A joyous Father of the Bride remake says yes to new lessons on love and life
Gaz Alazraki's sophisticated remake celebrates unique colors of the Latinx diaspora and finds its dashing rom-com dad in Andy Garcia
Film Reviews Father Of The Bride
A cheerful, vibrant and culturally precise reimagining of Father Of The Bride—both the elegant 1950 original and 1991’s hilarious remake—Gaz Alazraki’s new version starts with a melancholic undercurrent. As the father of the hour, wealthy and sought-after Florida architect Billy Herrera (Andy Garcia) guides the viewer across a sweet journey of sepia-tinted photographs and grainy home videos, reminiscing in voiceover on his proud past as a hardworking Cuban immigrant who built a prosperous life out of nothing.
Billy’s memories are chiefly about his amorous marriage with his dear wife Ingrid (Gloria Estefan), a loving and equally industrious spouse. And while you are acutely aware of the slight lament in his voice throughout this happily-ever-after sequence, the sudden change to present day—with the prickly and miserable duo now facing a couples therapist—still lands as a shock. It’s an unexpected tonal shift that swiftly asks the viewer to surrender to a fresh remake with novel ideas, one that pledges to forge its own path towards a winsome romantic comedy that celebrates matrimonial bliss and hard-wearing familial bonds despite the odds stacked against them.
Indeed, Alazraki and screenwriter Matt Lopez give us a daring and sophisticated template from the get-go, redefining the tried-and-true notion at the center of Father Of The Bride through a diverse Latinx lens with verve and smarts. Here, the traditional dad figure tormented by his daughter’s fast-approaching (and very expensive) wedding not only has to come to terms with his offspring’s assertive womanhood and autonomy, but also needs to unlearn his old ways as a conventional husband and discover what it takes to be a good life partner in a modern era where patriarchy isn’t a definitive ideal. But can Bill pull all that off against a ticking clock, and meet Ingrid at the mutually receptive and adventurous life she wants to lead going forward?
Insisting on divorce for entirely valid reasons—imagine a well-off retirement-age husband who won’t as much as go to Greece with you—the level-headed Ingrid doesn’t think so. But the duo decide to keep their impending separation a secret anyway, once their dear Sofia (Adria Arjona) returns from NYU Law with a promising Mexico-based offer under her belt and announces her engagement to Adan Castillo (Diego Boneta), an heir to a beer dynasty and a lovably granola city dweller raised by his ultra-rich, larger-than-life Mexican parents Hernan and Marcela (Pedro Damián and Laura Harring, respectively).
Also in the chaotic picture is Sofia’s polar-opposite sister Cora (Isabela Merced), an aspiring designer who, instead of going to college, yearns to launch her own progressive fashion line. And what high-profile wedding would be complete without a hectic wedding planner? Here, the honors belong to Chloe Fineman’s Natalie Vance, a social-media-famous influencer-type pitched somewhere between a well-meaning yet clueless outsider and a cringey white lady who could be a scammer; it’s a tricky tightrope Fineman owns with a healthy dose of laughs.
It’s surely a crowded canvas. But Alazraki and Lopez joyously melt all the ingredients into a hearty hotpot of generational clash, cultural conflict, patriarchal one-upmanship and domestic chaos, allowing the uniqueness of both the Cuban and Mexican cultures to shine through in their Latinx tapestry, rendered through production designer Kim Jennings’ sumptuous sets. Closer in essence to Spencer Tracy’s caustically nonchalant dad than Steve Martin’s frenzied persona, Garcia makes the titular part very much his own through his organic screen charisma, matched by Estefan’s marvelous turn as a headstrong woman unafraid to follow her heart’s desires.
Also enriching the picture is the sisterly bond between Cora and Sofia, two inspiring young women who become a little closer to one another as they grow to appreciate and enable each other’s differences. The end result of all this is a little My Big Fat Greek Wedding and a little Crazy Rich Asians in spirit; an opulent package elevated by costume designer Caroline Eselin Schaefer’s lavish work—Sofia’s midriff-baring suits are especially stunning—composer Terence Blanchard’s rich score of jazzy rhythms and cinematographer Igor Jadue-Lillo’s committed lens that advances the film’s stormy finale through dizzyingly mazy, single-take camerawork.
