Suburbicon reviews

I don't know if George is the type of director who hovers over the editor's back and says "Cut here." From what I've read, he is very close to the process. In this case, he had the guy who edited 'Traffic' and 'Birdman,' so if George was giving the orders in the editing room, somebody should have told him to STFU.

Seriously though, sometimes the problem is that one thing works and another doesn't, but since it's a story, if you change one thing it affects five other scenes, so the choice has to be not to change that one thing. Or maybe (and this probably doesn't apply because George works with friends) an actor has in his/her contract that they have a certain number of lines or scenes, and the director's and editor's hands are a bit tied. And sometimes you have an editor who demands some autonomy but doesn't have the same vision for the story that the director does. That doesn't happen often so much anymore, but it's possible.

But again, if you bring a flawed written vision to the set and film it, there's only so much that can be done in the editing room.

I was actually encouraged when I read that they had cut Josh Brolin because his role didn't fit in the final cut. It suggested, to me, that George was being more objectively critical. And that may be true. I haven't seen it; I'm just going by the chatter. I'll have a real opinion Tuesday.

Looking forward to your opinion. Not sure when I'll be able to see it - or if. I'm not sure it's playing anywhere near me.

I just saw "Suburbicon"

I think it is brilliantly written, directed, and acted.  There is only one story "SUBURBICON" with two families. 


One family fits in the neighborhood perfectly, the other family is not a good fit. 


I get the story line from beginning to end.  It's one unexpected thing after another; that keeps the story extremely interesting.  I thought the Myer's story although based on a true story is extremism that we probably would not see today. 


The back and forth storyline between the 2 families is unbelievably brilliant.  When you see the movie make sure to pay attention to news coverage at the end of the movie.  The very last scene leaves me with the hope of a better future.
 
I can see why the initial talk was Oscar buzz.  It's a very, very good movie.  On my way out of theater I spoke to several people who shared my opinion.

as much as i love george, i think it's time for him to take a step back and concentrate on what he really wants (family, philantropy, politics, or cinema). he is a great actor (he can't stop acting, he just has to find new roles related to his age) and also a proven great director but he has to choose works written by someone else as he did at the beginning. i can't believe he can't find a good script among all the things he said he read this summer, i can give him book advice. and  finally i think it's time for him to move out of the US, it is clear that Europe loves him more than America, where he has to many enimies now and where political satirical movies are not so much liked.

I hate to say it, but maybe he's become so used to being "GEORGE CLOONEY" that he's letting his ego get in the way of his common sense when it comes to work. I just can't figure out why the people who work with him don't speak up. Someone must see that something isn't working.

I don't think Grant would allow that they are partners and friends. I don't think he or any of those close to George would have a problem letting George know when he is wrong. I think maybe he and Grant thought this was a good script and unfortunately they may have been wrong according to the critics anyway. 
Ladybug has said it was a good film and she enjoyed it, I would love to hear what others who aren't critics thought.
I won't be able to see it any time soon.

I know a couple of people who have seen it. They both enjoyed it. One of them is a writer, and he said the main flaw is that the irony of the Black family with integrity being traumatized by White deviants isn't hit hard enough or plainly enough for "the average-intelligence viewing audience" to pick up on. The other guy just flat-out liked it.

Just read some of the screening and festival reviews, and compared them to a few of the post-release ones. The difference is night and day. I don't think the early reviewers were softballing, either. It was genuine criticism, but coming down very favorably. So, what the heck happened?

That was a rhetorical question.

Way2Old4Dis wrote:Just read some of the screening and festival reviews, and compared them to a few of the post-release ones. The difference is night and day. I don't think the early reviewers were softballing, either. It was genuine criticism, but coming down very favorably. So, what the heck happened?

That was a rhetorical question.

I’ve noticed the same disparity too. The reviews that have come out since the festivals, especially this past week have been brutal. It’s like piling on. I thought the early reviews were far more balanced and thoughtful in the criticism. Don’t know what to think. It’s interesting reading reviews on Rotten Tomatoes ... both the critics and the audience goers. The critics who did lean favorably towards the movie still saw negatives but overall thought the acting was solid and found it entertaining.

