"Nothing happens" in Little Women? Really? Just because events aren't all portrayed in chronological order? *groans*

Is that really how rigidly you think?

Saw Joker the day before yesterday. The Oscar for Joaquin Phoenix was well deserved. Excellent performance, for the rest of time we'll be debating which Joker character Oscar winner was even better; him or Heath Ledger.

I'm not necessarily a movie guy but hearing that Parasite won so many prestigious awards pushed me to watch it...and man am I glad I did. Loved every second of it and now I will follow anything Bong Joon-ho does in the future.

How in the name of the skies above and the depths below did you come to that conclusion? Did you even read any of my post? 

I specifically said that a 'nothing' movie is one where there's no central conflict propelling the narrative and that it's just a sequence of events happening. That is pretty clearly what Little Women is. The non-chronological storytelling was a bit confusing but it had nothing to do with my assertion that it's a 'nothing' movie, and since I listed it as one of the best nominees, it should be clear that 'nothing' movies aren't bad by any means. I really liked the movie, and your criticism is so remarkably off-base I don't know if you're just really bad at reading comprehension or if you're overcompensating for some weird hangups you have external to this conversation. as in, I guess you heard people complaining about the nonlinear progression of the narrative and...somehow...assumed that because I said something you vaguely saw as negative (it wasn't), that this was the reason? 

Please don't project your hangups onto me. I loved the movie and felt it deserved more praise than it got; its status in my mind as a 'nothing' movie does nothing to deter me from enjoying it and the nonlinear narrative had nothing to do with that assessment. 

Oooooooh...I misunderstood. Sorry about that.

Interesting take on the Oscars (around halfway point or so) and some movies. Long story short, why get mad at Oscars? 1st world problems if you get mad at the Oscars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c-hAbInjt4

IT's all good, I just don't like it when people misrepresent what I'm trying to say. Seems we're on the same page, in the end! 

Eeeehhh...while technically I live in a FW country, I'm not exaggerating when I say that you're talking to someone who works 60+ hours a week and still has to hunt for food for much of a given month because I can't afford to shop at the grocery store where I work.

The content of the Oscars may not be the most pressing issue in the world, but it surely makes for the kind of discussion that would fit on a message board like this that's dedicated primarily to the topic of entertainment.

That said, glad you're nonetheless finding my take of interest! I appreciate that.

I'm guessing you work at a Whole Foods Store or some other grocery store that only sells overpriced organic goods.  Retail wages on a whole aren't great but most retail stores that sell groceries actually pay their employees enough so that they can afford to shop where they work.

Yeah, I thought that was a good movie too! Oh wait, you weren't addressing the subject at hand. Well...

I work at a magical place called Albertsons, which pays me $9.39 an hour and is generally priced for more middle and upper class customers. For perspective if you don't live in the U.S., that pay rate is close to the federal minimum wage (which hasn't been updated in over a decade). The Albertsons I work at is an out-of-town store that's located near a relatively affluent suburb, where they just assume that, if you're working there, it must be because you're going to college or retired and bored or something and don't really need the job. There are no major chains in my community. None of them will touch us anymore for fear of losing money.

Like most people in town, I also have lots and lots of debt I'll likely never get out of, so the cost of living for me is quite high.