But the real heart-warmer of the saga is Billy and Adan’s eventual bonding, with the former learning from the latter about the kind of demeanor a contemporary husband should aspire to. It’s a development that flips the script on the previous movies, convincingly asserting that the young can be right about a thing or two as well, as well as the notion that children of sacrificing immigrants are (or should be) allowed to follow their own dreams. This lovely detail makes up for some of the film’s shortcomings elsewhere, such as the script’s frustrating tiptoeing around Cora’s sexual orientation and attraction to a bridesmaid. The suggestion is there, but it almost feels like some forces in studio meeting rooms are secretly hoping that you won’t notice it. Surely, not every gay story has to be a heteronormative coming-out story. But in the traditional world that Cora dwells in, the hush-hush coyness on display feels like a misstep.
Make no mistake however: This Father of the Bride is still a best-case-scenario for a remake, an affectionately specific and glowingly universal take on a classic that walks down a familiar aisle with something new to say.
126 Comments
I know you don’t do the headlines, but Latinx sounds like the adult parody of this movie. Is there something inappropriate about “Latin,” a word that already exists and is widely used?
Jesus. Just Google. You’ll find your answer.
I’d be surprised if they don’t already know the answer, but if they really believe it might be related to porn, then that’s probably why they haven’t googled it.
I was trying to find pics of hot Latinx beauties, and all I got were these treatises on treating people like people.
Well, not at work.
I was going to make a pissy reply to your pissy reply but then I saw that you defended the last season of GoT as rushed, not an actual abomination, and now I feel we are friends.
The lesson of the movie is that first generation immigrants are doing it wrong and need to be taught by the next generation to use neologisms.
No, there’s nothing wrong with Latin, Hispanic etc. Latinx is a word used by mainly white liberals to make themselves feel righteous. The word is barely used by the people it refers to.
“to make themselves feel righteous”Why go to all the trouble of inventing words when sneering bullshit responses like this do the work for us?
Patronising linguistic colonialism deserves to be sneered at.
Yeah, that’s definitely what it is.eyeroll.gif
eyeroll.gif
Jesus Christ, what a fucking dildo.
Wait, I’m a white liberal and when I want to feel righteous I usually say “Ladies and gentlemen…Jam Productions presents…The Black & White Moses of Soul!”
it’s used by queer latin people who don’t feel comfortable with the gender binary imposed by the spanish language (latino vs latina)
LatinXXX?
Oh look, Maul Keating is mad about something involving women. Must be a day ending in y.
No one likes you.
Oh look, recognitions is bending over backwards to crowbar in some woker-than-thou, SJW snark…must be a day ending in y.
Lol people who use the terms “woke” and “SJW” unironically
nothing ironic about you, kiddo
By the way I love these little moments when you drop your sad jokey persona and go full mask off with the bitterness and hate
Please. Read a little more into what isn’t even there.
If you really LOL’d my last, at least I bring a moment of joy to your day. I doubt any vertebrate would ever say that about you.
I have never laughed at anything you’ve posted on this site
Well what else would I expect from a bitter, hate-filled little sod such as yourself?
Well, enough time in the Vortex. The last word shall be yours if you wish it.
Yes I do hate assholes who think every issue that involves real people suffering is just fodder for their stupid jokes
Because 1991 was thirty years ago. I’ll bet the target audience is too young to have seen it or even know it exists.And honestly this sounds like a completely different movie anyway. Much more of a standard romcom than the pure comedy of the 1991 remake.So yeah, they’re making a movie for the youths that I have zero interest in. It was bound to happen eventually. We all get old sometime.
We’ve had 10 films with Batman, 6 different actors.8 spidermen film with 3 different actors.Almost All since 1991 and people are going to complain about a remake that’s going 30 years later. They’re just nonsensical.
Well those are different cases though.Batman and Spiderman are continuing narratives. Each movie has a different story.This is a remake. Same story with minor changes.
Each reboot is a continuing story.It’s still multiple remakes and reboots of essentially the same idea. Small details different but Batman is Batman and Spider-Man is Spider-Man .
No.To make it more clear, the various Batman/Superman movies are like additional seasons/episodes of the same tv show. It’s part of a continuity.While a remake is like having two different tv shows with very similar stories. They aren’t part of the same continuity.The comic book/franchise style of extended continuity over different movies is just an entirely different type of storytelling from a remake.
