Green Book (2018)

[baumer]

Discuss

[Webslinger]

Putting aside all controversies surrounding its purported veracity and a costly interview faux pas, Green Book is a charming, moving period drama that flies on the strength of its two lead actors. Though the script follows expected beats and feels somewhat anticlimactic as it brings its protagonists’ arcs to a head, Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali are terrific in their roles. Mortensen vanishes into his part as an Italian-American tough guy driver, consistently coming across as a blue-collar strongman while also nailing his character’s heartfelt tender moments with his co-star. Ali is also in fine form in a carefully mannered performance that successfully plays up his character’s struggle to keep up a dignified front despite the internal pain he does his best to hide. Together, Mortensen and Ali have such strong chemistry with one another that every scene they share rings with equal parts emotional authenticity and low-key humor. The film admittedly doesn’t engage as much as it should with the racial politics at its fore, but it nevertheless succeeds in painting the prejudicial indignities that Ali’s character faces as blatant injustices, and his progression toward gradually standing up for himself in a more direct manner feels organic to the plot. Working in decidedly more dramatic territory than he or his brother have ever traversed, director Peter Farrelly makes stellar use of a light directorial hand that guides the relationships between characters and keeps the tone just light enough to make most of the two-hour-plus running time a mostly breezy affair that also stings with emotional resonance whenever it needs to do so. It feels like the air has come out of this film’s hype in the months following its surprise audience award win at the Toronto International Film Festival, but viewers need not worry; Green Book is a solid crowd-pleaser anchored by the rapport between its standout leads. 

 

B+

[filmlover]

Excellent performances from Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali, but it lacks the depth needed to elevate it to the higher ranks among movies of its ilk. My mom loved it though and I heard nothing but glowing comments on the way out so it'll likely connect with a certain audience. B

[That One Girl]

Mortensen and Ali have perfect chemistry with each other, but they can’t rise the movie above unconvincing drama and a bland as hell story.  It’s well intentioned but has no qualities of it that stand out.  I’ll probably forget about its existence when Oscar season ends

[Ezen Baklattan]

You've seen this story before. You've seen its irresponsibly naive, nuance deprived, and white-centric approach to racial politics before. Hell, when the director of Daddy's Home can do it in a better, more interesting manner, you've messed up.

 

The movie's main selling point is the bond between Mahershala Ali and Viggo Mortensen, and while the characters feel written more as caricatures than real people, the actors do try their best with the material and direction, and there are a few chuckle worthy moments.

 

But as a whole, it's hard for me to give this film a truly rousing recommendation.

[dxmatrixdt]

/

Edited June 19, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[Lordmandeep]

Just a simple feel good movie really..

 

B+

 

[lorddemaxus]

Enjoyable movie but at the same time, the political elements were explored too lightly and simply. The issues are a lot more complex than presented in the film and it just felt out-dated to modern standards (I mean it works at the same level as fucking Driving Miss Daisy). Maybe instead of showing how people can simply not be racist (which isn't how it works 90% of the time in real life), why not show that racism is still prevalent today? It was all just too feel good. I chuckled a few times and loved both the performances and the music but I felt like a white person wrote it for white people. 5/10 (C+) 

[rukaio101]

Okay, I was originally planning on saving this rant until I did my end-of-year ranking list but, considering Green Book's recent Golden Globe wins, I kinda feel like I have to get my thoughts on this off my chest now.  Specifically, my thoughts of fuuuuuck this movie!

 

In my opinion it’s an enormous indictment on the state of the Academy that, in a year filled with so many amazing movies that intelligently explore complex themes of race with nuance and purpose, that this is one of the ones currently ahead in the Oscar race. This safe Oscar-baity drivel that ignores real history and modern day race-relations in favour of making up crap and presenting racism in a safe marketable way so the nice white audience doesn’t feel too uncomfortable. 

