This sounds right to me. I think A-lister means that people are significantly more likely to see a movie just based on the fact that she’s in it. That doesn’t apply to ATJ imo (yet).
Agreed, but I’m not sure I’d call any actress under 30 an A-lister outside of Zendaya and Saoirse Ronan. (Probably 2 or 3 others that I’m forgetting)
I’d place bets on ATJ getting there also, but it’s a stretch of the term imo to call her an A-lister right now.
Millie Bobby Brown is definitely A-List.
According to my teenager yes
1 Like
Idk if I’m “people” but that’s definitely the case for me
She was great in “split” and “the witch” a few years ago too which haven’t been mentioned
She’s on the way, Queens Gambit was huge and probably wouldnt have been (as much) with someone else in the lead. Lead on The Menu and One Night in Soho (one with great reviews and one with pretty good reviews.)
She will be the lead in Furiousa, which will cement her as an A lister in my mind if its even 70% as good as Fury Road.
Oh dude, totally whiffed on both these, but The Witch was far better than it had rights to be and shes a big reason why
1 Like
Don’t confuse A-lister with movie star. Eddie Murphy spent many years as a movie star but not an A-Lister, for example. To me, it’s more about the star’s power to command the studio based on the perception that putting this person in the movie means it will make money.
ATJ is an A-Lister in the modern movie culture for someone her age. Give her another ten years.
1 Like
Yeah, the reason I would regard her as an A lister is that producers are lining up to give her jobs, and her agreeing likely greenlights at least some films. That and having the most successful Netflix show in history solely focused on her.
She is kinda weird, creepy though. Doesn’t have the natural appeal of someone like Jennifer Lawrence. But maybe this isn’t a bad time for weird-hot kinda creepy star.
2 Likes
What do you find creepy about her??
If it’s her eyes, wait until you meet Stef Sanjati.
Formerly ran a makeup and queer advocacy channel, but now she streams video games on Twitch.
This is why she’s an A-lister to me, albeit a relatively newly minted one.
Tár
I think this is the first film since Birdman to make me think at the end “Did I like that? I’m not sure.”
I don’t know what I was expecting from this movie, but it sure as hell wasn’t that.
The beginning is horrible and should immediately disqualify the director from an Oscar nomination. The movie starts with the credits. Not just the name of the film and the producers and the top billed actors, the full fucking credits. It takes like 5 minutes. Then the first scene is an overly technical discussion about the theory composing with an audience as if it’s Inside the Composers Studio or something, followed soon after by a dinner meeting with even more discussion about composers I’ve never heard of. The fact that they were able to pull me back from that into something that was engaging is a not insignificant accomplishment.
I’m leaning towards it was a good, but not great film. But I’m not even confident of that right now. It’s definitely too long though. At least 30, and possibly as many as 45 minutes, should have found the cutting room floor.
Yeah, so Skinamarink was a massive letdown. I was really looking forward to this one, but it runs out of ideas about 20 min in.
wat
Actually I guess I can see it not being everybody’s cup of tea. But I fucking love that movie.
Btw, you’d probably like queen’s gambit. It’s kinda Rockyish but about chess.
2 Likes
Haven’t seen Tar, but Monte Python and the Holy Grail does this, likely because credits are required by the relevant unions, etc, and intentionally ends in a meta scene that credits would ruin. Does Tar have a no-credits ending?
I watched the first third of The Lobster and couldn’t get into it at all.
There are no credits at the end; they’re all at the beginning.