The Wrap's analysis:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

@hupto in the comments section has a very good point








@hupto in the comments section has a very good point

I wish he'd just focus on making a good movie, not a movie that has to Say Something. His obsession with the films of the late 60s-70s seems to push him to want to make movies like All the President's Men and Raging Bull and Network; unfortunately, he's not Pakula or Scorsese or Lumet. I think if he'd go back to directing a fun, quirky movie (written by someone else), like Confessions, he'd be back in the game. But this "I'm going to send a MESSAGE" filmmaking is just not his strong suit.  

I also think a couple of things didn't work in his favor; timing, for one. If you're gong to release a film that speaks to race relations in America at a time when racial issues are all over the nightly news, you better nail it. Doesn't sound like he did here. Casting is the other. This could be sample bias, but Matt Damon has pretty much been kicked to the curb by the people I follow on social media, after some dicey racial issues this past year and his, let's say, lackluster response to the Weinstein accusations.  I don't know that many people are rushing out to see Matt anymore; in fact, his presence might cause people to skip a film entirely. May be a good time for George to extend his casting circle beyond people he invited to his wedding.

Missa wrote:I wish he'd just focus on making a good movie, not a movie that has to Say Something. His obsession with the films of the late 60s-70s seems to push him to want to make movies like All the President's Men and Raging Bull and Network; unfortunately, he's not Pakula or Scorsese or Lumet. I think if he'd go back to directing a fun, quirky movie (written by someone else), like Confessions, he'd be back in the game. But this "I'm going to send a MESSAGE" filmmaking is just not his strong suit.  

I also think a couple of things didn't work in his favor; timing, for one. If you're gong to release a film that speaks to race relations in America at a time when racial issues are all over the nightly news, you better nail it. Doesn't sound like he did here. Casting is the other. This could be sample bias, but Matt Damon has pretty much been kicked to the curb by the people I follow on social media, after some dicey racial issues this past year and his, let's say, lackluster response to the Weinstein accusations.  I don't know that many people are rushing out to see Matt anymore; in fact, his presence might cause people to skip a film entirely. May be a good time for George to extend his casting circle beyond people he invited to his wedding.

This is exactly how I feel.....he needs to stop trying to make "message" films. That's not how great films are made. No great director I've seen interviews of sets out to make a film based on a "message"....they set out to make an entertaining film, and if the audience takes away a message or learns something from it that is a bonus. The problem with George's films these days is that they just aren't good movies apparently. So whatever message he is trying so hard to get across just gets lost, or he plays it too on the nose, so it's too in your face. Like he's trying so hard to be a politically relevant director. He needs to just stop. Take a break and don't direct again until you have something entertaining and original...and a GOOD script. 

Directing a Coen bros script also set him up for the inevitable cooing from critics over what the Coens would have done differently and how Clooney ruined a Coen project. For the record, the Coens are no saints, they've made plenty of films that have sucked too. And my guess is there's a reason why they didn't make this one. 

With that said, I think a lot of the critics just have it out for George personally at this point. It's all about who can take the biggest dump on him in their reviews. Seriously, some of the reviews were incredibly harsh and read as if the writer was just aching to take a piss on George in the harshest terms possible. The reviews this past week are all about beating him while he's down and making it as harsh as possible. The reviews after the initial screenings at the festivals were not this bad. This just looks like a bunch of critics salivating at the chance to take a swing at him one by one.

Not having seen the movie, I can't give an opinion about why this one isn't as good as expected but I think there are a lot of reasons why the reviews here in the States aren't so good. One could be that some are coming from the right-wing media who hate anything he does. Another could be that critics were expecting a great movie and were disappointed when it turned out to be only a "good" one. Anyone criticizing him for not making the integration story a bigger part of the film because of what's happening here now should shut up. He's not a psychic. How could he have known Trump would drag race relations back to the Civil War? And if they're complaining because it isn't a blockbuster, they know that most movies aren't.

So far all the opinions from regular moviegoers seem to be really good. If the movie doesn't do well financially I'd say it's because people are politically exhausted. They want escapism more than films that make them think.

PS. Donnamarie, I don't know why Matt should be blamed more than anyone else for his response to the Weinstein situation. I guess I missed it, but what racial issues are you talking about?