 

Now, I will confess that a lot of my anger towards this movie does come from its subtext and from outside context. Taken completely on its own at face value, it’s actually a fairly entertaining and well-made film, so I can understand why some people like it. Viggo Mortenson and Mahershala Ali both do great jobs with the material given and the movie never feels like it’s boring or dragging. It’s a lot like last year’s Three Billboards in that, if you remove it from all outside context and ignore the problematic themes and messaging, it’s honestly a fairly enjoyable movie, so I’m not too surprised to see a lot of positive reception towards it and don't particularly judge other people for enjoying it.

 

But take that context into account and this movie just comes off looking irresponsible at best and, at worst, outright disgusting. The film was made without permission from Doc Shirley’s family and, judging from their interviews, it’s fairly easy to see why. Ignoring the rather major fact that Doc Shirley was really never that close a friend with Tony Lip and their relationship was strictly professional, Shirley was close friends with numerous civil rights heroes and important black figures and all but raised his three brothers. Yet in this movie, Doc Shirley is suddenly a cold figure out of touch with regular black folk and popular black music and is distant to everyone including his family, a sole brother he lost contact with years ago. And why all this sudden change, you might ask? So the filmmakers can justify a subplot in which Tony Lip (the white guy in this scenario) can teach Doc Shirley to be black.

 

To say again, this movie, directed by a white guy and written by three white guys, has a subplot where Viggo Mortensen, the white guy in this partnership teaches Mahershala Ali’s uptight black character how to be black. Including a scene where they eat fried chicken together.

 

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

 

Seriously, there’s being unintentionally ignorant and then there’s just… this. It’s especially galling because the movie tries to have it both ways with Tony Lip. Apparently he’s somehow more in touch with the black community than Doc Shirley, but the movie has a subplot of him getting over his own prejudices (albeit without that much in the way of actual self-reflection or realisation, he just kinda does) and somehow the movie still has him shocked, surprised and appalled by the racist ways Doc is treated in the Deep South. 

 

Bitch, if you seemingly ‘know common black people and culture better’ than Doc Shirley then why the fuck are you so surprised about this shit?!

 

Especially irritating to me is that they did include some ways in which the movie genuinely could’ve worked or been interesting or nuanced in terms of exploring race. There’s a scene in which Tony and Doc are stopped by a racist policeman (and I’ll get back to that more later), Tony tries to talk to the guy and admits that he’s Italian, to which the cop states that makes him ‘practically half n—r’. Now that’s a genuinely interesting topic to potentially explore. Look at the ways in which various white subcultures like the Italians or the Irish also received prejudice during that time and contrast Tony Lip’s various experiences to Doc Shirley’s. But nope, Tony just punches the cop for the insult (like I said, I’ll get back to it) and it’s never brought up again. 

 

Now, I will confess, part of me does wonder whether I’m simply being so harsh on this movie because I’ve already seen so many significantly better movies this year dealing with race from the perspective of black writers and filmmakers. Widows, The Hate U Give, BlacKkKlansman, Black Panther, Sorry to Bother You and ones I haven't even seen yet like Blindspotting and If Beale Street Could Talk, that I've heard raves about. But I feel like this tame sanitized portrayal of racism in the Deep South simply does not hold up any more. I mean, I mentioned in the last paragraph that there’s a scene involving the main characters being pulled over by a policeman and that’s been a recurring theme in a lot of race-based movies these last couple of years. Widows, Blackkklansman, The Hate U Give and last year’s Get Out all have similar scenes, obvious as a reflection of a lot of tragic real life events involving police shootings. 

 

But you know what the big difference is between those four black-directed films and this white-directed one? Tension. Suspense. Genuine fear for their lives. The Hate U Give opens with the main character receiving ‘the Talk’ on how to act around police officers so they don’t fucking shoot you, something that is apparently based pretty heavily in real things that some black families do to protect themselves. Meanwhile, in Green Book, the characters get stopped by an openly racist policeman in the Deep South and you know what the worst thing he does is? Gosh gollee gee, he makes Doc Shirley stand out in the rain unnecessarily! What a scoundrel, am I right fellas? There's no genuine fear or tension as there probably should be in such a situation, just annoyance at this comparatively minor injustice. Fuck, Tony Lip punches the same cop in the face and the worst thing that happens is that they get locked up for a few hours. All this in spite of the fact that the Deep South in 60’s was a million times worse than modern day race relations between black people and the police and that Doc Shirley would have far more reason to fear for his life there than the movie lets on. But obviously we can't draw parallels to real modern day racial struggles or the nice white audience might feel uncomfortable and question whether we or not we actually solved racism forever. [/sarcasm mode]

