivel
Another film I have no intention of seeing. Hollywood is just flailing. Whether it’s mainstream Hollywood or “arthouse” Hollywood.
Not every movie is for you, shocker I now