It was me that brought up Matt Damon as a possible liability, not Donnamarie. First, there was an issue with a black woman producer on his HBO Project Greenlight show, in which she commented on the overall extreme whiteness of the competition's finalists and he kind of rudely mansplaibed to her that race is not an issue in Hollywood and everyone succeeds on their merit and merit alone (um, okay buddy). Then there was the backlash to his playing a what many thought was rightfully a Chinese character in The Great Wall, and getting caught up in Hollywoods general whitewashing of films.

I didn't say his was to blame for Weinstein, at least not anymore than anyone else who knew what was happening. But his first statement ("I had no idea and as the father of daughters yada yada yada") turned many people off because a) did you not realize women were full human beings who shouldn't be assaulted until you had daughters? And b) it turned out not to be true, because he later admitted he knew about Gwyneth for years. And the "it never happened in front of me" addendum made it even worse. Like, "listen, I had heard he might be murdering people, and he tried to murder my best friends girlfriend, but he never tried to kill anyone directly in front of me, so what could I do?" As the kids say on Twitter, Matt Damon is canceled, for a lot of people.

One other thing: racial tensions have been especially high since at least 2015, when Michael Brown was murdered by a police officer in Ferguson. From June of 2015, when Trump announced his campaign by calling Mexicans rapists, through to this day, racial issues have been at the forefront of our discourse. George wrote and directed this film in that time span. It didn't require a crystal ball to know he really needed to get this right. It doesn't seem like he did, based both on critics reviews and ratings by moviegoers, which are also extremely low.

"Suburbicon" is a movie not a movement.     I saw the movie and the people I spoke to on my way out of the movie also really liked the movie.  I really encourage you all to see the movie and then make your judgments. 

The Meyer family is just living their everyday life. 

The movie captures their everyday life, escalating tensions, combine with the OTHER dysfunctional suburb family no one seems to notice BRILLIANTLY.  

I encourage you all to see the movie and then have the conversation.

Ladybug, I’m glad you enjoyed the movie. I hope to see it next Sunday. Hope some other posters will see it soon too. Then we can judge for ourselves if the dumping on this movie had been really fair or not.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Says it all really

PAN - Thanks. That review puts a lot of things into perspective.

PS-Donnamarie, my apologies for misquoting you. It was Missa's post I questioned.

LizzyNY wrote:Not having seen the movie, I can't give an opinion about why this one isn't as good as expected but I think there are a lot of reasons why the reviews here in the States aren't so good. One could be that some are coming from the right-wing media who hate anything he does. Another could be that critics were expecting a great movie and were disappointed when it turned out to be only a "good" one. Anyone criticizing him for not making the integration story a bigger part of the film because of what's happening here now should shut up. He's not a psychic. How could he have known Trump would drag race relations back to the Civil War? And if they're complaining because it isn't a blockbuster, they know that most movies aren't.

So far all the opinions from regular moviegoers seem to be really good. If the movie doesn't do well financially I'd say it's because people are politically exhausted. They want escapism more than films that make them think.

PS. Donnamarie, I don't know why Matt should be blamed more than anyone else for his response to the Weinstein situation. I guess I missed it, but what racial issues are you talking about?

George did not have to be psychic to address this. There were huge racism issues during the campaign.  Remember Trump with "my black?" and not immediately disavowing David Duke?  These are just a few examples of many.  And didn't George recut the film after the election?

Missa wrote:I wish he'd just focus on making a good movie, not a movie that has to Say Something. His obsession with the films of the late 60s-70s seems to push him to want to make movies like All the President's Men and Raging Bull and Network; unfortunately, he's not Pakula or Scorsese or Lumet. I think if he'd go back to directing a fun, quirky movie (written by someone else), like Confessions, he'd be back in the game. But this "I'm going to send a MESSAGE" filmmaking is just not his strong suit.  

I also think a couple of things didn't work in his favor; timing, for one. If you're gong to release a film that speaks to race relations in America at a time when racial issues are all over the nightly news, you better nail it. Doesn't sound like he did here. Casting is the other. This could be sample bias, but Matt Damon has pretty much been kicked to the curb by the people I follow on social media, after some dicey racial issues this past year and his, let's say, lackluster response to the Weinstein accusations.  I don't know that many people are rushing out to see Matt anymore; in fact, his presence might cause people to skip a film entirely. May be a good time for George to extend his casting circle beyond people he invited to his wedding.