 

In fact, that level of underplaying the sheer amount of danger black people were in in the Deep South back then is active through the entire movie. The film is named after the Green Book, a book specifically written so that black people would know where/how they could travel and stay in the Deep South without getting fucking murdered, yet the movie never really seems willing to grapple with the true consequences of that. There are scenes of Doc facing racism and a beating once or twice, sure, but the movie often treats it more like a mild nuisance and injustice rather than the systematic, potentially life-threatening thing it really was. Like Tony Lip, the movie doesn’t seem to get how bad it was for black people back then and is unwilling to engage with anything beyond its safe dollar store portrayal of racism and message of 'thank god that doesn't happen any more, right?'.

 

Honestly, I feel like I could talk about how badly this movie bungled its subtext all day. There are hundreds of small ridiculous, painfully bad moments that I barely even touched on (Tony even makes a fucking 'Not All White People' argument successfully). But, to sum up, when people ask me ‘why do we need more diversity in the filmmaking world?’ I’m going to point to the dozens of excellent nuanced black-written/directed movies that explore racial problems and strife in an intelligent and meaningful way that came out this year…... and then I’m going to point to this movie. A film that, while technically solid and with a pair of excellent performances to enjoy, is almost embarrassing with its clearly white-centric sanitized view of a genuinely horrible period of history.

 

To sum up my thoughts, seriously, fuck this movie. If you enjoyed it, fine, more power to you, it's honestly not a badly made flick, but I just can't get over how fucking willfully blind it is to the very subject it's claiming to explore. 

[baumer]

Unequivocally one of the best films of the year.  Funny script, touching script, two knockout performances and one hell of a journey both characters go on together.  The Lip learns a lot about racism and himself but Doc also learns to live a little, stand up for himself and he learns to make friends.  I loved the chemistry between Viggo and Ali.  One of my faves of the year.

 

9.5/10

[The Panda]

On 1/7/2019 at 9:22 AM, rukaio101 said:

Okay, I was originally planning on saving this rant until I did my end-of-year ranking list but, considering Green Book's recent Golden Globe wins, I kinda feel like I have to get my thoughts on this off my chest now.  Specifically, my thoughts of fuuuuuck this movie!

 

In my opinion it’s an enormous indictment on the state of the Academy that, in a year filled with so many amazing movies that intelligently explore complex themes of race with nuance and purpose, that this is one of the ones currently ahead in the Oscar race. This safe Oscar-baity drivel that ignores real history and modern day race-relations in favour of making up crap and presenting racism in a safe marketable way so the nice white audience doesn’t feel too uncomfortable. 

 

Now, I will confess that a lot of my anger towards this movie does come from its subtext and from outside context. Taken completely on its own at face value, it’s actually a fairly entertaining and well-made film, so I can understand why some people like it. Viggo Mortenson and Mahershala Ali both do great jobs with the material given and the movie never feels like it’s boring or dragging. It’s a lot like last year’s Three Billboards in that, if you remove it from all outside context and ignore the problematic themes and messaging, it’s honestly a fairly enjoyable movie, so I’m not too surprised to see a lot of positive reception towards it and don't particularly judge other people for enjoying it.