A reboot is explicitly not part of the same continuity, even if it’s not the same as a remake.
So it’s a movie about a guy who can’t handle his daughter getting married?
Did any incarnation of Father of the Bride ever get any sequels?
Yes, Father of the Bride Part II, with most of the cast of the first one. I didn’t see it, I had to look that up.
To make it more clear, the various Batman/Superman movies are like additional seasons/episodes of the same tv show. It’s part of a continuity.
No, it’s not. There is no continuity that’s shared by Keaton’s Batman and Bale’s Batman.
Multiverse movies have entered the chat
Tell me what movie links Bale’s Batman & Keaton’s Batman. I’ll wait. And the unreleased Flash movie doesn’t count. First, it’s unreleased, and second, it’s probably never actually coming out.
Buddy, I’m making a joke about the current ubiquity of “multiverse” narratives. Relax.
But maybe Steve Martin and Andy Garcia can collide in some other strain of space and time. I’d be down for that.
By your logic they have remade rebooted Batman three times since the 1989 movie and Spider-man twice since 2002. Complaining that Father of the Bride does not need to be remade for a second time in the 70 years since the original is beyond clueless.
Did you actually read my post?I’m not complaining about the Father of the Bride remake. It’s not for me, and that’s ok. It’ll probably be really good for the people who it is for. I’m simply also trying to clarify that it’s not hypocrisy for someone to feel differently about movie remakes than they do about franchise movies. Since those are just different kinds of things and not really comparable. That doesn’t mean that you can’t have bad or unnecessary franchise movies. Or that all remakes are terrible. Just that the standards and criteria for each type of storytelling is different.
They are completely comparable. There is no difference between a remake FotB and Tom Holland stepping for Spider-man in a completely new set of stories. Tom Holland stepping in is not simply a new addition to the franchise, but a reimagining. Now with the last SM movie, you could argue that it’s the same universe, but for the most part they have not been.
But ALL franchise movies are built with that multi-verse continuity possibility. It’s just baked into the nature of that kind of storytelling. Even when there are reboots, there is still often an aspect of the canon that survives and evolves into the next iteration.The best description for it that I’ve heard is modern day mythology. It’s expected that you have different versions all weaving in and out of a central narrative while evolving over time or for different audiences. Like how stories about gods like Zeus or Loki take on different aspects as different stories are told about them and other narratives are incorporated into their mythology or removed from it.Father of the Bride and most other standard movie remakes aren’t that sort of thing. There isn’t, to my knowledge, a “Father of the Bride canon” that exists. That doesn’t mean they are better or worse, just different.
You’re really stretching in my opinion. Until the last year, that was not the case at all in the MCU and has not been the case anywhere else.
It’s not a stretch at all.Here’s an example. Let’s take Harley Quinn. She was invented as a side character for Batman: The Animated Series in the 90s. In that iteration she’s Joker’s girlfriend. However, she was popular and interesting enough that she then showed up in the Batman comics. And in that iteration, she evolves and becomes a lesbian in a relationship with Poison Ivy. Then she shows up in the DCEU in the Suicide Squad movie and gets her own animated tv show, etc etc. Even though each piece of media is a seperate story, her character clearly evolves over time and picks up or drops various aspects in each iteration. They are interconnected.Or, here’s a non-comic book example. Let’s take James Bond. The actor for James Bond changes from movie to movie. And you can’t really say that, for example, Casino Royale, exists in the same “universe” as Goldeneye. It just wouldn’t make any sense. But there are overlapping aspects of the canon that are carried between. Like Dame Judy Dench as M. So even though the actor changes and story arcs might be rebooted, an overall continuity and unifying canon exists.
But that is the same James Bond for the most part. Again, when the movies reboot it is exactly the same as a remake of any other movie. Some are going to see it because they liked the previous version and some are going to see it to experience that world for the first time. There is literally no difference.
It’s not the same thing though, and the difference is quite huge and matters a great deal. It’s why some filmmakers are able to do well as franchise filmmakers and some struggle. Because it takes a different skill to tell a story within the context of a larger continuity knowing that your story is a piece of a larger whole than it does to tell a story that stands entirely on it’s own.If someone tried to make a James Bond movie that didn’t adhere to and respect the “canon”, that movie would bomb and bomb hard. But if someone wants to remake North by Northwest, there’s no canon to adhere to. That’s what makes the difference. It’s not a matter of whether people are new to the story or liked the previous version. It’s about whether the new version HAS to be connected in a major way to the old. I.e., whether there is a canon that connects them.