Agree Missa.  IMO he tries to do too much: a serious message, humor, etc. etc.  Then he gets sunk by his inflated ambitions. Make an Argo or The Big Short for goodness sakes!  Has a serious subject, but a deft touch.  I wonder if he made GNGL now whether it would have all sorts of heavy humor elements!  

Let's not forget that Matt was also player in one of Weinstein's successful efforts to bury the story.  He could have unknowingly defended the Italian guy.  But didn't he wonder why he was being asked to with what he knew about Gwyneth?

party animal - not! wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Says it all really

That review is clearly this man's opinion and not a consensus of the people who actually saw the movie.

I spoke to two African American men walking out of the movie who both really liked the movie.
 
I don't see the movie as a political statement, a message on consciousness, or even a dark comedy.
 
I see it as a satire based in the 50's.  The Meyer's/Mayer's Mom is June Cleaver except she is African American.  The amount of attention paid to that family as oppose to the other dysfunctional suburban family is stuctured absolutely brilliantly.

Evil does not win and the movie leaves you with the understanding better days are on the way.

I promised Katie I would not share, however, the talk on Clooney's Open House is so bad about a very good film "Suburbicon", I just could not keep quiet

Thanks PAN. Interesting take by Mr. Duke. I remember George saying that Norman Lear thought ‘Suburbicon’ was the angriest movie he had ever seen. Duke seems to concur. Well the critics’ lousy reviews, the bad headlines and terrible box office last weekend will probably scare off a lot of moviegoers stateside. Not me. I’m still planning to go this weekend. Hopefully the movie will do better across the pond.

Lizzy, no problem.

Ladybug you’re the only poster to have seen ‘Suburbicon’ so far. The rest of us are at a disadvantage since we haven’t. I’m glad you shared your opinions ....

Esquire has weighed in.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

George Clooney's Latest Film Is One Of Paramount's Biggest Flops Ever
'Suburbicon' is being attacked from every angle




By Olivia Ovenden
OCT 31, 2017
On paper Suburbicon sounds like a surefire hit. George Clooney directing, an old Coen brothers screenplay and a star studded cast which includes Matt Damon, Julianne Moore and Oscar Isaac.




The reality of what was created is a film which the LA Times summed up as, "a dreadful movie for dreadful times" and has earned a paltry 26 per cent on Rotten Tomatoes.



It's been so badly received that Forbes reports that it had "the worst wide-release opening ever for Matt Damon and Paramount's worst opening weekend ever for a film on more than 2,000 screens."

The film has earned just $2.8 million at the box office but cost around $25 million to produce and $10 million for Paramount to distribute.

Intended to be a "pointed satire of racism in a 1959 suburb" the film has instead been criticised for coming across as a "naughty white nuclear family". As Collider point out, "in [Clooney's] drive to point out how the white middle class dehumanizes black families, ends up dehumanizing a black family.

Comparatively, Get Out was praised for its searing take on racism in suburban America as painted by Jordan Peele. It seems Suburbicon has fallen victim to the same problem as HBO's stalled slavery drama Confederate where people complained about white filmmakers depicting black history. Though HBO still aren't backing down, Amazon's similar sounding Black America with Will Packer and Aaron McGruder has generated considerably more positive buzz.

Poor social commentary wasn't even the only issue for Suburbicon which Vice described as, "a film so bafflingly bad, so fundamentally ill-conceived, so wanting in basic tenets of tone and narrative, it almost feels like the work of a first-time director."

Maybe they shouldn't have edited Josh Brolin out after all...

PigPen wrote:Esquire has weighed in.  

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From the beginning this movie was promoted as a "dark comedy" not a satire on racism.  As time went on there was talk of the element of racism experienced by an African American family.  Furthur talk was on how these two elements were combined to make the movie.

The truth is those two elements are structured in this movie brilliantly.  

As I've stated, I see the movie as a satire of the 50's;  not a satire on racism.  The white family is not "naughty", they are diabolical (dark comedy).  These characters are scripted brilliantly.  

The beginning of the movie lays out the community brilliantly.  The black family is the epitome  of every other family in the suburb, the only difference is they are African American.   The Mayer's mom regardless of how she is treated carries on with her live like June Cleaver.  How they are treated by the community is absolutely ridiculous, however you have to remember this is the 50's and that's how an African American would be treated at the time.  THUS A SATIRE OF THE 50"s.