 

But take that context into account and this movie just comes off looking irresponsible at best and, at worst, outright disgusting. The film was made without permission from Doc Shirley’s family and, judging from their interviews, it’s fairly easy to see why. Ignoring the rather major fact that Doc Shirley was really never that close a friend with Tony Lip and their relationship was strictly professional, Shirley was close friends with numerous civil rights heroes and important black figures and all but raised his three brothers. Yet in this movie, Doc Shirley is suddenly a cold figure out of touch with regular black folk and popular black music and is distant to everyone including his family, a sole brother he lost contact with years ago. And why all this sudden change, you might ask? So the filmmakers can justify a subplot in which Tony Lip (the white guy in this scenario) can teach Doc Shirley to be black.

 

To say again, this movie, directed by a white guy and written by three white guys, has a subplot where Viggo Mortensen, the white guy in this partnership teaches Mahershala Ali’s uptight black character how to be black. Including a scene where they eat fried chicken together.

 

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

 

Seriously, there’s being unintentionally ignorant and then there’s just… this. It’s especially galling because the movie tries to have it both ways with Tony Lip. Apparently he’s somehow more in touch with the black community than Doc Shirley, but the movie has a subplot of him getting over his own prejudices (albeit without that much in the way of actual self-reflection or realisation, he just kinda does) and somehow the movie still has him shocked, surprised and appalled by the racist ways Doc is treated in the Deep South. 

 

Bitch, if you seemingly ‘know common black people and culture better’ than Doc Shirley then why the fuck are you so surprised about this shit?!

 

Especially irritating to me is that they did include some ways in which the movie genuinely could’ve worked or been interesting or nuanced in terms of exploring race. There’s a scene in which Tony and Doc are stopped by a racist policeman (and I’ll get back to that more later), Tony tries to talk to the guy and admits that he’s Italian, to which the cop states that makes him ‘practically half n—r’. Now that’s a genuinely interesting topic to potentially explore. Look at the ways in which various white subcultures like the Italians or the Irish also received prejudice during that time and contrast Tony Lip’s various experiences to Doc Shirley’s. But nope, Tony just punches the cop for the insult (like I said, I’ll get back to it) and it’s never brought up again. 

 

Now, I will confess, part of me does wonder whether I’m simply being so harsh on this movie because I’ve already seen so many significantly better movies this year dealing with race from the perspective of black writers and filmmakers. Widows, The Hate U Give, BlacKkKlansman, Black Panther, Sorry to Bother You and ones I haven't even seen yet like Blindspotting and If Beale Street Could Talk, that I've heard raves about. But I feel like this tame sanitized portrayal of racism in the Deep South simply does not hold up any more. I mean, I mentioned in the last paragraph that there’s a scene involving the main characters being pulled over by a policeman and that’s been a recurring theme in a lot of race-based movies these last couple of years. Widows, Blackkklansman, The Hate U Give and last year’s Get Out all have similar scenes, obvious as a reflection of a lot of tragic real life events involving police shootings. 

 

But you know what the big difference is between those four black-directed films and this white-directed one? Tension. Suspense. Genuine fear for their lives. The Hate U Give opens with the main character receiving ‘the Talk’ on how to act around police officers so they don’t fucking shoot you, something that is apparently based pretty heavily in real things that some black families do to protect themselves. Meanwhile, in Green Book, the characters get stopped by an openly racist policeman in the Deep South and you know what the worst thing he does is? Gosh gollee gee, he makes Doc Shirley stand out in the rain unnecessarily! What a scoundrel, am I right fellas? There's no genuine fear or tension as there probably should be in such a situation, just annoyance at this comparatively minor injustice. Fuck, Tony Lip punches the same cop in the face and the worst thing that happens is that they get locked up for a few hours. All this in spite of the fact that the Deep South in 60’s was a million times worse than modern day race relations between black people and the police and that Doc Shirley would have far more reason to fear for his life there than the movie lets on. But obviously we can't draw parallels to real modern day racial struggles or the nice white audience might feel uncomfortable and question whether we or not we actually solved racism forever. [/sarcasm mode]

 

In fact, that level of underplaying the sheer amount of danger black people were in in the Deep South back then is active through the entire movie. The film is named after the Green Book, a book specifically written so that black people would know where/how they could travel and stay in the Deep South without getting fucking murdered, yet the movie never really seems willing to grapple with the true consequences of that. There are scenes of Doc facing racism and a beating once or twice, sure, but the movie often treats it more like a mild nuisance and injustice rather than the systematic, potentially life-threatening thing it really was. Like Tony Lip, the movie doesn’t seem to get how bad it was for black people back then and is unwilling to engage with anything beyond its safe dollar store portrayal of racism and message of 'thank god that doesn't happen any more, right?'.

