The movie was actually really good, especially for someone who grew up in the northeast and saw a lot of Trump at that time. Sebastian nailed it. The scene with ivana was based on their divorce record. The theater I was in had just 1 other person 😂🥴
My theatre was empty except for me and my partner. Honestly I quite liked it hahaha. The movie was really good and after thinking about it more I think I was a tad too harsh in this review. I would bump my initial score up to a 4/5 now because it was a pretty great movie.
Thanks for the perspective. I am definitely not a fan of the guy and as someone who is from Australia we hear about what he does all the time but are never directly affected by it. I think the film does play out those aspects really well when it gets to the end of the movie and Sebastian Stan does an incredible job. I think having Roy Cohn as this initial monster that instils these values in Trump but later grows to become someone you feel some sympathy towards was an interesting way of showing how far Trump has gone down this road as his money and ego have only grown and made him the person we see now.
I'm surprised you took it as a hit piece. Much of what was in the film seems to goover (and neatly compile) stories about Trump that have been going around for ages. That's like saying a movie about Henry Fors that mentions that he wrote the introduvtion to the U.S. printing of Mein Kampf ....or a Steve Jobs bio that mentions how he cheated Woz when he sold Woz's Breakout Game to his employers at Atari (he didn't steal it, but allegedly lied about how much they were paying for it so Woz got chump change while Jobs pocketred the bulk of the fee). These are non-flattering, but long circulated about ....less than flattering.... moments in the stories of their subjects. I felt htat all the "unflattering" Trump stories were similar longtime tales. Including the ....Ivana scene.... (which I could have done without). I read it was based on divorce cherges - which she later retracted (I won't speculate as to whicvh version was "true"). It did seem a bit gratuitous and I don't think it would have changed the movie if it were left on the cutting room floor. I found it an interesting character study of someone with ambition to achieve power who was not troubled much - if at all - with self-reflection. That description could go for nearly ALL our 'captains of industry', so I did NOT view the film as a 'hitpiece'. Then again, I didn't really learn anything new about DJT OR Roy Cohn. But I enjoyed the film.
I didn’t take it as a hit piece, I can see how someone would see it as one but I personally didn’t feel that. I saw the movie in a similar fashion to what you wrote down, the rise of a businessman and seeing how money can bring out things in people you wouldn’t normally see. I would’ve preferred that Ivana scene to be left on the cutting room floor personally. I just don’t think the movie is entirely unbiased which once again I don’t have an issue with but it becomes an error when the director claims to have gone for an unbiased take. I like the movie and what it achieved and the performances were amazing.
The movie has political roots at the core. There is a reason it came out 3 weeks from election here and that has really turned me off the movie. I’m interested based on Sebastian Stan’s increasingly interesting career but I may revisit it after space because politics also exhausts me.
Honestly I hate politics too. I usually avoid it as much as I can because I just think it divides people. So I completely understand not wanting to watch this right now. However I will say when the dust of the election clears it is worth the watch as it more focuses on Trumps rise in the business world rather than his campaign for president. Yes there are some things that kind of foreshadow that era of Trump but it never actually goes into it all that much.
Ivana Trump testified it under oath during the divorce proceedings, and when people claim she took it back years later - she only said something like, she "felt violated" but "didn't mean rape in the criminal sense" - and what does that even mean? It sounds like being pressured into taking it back and trying feebly to deny it. Is it even a denial?
I did read on that before I put the review out. It wouldn’t surprise me if she was coerced into changing her tune but at the same time it is strange to approach a film in a ‘fair portrayal’ and put in a scene that can only be speculated on. If it did definitely happen I would have no issue putting that scene in the film because even though it is upsetting it would be apart of the story.
@@kaneeddy Her testifying it happened under oath seems like pretty strong evidence - and she never said she was lying about what she said happened (him grabbing her by the hair and pushing her down and eveeything else), did she? She just said it was an exaggeration to call it rape 'in a criminal sense", whatever that means So, as long as no one says the word "rape" on screen, they're not contradicting anything.
I didn't think I" was going to watch this movie...now I have to.
The movie was actually really good, especially for someone who grew up in the northeast and saw a lot of Trump at that time. Sebastian nailed it.
The scene with ivana was based on their divorce record.
The theater I was in had just 1 other person 😂🥴
My theatre was empty except for me and my partner. Honestly I quite liked it hahaha. The movie was really good and after thinking about it more I think I was a tad too harsh in this review. I would bump my initial score up to a 4/5 now because it was a pretty great movie.