Now, how these two families are structured in this movie is ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT.  It will keep you engaged through the entire movie.  Why I think it's structured brilliantly is because at the end of the movie, the picture of how these to families are structured enfolds.  If you pay attention to the News coverage at the end of the movie, the satire of these 2 families in the 50's is scripted BRILLIANTLY.  And I do mean Brilliant.  Thus a satire of the 50"s.  

After listening to the critics and seeing how people have taken what they've said and ran with it is a tale on how we as a nation are not independent thinkers.  How people on COH have tried to attach the Weinstein scandal to the outcome of this movie is absolutely outrageous.  With all the love and interest people seem to extend toward George Clooney, the talk about this movie given the fact they have not seen the movie is beyond interesting to me.

Ladybug - Thanks for your review of the movie. I was ambivalent about seeing it, but now you've made me curious. I don't understand how there can be such conflicting views of the same film.

I know there are some "critics" who would pan anything George was connected to due to their political bias. Fox News and anything Breitbart-related or right-wing fall into that category. But why the reviews have changed so much is a puzzle.

I also don't see what an actor's/director's personal life has to do with a film. If the film is political and you don't like their politics, fine. But what they do or don't do in their personal lives has little relevance to the finished film. What George or Matt knew about Harvey Weinstein has nothing to do with whether this is a good or bad movie.

Way2Old4Dis wrote:I don't know if George is the type of director who hovers over the editor's back and says "Cut here." From what I've read, he is very close to the process. In this case, he had the guy who edited 'Traffic' and 'Birdman,' so if George was giving the orders in the editing room, somebody should have told him to STFU.

Seriously though, sometimes the problem is that one thing works and another doesn't, but since it's a story, if you change one thing it affects five other scenes, so the choice has to be not to change that one thing. Or maybe (and this probably doesn't apply because George works with friends) an actor has in his/her contract that they have a certain number of lines or scenes, and the director's and editor's hands are a bit tied. And sometimes you have an editor who demands some autonomy but doesn't have the same vision for the story that the director does. That doesn't happen often so much anymore, but it's possible.

But again, if you bring a flawed written vision to the set and film it, there's only so much that can be done in the editing room.

I was actually encouraged when I read that they had cut Josh Brolin because his role didn't fit in the final cut. It suggested, to me, that George was being more objectively critical. And that may be true. I haven't seen it; I'm just going by the chatter. I'll have a real opinion Tuesday.

Way2,

It sounds like you are going on what the critics have said.  Have you seen the movie?

I think I've mentioned a couple of times that I haven't, and was surmising based on the chatter about the movie. I had planned to see it today, but life gets in the way, even on one's birthday. Probably tomorrow.

Way2Old4Dis wrote:I think I've mentioned a couple of times that I haven't, and was surmising based on the chatter about the movie. I had planned to see it today, but life gets in the way, even on one's birthday. Probably tomorrow.

If I understand you correctly, long story short, you stated your writer friend said the irony of the two family were not clearly defined.  And your other friend flat out liked the movie.

In my opinion an African American will get the irony instantly.  Because others don't live it, they may not get it as fast.  That's why I think the news report at the end of the movie is so brilliant; the consensus of the community is still twisted.  It's exactly why I see it as a 50's satire.  However the movie will keep you thinking days after you've seen the movie.  

The good news is:  evil does not win and you are left with the UNDERSTANDING things will (did) get better.

If you view the movie today, it will be a pleasant birthday surprise.

Sounds like you will get it instantly Way2!  Happy Birthday movie or not.

I hope you are having a very happy birthday Way2!

Happy Birthday Way2 !!!!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think it's interesting that it's seen as the angriest movie one has ever seen.  As oppose to the most displaced angriest movie one has ever seen.  The news report at the end of the sums this understanding up brilliantly.  This movie is based in the 50's.  With everything that happens in this movie, as the movie goer you are left with the hope things will get better.  And we all know things do get better.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

 
"George Clooney's Awkward White Guilt in 'Surburbicon'"
 

I think "white guilt" is an interesting take, given wrong doing clearly does not win.

The brilliance about this movie is the white family "because they have their own agenda" clearly does not care about what's happening near them.  The rest of the community is pre-occupied with a African American family that fits in their community perfectly, when the other family is diabolical. 

As a movie goer I wondered how the two co-exist, at the end of the movie you learn how they co-exist.  That's why I think, how these two stories are married is BRILLIANT!!!