Again, you keep bringing up tangential issues. Making movies within the MCU, for example, is going to impose significant constraints on what you can do. However, when the company and new creators reboot a character, there are no constraints save the ones they choose to keep. There is no canon at that point. Now, you could argue that many of the movies are based on existing comics and that’s another constraint, but that’s also true of multiple movies based on the same novel or historical event.
The thing is, even when movies reboot a character, if that character is part of a larger canon, then it needs to adhere to that canon. It’s not just a case of being constrained by being an adaptation from a prior comic, although that is part of what creates the canon. It’s about whether multiple pieces of media all inform and evolve an ongoing idea of the overall story. The canon grows beyond the original work being adapted.There is a fundamental difference between movies, tv shows, books, comics, and other media that are part of this sort of evolving, ongoing story and those that are not.Someone making an adaptation of a typical book doesn’t need to consider canon. They don’t have to take any consideration at all for how their adaptation fits within a existing larger corpus or how the franchise will be affected going forward. They can just do their thing. Anyone making a work within a franchise must consider canon. It’s not just their thing alone, they have to consider how it fits in with all the rest of it.I’m not sure why this difference is hard to grasp. Maybe it’s just because I grew up reading books in extended universes with multiple authors who had to play nice with each other and take pains to integrate their works together, so I get how it is very different from typical storytelling. It’s not just an MCU thing. The MCU is just a highly successful iteration on a style of modern storytelling that’s been evolving for dang near a century now.
“Someone making an adaptation of a typical book doesn’t need to consider canon”Yeah they do, especially if that book had sequels or was set in the world as the author’s other books, which is often the case in genre and non-genre alike. This idea that canon from discontinued universes still counts in comic book movies is incorrect.
I literally just provided an example of canon from a discounted universe in a comic book movie. Batman: TAS is done. It’s ended. That universe is over.But Harley Quinn still exists because she’s now part of the canon.“if that book had sequels or was set in the world as the author’s other books”Well yeah. But you’ve just described the same sort of franchise book that I’m talking about that exists in the context of a canon.
It’s not beholden to the canon. They chose to use something, just like someone adapting a work can choose to use something from a prior adaptation. A series of books by an author is not a franchise.
“A series of books by an author is not a franchise.”It’s more of one than a standalone book with no sequels. And once you are talking about it taking place in the same world as different series, well then you’re talking about a expanded universe. And if other authors or creators are allowed to play in that expanded universe, like say if a movie is allowed to be made, that makes a franchise.What I’m trying to say is that there is a difference between remaking a single work that exists by itself as a standalone product, and contributing to an expanded universe. Even if that contribution retreads familiar ground, it’s not just remaking the same story but rather adding to or streamlining the overall canon.That’s not to say that one is better or worse than the other. You can have bad entries to canon and really good remakes. It’s just that they are different things and must be judged with different eyes.
“What I’m trying to say is that there is a difference between remaking a single work that exists by itself as a standalone product, and contributing to an expanded universe.” Ok, but that does not contradict anything I said. There is no difference between Spider-man Homecoming or The Batman and this new Father of the Bride. SM:H and The Batman are not contributing to existing Spider-man or Batman universes.
I disagree. Spider-man: Homecoming and The Batman are contributions to the overall canon of Spiderman and Batman respectively. Hell, SM:Homecoming is already part of both the MCU and Sony’s aborted attempts to create their own cinematic universe. I mean, there’s a reference to events from that movie in the recent Morbius flick, not to mention how the Tom Holland spidey movies culminate in Spider-man: No Way Home, which then pulls in the Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire films.But even beyond the specific plot continuity, there’s a sense of the overall canon and versions of the characters evolving. Being informed by past iterations as well as shaping future iterations. Not as a remake or singular adaptation, but as a continuous storytelling event with multiple voices all providing their input to shape and grow an overall mythos.I can’t say how The Batman will shape future iterations of that mythos. But it’s guaranteed to. Someone making another film in the Batman canon in five, ten, even fifty years will have to think about this iteration and how to either follow through on the various hooks and idea within it, or have to deconstruct and refute those ideas.