 

Honestly, I feel like I could talk about how badly this movie bungled its subtext all day. There are hundreds of small ridiculous, painfully bad moments that I barely even touched on (Tony even makes a fucking 'Not All White People' argument successfully). But, to sum up, when people ask me ‘why do we need more diversity in the filmmaking world?’ I’m going to point to the dozens of excellent nuanced black-written/directed movies that explore racial problems and strife in an intelligent and meaningful way that came out this year…... and then I’m going to point to this movie. A film that, while technically solid and with a pair of excellent performances to enjoy, is almost embarrassing with its clearly white-centric sanitized view of a genuinely horrible period of history.

 

To sum up my thoughts, seriously, fuck this movie. If you enjoyed it, fine, more power to you, it's honestly not a badly made flick, but I just can't get over how fucking willfully blind it is to the very subject it's claiming to explore. 

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

This movie may have been able to work in the 70s or something, when less progress had been made and just getting white people to be more aware that racism exists would be a step forward.  But in 2018 a movie like this makes white people comfortable, feeling like racism was this one bad thing that happened in the golden era of the 60s.

 

It’s a patronizing movie that’s disrespectful to the Shirley, and shows tone deafness from the director and writers.  The fact that this is the movie about racism this year getting a lot of traction has everything to do with most of the people giving the awards being old white men who are blind to the problem.

[IndustriousAngel]

A-, 8/10

very enjoyable and watchable, mainly because of the two leads.

[Avatree]

I liked the first half hour or so. Then I fell asleep and didn't wake up until the end of the credits and everyone else had left the cinema.

 

I should say that I liked it enough to be inclined to go and see it again. That's more than I can say for Mandy a couple months ago where I fell asleep after 40 mins and missed the rest of it, I didn't care about watching the rest of that.

Edited February 9, 2019 by Avatree

[Rebeccas]

This is so boring... this is grandpa Oscar bait.

[DAJK]

Was kinda thinking that I'd get over this movie a few weeks after I saw it. But nope, it's still really charming and enjoyable. And I definitely don't endorse the historical liberties it took, and agree that it could have gone deeper into just how despicable race relations were/are in America, for the things that it does do, it does pretty well, and it's a very enjoyable movie to boot. 

 

Been recommending this for the past few months now. 

[Joel M]

It's fine I guess, I wasn't bored but it's the kind of movie I wouldn't remember a single scene from it, a year from now.

[Avatree]

On 2/9/2019 at 6:35 PM, Avatree said:

I liked the first half hour or so. Then I fell asleep and didn't wake up until the end of the credits and everyone else had left the cinema.

 

I should say that I liked it enough to be inclined to go and see it again. That's more than I can say for Mandy a couple months ago where I fell asleep after 40 mins and missed the rest of it, I didn't care about watching the rest of that.

I take this back, i can't be arsed to watch it.

[rukaio101]

Literally just had this pointed out to me on a podcast I was listening to, but it is honestly darkly hilarious (specifically in regards to how bullshit the entire 'true story' element of this is (since according to Shirley's family, the two were never actually friends)), that in the big 'Here are the characters in real life!' photo montage at the end, literally not a single one of the real-life pictures shown ever has Tony Lip and Doc Shirley actually together or sharing the same frame.

 

Jesus, this movie is garbage.

[Fancyarcher]

My review.
dailyuv.com/975216

[livingstone5415]

Agreeable motion picture and yet (mangazuki has the best smut manga I've read so far.), the political components were investigated too daintily and essentially. The issues are significantly more unpredictable than introduced in the film. 

Edited March 8, 2019 by livingstone5415