This film is based in the 50's, why any person would feel guilty in 2017 is beyond me.

I love this movie, I wanted to know thoughts of others on COH who have gone to see it.

I can't see it until Wednesday at the earliest. And now I have to go farther to catch it, because it's on fewer screens now.

Thanks Way2!!!

I was planning on seeing it tomorrow. Finally. I just checked the movie guide for our tri-state area (which is pretty big) and the movie is playing in only one theater out of more than 60! I can’t believe it. The one place it’s showing is nowhere close to me. I’m so disappointed.

Donnamarie wrote:I was planning on seeing it tomorrow.  Finally.  I just checked the movie guide for our tri-state area (which is pretty big) and the movie is playing in only one theater out of more than 60!  I can’t believe it.  The one place it’s showing is nowhere close to me.  I’m so disappointed.

Don't be disappointed, surely you will see it at some point.  Maybe we can enjoy talking about it then  .

I just read that it has been pulled out of 1700 theatres as of today

On the positive side, I'm guessing that this paper represents union members. It's a good review.........

party animal - not! wrote:I just read that it has been pulled out of 1700 theatres as of today

On the positive side, I'm guessing that this paper represents union members. It's a good review.........

PAN

You seem to be a bearer of negative information.  Did you see "Suburbicon"?

Even if  ‘Suburbicon’ was realized the way George envisioned it this resounding rejection has got to sting him badly.   I wonder how he is taking this?   We haven’t see him in a few weeks now.  I don’t know if it means anything.  I wonder if he and Amal are still in LA?  

This is the first time I’ve felt that the tide has turned for George...and not in a good way.  I hope I’m just overreacting.  What do you guys think?  There have been so many bad reviews with some critics even saying it’s time for George to give up directing.  Then there is this whole Weinstein ordeal in which he was not covered very kindly by some media outlets.  They claimed he knew about Weinstein’s harassment and didn’t speak out even though he was emphatic about not knowing and condemned what happened.  It just leaves me with a bad feeling.  I know he can come back from this but I do worry how he’s taking all of it.  At least he has his family to hopefully keep him centered.

Donnamarie wrote:Even if  ‘Suburbicon’ was realized the way George envisioned it this resounding rejection has got to sting him badly.   I wonder how he is taking this?   We haven’t see him in a few weeks now.  I don’t know if it means anything.  I wonder if he and Amal are still in LA?  

This is the first time I’ve felt that the tide has turned for George...and not in a good way.  I hope I’m just overreacting.  What do you guys think?  There have been so many bad reviews with some critics even saying it’s time for George to give up directing.  Then there is this whole Weinstein ordeal in which he was not covered very kindly by some media outlets.  They claimed he knew about Weinstein’s harassment and didn’t speak out even though he was emphatic about not knowing and condemned what happened.  It just leaves me with a bad feeling.  I know he can come back from this but I do worry how he’s taking all of it.  At least he has his family to hopefully keep him centered.

You probably would not think that way if you saw "Suburbicon".  You really can't believe everything you read.

Yes
It's worrying

Today's Guardian:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The film is released here in the UK on November 24

Cop-out way to not review the movie...

PAN - World's WORST idea, unless he's looking for a way to ruin his life! There are too many people who hate him and Amal. Going into politics would put a target on their backs and open them up to every troll in creation.

Right now he's got it all. If acting and directing don't work for him any more, he can stick with producing. Or he can devote himself full-time to philanthropy and his foundations. Or he can spend as much time as possible with his family. His parents are getting up there and won't be around a whole lot longer - and he's no chicken either. If he wants his kids to know him he needs to make lots of time for them in his life. They need to be his priority - and like he said, he sold a tequila company so he really doesn't need to work. He could just be Mr. Mom for the next few years.

I'm not sure why you all are discussing a possible run for President, in the "Suburbicon" reviews blog.

Because PAN posted a Guardian article that suggested George might want to get into politics because his recent movies (including "Suburbicon") have been flops.

Totally agree with you, Lizzy. I think the Guardian's film man was just looking for a different angle which, as it happens, seems a little kinder in a non-review kind of way.

In fact I'm wondering if the European critics may be less vociferous in their critiques given they slightly removed from the situation and folks here may be more inquisitive......

You never know!