I think you and your debate partner here are trying to breakdown the distinction between “narrative universe” and, I dunno, “ideological universe”, which can be functionally unhelpful, because as has happened, you’re quibbling over semantics more than having a discussion that progresses in any positive fashion.
If you’re going to argue that reboots are influenced by their predecessors and that thus means they’re in the same “universe”, well, then you probably need to just include all influences anywhere in that “universe”, many of which will have a greater effect than the films that happen to share the same main character or corporate brand curators. Every grimdark desaturated remake in the DC and Marvel canons probably owes a huge debt to Batman Begins (and to a not small extent, 300), even if they didn’t get the point of that remake and subsequently overdid it. Captain America: The First Avenger has more in common with the 1977 Superman (and, not for nothing, The Rocketeer) than it does the previous Captain America “films”, and Chris Evans’ performance is in no way a “commentary” on or even in any sort of conversation whatsoever with Reb Brown’s performance in 1979. The first Suicide Squad being re-shot and re-edited to become what it became, and the subsequent functional reboot that went fully into being a dark comedy less than three years later, has a lot more to do with Deadpool’s success than, say, Justice League’s (which itself had a lot of its issues because of a desire to make it more like the Avengers).You can get even more incidental with “universe” connections once you start talking about business and marketing. I guarantee you that the success of the Fast and Furious franchise had a HELL of a lot more to do with Vin Diesel’s ability to make Chronicles of Riddick than Pitch Black, and his persona in that movie is affected by it. Is Fast and Furious in the same “universe” as Chronicles of Riddick? Does Dwayne Johnson’s WWE persona “exist” in the Mummy universe because The Rock being The Rock was more important to his appearance in The Mummy 2 than anything he functionally contributed to that film? How much does Top Gun exist in the same universe as literally every single one of Michael Bay’s films because of their queasy relationship with, access to, and hagiographic filming of US military hardware?You’re trying to make “universe” mean something different than most other folks generally use it, which is the entire origin of your “dispute” rather than an actual functional difference of opinion on how films influence each other. Quit trying to make “fetch” a thing and you’ll suddenly find you agree with the person you’re arguing with, hehe.
Yeah, no.There is a major difference between all Batman media sharing a single canon and “every war movie with explosions” being similar. Or every Tom Cruise movie having a guy who rides motorcyle and runs real well. They are not the same.That’s the core of the argument here. We all agree that canon is a thing that exists and works influence each other. The guy I’m responding to believes that all sorts of influence are equal, therefore a remake of a standalone movie may as well be a reboot of a popular comic character and vice versa. I don’t think so. I think the style of storytelling that results in enduring characters with their own expansive mythos is fundamentally different.
What Pgoodso said. We fundamentally disagree on definitions and terms, so this is probably pointless.
Is that Rod Stewart’s new album?
It’s been 3.5 days since the last Romeo and Juliet adaptation. Sometimes people retell stories because they like the stories.
Batman and Spiderman are continuing narratives. Each movie has a different story.
‘Reboot’ and ‘continuing narrative’ are mutually exclusive. We haven’t had one ongoing Batman storyline since the 90s. We haven’t had it with Spider-Man, either.
they are copying Disney, remake it after decades with one small change
The word “Latinx” appears three times in this review, which is three times more than any Hispanic person has ever used that term.Movie looks good, though, Andy Garcia always is.
Sure, arbiter of Hispanic language use.
He’s not, but a poll of Hispanic people found the term had a skyhigh approval of…. 4%! It’s only used by patronizing white academics who think Hispanics should adopt it … because reasons (and probably don’t know any actual Hispanics) https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/08/05/us/latinx-gallup-poll-preference-trnd/index.html
While that poll shows that it isn’t used very often by Hispanic people, 4% of them is not 0. It drives me crazy when people pretend that it’s never used by anyone who isn’t white.
>It drives me crazy when people pretend that it’s never used by anyone who isn’t white.This right here. And most of the people complaining about Latinx usage in these articles are more than likely white themselves so…what gives.
“Uhggle. White people wokely trying to dictate how Latinaoes use their own words!” —White people.(I would have preferred Latinum since it is itself Latinesque and more importantly sounds like a cool space-ace element, but nobody listens to me.)
well to be fair 4% is almost as close to 0 as 0. about 96% close.