We were the only ones at our showing in Chattanooga. 😮
Watched it yesterday in Berlin, Germany on a Sunday evening and the theater was 2/3rds full.
Unfortunately it’s true … as someone who had family affected with his decisions it isn’t trying to make him a monster… it’s what happened
Thanks for the perspective. I am definitely not a fan of the guy and as someone who is from Australia we hear about what he does all the time but are never directly affected by it. I think the film does play out those aspects really well when it gets to the end of the movie and Sebastian Stan does an incredible job.
I think having Roy Cohn as this initial monster that instils these values in Trump but later grows to become someone you feel some sympathy towards was an interesting way of showing how far Trump has gone down this road as his money and ego have only grown and made him the person we see now.
LIKE TO SHAKE WRITERS HAND!!! AMAZING DIRRECTING AND ACTING.....I'D VOTE FOR HIGHEST AWARDS❤❤❤
I don't like him and already knew all this about him.
I'm surprised you took it as a hit piece. Much of what was in the film seems to goover (and neatly compile) stories about Trump that have been going around for ages.
That's like saying a movie about Henry Fors that mentions that he wrote the introduvtion to the U.S. printing of Mein Kampf ....or a Steve Jobs bio that mentions how he cheated Woz when he sold Woz's Breakout Game to his employers at Atari (he didn't steal it, but allegedly lied about how much they were paying for it so Woz got chump change while Jobs pocketred the bulk of the fee). These are non-flattering, but long circulated about ....less than flattering.... moments in the stories of their subjects.
I felt htat all the "unflattering" Trump stories were similar longtime tales. Including the ....Ivana scene.... (which I could have done without). I read it was based on divorce cherges - which she later retracted (I won't speculate as to whicvh version was "true"). It did seem a bit gratuitous and I don't think it would have changed the movie if it were left on the cutting room floor. I found it an interesting character study of someone with ambition to achieve power who was not troubled much - if at all - with self-reflection. That description could go for nearly ALL our 'captains of industry', so I did NOT view the film as a 'hitpiece'.
Then again, I didn't really learn anything new about DJT OR Roy Cohn. But I enjoyed the film.
I didn’t take it as a hit piece, I can see how someone would see it as one but I personally didn’t feel that. I saw the movie in a similar fashion to what you wrote down, the rise of a businessman and seeing how money can bring out things in people you wouldn’t normally see. I would’ve preferred that Ivana scene to be left on the cutting room floor personally. I just don’t think the movie is entirely unbiased which once again I don’t have an issue with but it becomes an error when the director claims to have gone for an unbiased take. I like the movie and what it achieved and the performances were amazing.
The movie has political roots at the core. There is a reason it came out 3 weeks from election here and that has really turned me off the movie. I’m interested based on Sebastian Stan’s increasingly interesting career but I may revisit it after space because politics also exhausts me.
Honestly I hate politics too. I usually avoid it as much as I can because I just think it divides people. So I completely understand not wanting to watch this right now. However I will say when the dust of the election clears it is worth the watch as it more focuses on Trumps rise in the business world rather than his campaign for president. Yes there are some things that kind of foreshadow that era of Trump but it never actually goes into it all that much.
Ivana Trump testified it under oath during the divorce proceedings, and when people claim she took it back years later - she only said something like, she "felt violated" but "didn't mean rape in the criminal sense" - and what does that even mean? It sounds like being pressured into taking it back and trying feebly to deny it. Is it even a denial?
I did read on that before I put the review out. It wouldn’t surprise me if she was coerced into changing her tune but at the same time it is strange to approach a film in a ‘fair portrayal’ and put in a scene that can only be speculated on. If it did definitely happen I would have no issue putting that scene in the film because even though it is upsetting it would be apart of the story.
@@kaneeddy Her testifying it happened under oath seems like pretty strong evidence - and she never said she was lying about what she said happened (him grabbing her by the hair and pushing her down and eveeything else), did she? She just said it was an exaggeration to call it rape 'in a criminal sense", whatever that means
So, as long as no one says the word "rape" on screen, they're not contradicting anything.
@@FrakkinToasterLuvva testifying under oath seems like pretty strong evidence? 😂😂😂 are you serious! Just say you don’t like Trump
@@patb00y What's your point?
it means marital rape wasn't considered a crime yet