“While that poll shows that it isn’t used very often by Hispanic people, 4% of them is not 0. It drives me crazy when people pretend that it’s never used by anyone who isn’t white”This may come as a surprise to you, but hispanic is not a race.
This may come as a surprise to you but I’m referencing a poll that specifically asks about using Hispanic as an identifier.
At this point I can’t tell if you’re being dense or intentionally obtuse.You pointed to the fact that 4% of hispanic people using the term means that it’s used by non-white people. Hispanic is not a race. You have no idea what their race is.You’re being racist.
But you list an article that says 4% of Hispanics use it so…it’s used by Hispanics as well!The term Latinx was actually coined by people of Latinx / Hispanic descent btw.Now to the point of the article, it hasn’t caught on. Language changes over time so maybe we’re still in the early stages but even among young people the usage is only slightly higher (7% or so if I remember from another article).
It’s also a petty complaint in reaction to a movie review. Granted, the review makes a lot of hay about how the movie supports a Latin viewpoint, but vocabulary choice is still a petty concern.
I mean, petty concerns about movie reviews is vintage AVClub.But this particular complaint is just…tired. And it’s unlikely that those complaining here are of Hispanic / Latinx descent.
Descent is kind of the key term here I think, as the word only really works in any capacity in English. It’s a very 2nd/3rd generation term, so it mostly resonates with the Latin American diaspora living in Anglo American cultural contexts and using English as their primary language. As such, it highlights schisms along lines of generational, regional, linguistic and social politics. Given the high rates of both immigration and native Latin American population growth in the US, I don’t see this debate going away any time soon, as it’s becoming something of a shibboleth separating White people and more Anglo-Americanized Latin Americans from other Latin American communities both in and outside the US.
As a 1st generation immigrant myself, I just stick with Latino/a/e, and think maybe we should interrogate the difference between gender expression and identity when it comes to gendered languages in general.
Low single digits does not equal widespread adoption, and argues that it shouldn’t be the default.
Personally I use Latin/Latine, the point I was trying to argue is that only white academics and bloggers use it, not that it was the default.
Yeah, always seemed to me that Latin should be an easy default if you’re trying to not use gendered language.
Who’s talking about the fucking “default”? It was used in a movie review.
So Tomris Laffly is an academic?
It’s also not really pronounceable in Spanish.
it was coined by queer people and women who were frustrated by the gender binary in spanish. those people were, you guessed it, lantinx it wasn’t invented by guilty white people, it’s a reaction to a culture and language that’s hostile to queerness and non-traditional gender expression white people went overboard with it because they’d rather do anything than actually confront racism. but if it frustrates you, it’s essentially the same thing as saying they/them. I’ve also seen/read about a hundred times more white people annoyed by it than actual latin people!
My favorite part about arguing with people who claim nobody but white progressives/wokes/academics use the word Latinx, is that they keep using the word Latinx in their arguments that nobody uses the word Latinx, and then web crawlers searching for new words to add to the dictionaries go “Wow, people sure are using Latinx a lot.”
No. The Grand and All-Encompassing One Minority Rule has dictated over and over that it is perfectly acceptable. You wouldn’t want to be seen as a hypocrite, would you?
Then your hypothetical “any Hispanic person” is ignoring non-binary people.
That’s awful.
Many nonbinary people prefer ‘Latine’ as a descriptor and some prefer “Latin@’. No minority is a monolith, and speaking as if they are solves nothing.
My speech can accommodate Latine, Latin@ and Latinx.
Pretending yours can’t solves nothing.
It’s not their fault Spanish nouns have gender.
There’s room in the world for all Spanish nouns. Old and new.
Yawn. Latine is vastly better in every way. Screw your head on straight, please.
Latinx exists and a sleepy opinion won’t change that.
Might as well screw your head on to accommodate all variations.
You’re right; I should join the likes of Goldman Sachs in using a term that was corporatized before anyone had a say in the matter. God bless the banks!
Yeah, that’s the thing to focus on. /s
wait, do non-binary folk NOT refer to themselves as “People”? Like, literally, do they consider themselves non-human? Inhuman? Because that seems…a bit…much?
(I truly don’t know if that was meant to be real or not.)
Yeah, kinda thought we were done with that term once it became apparent that the vast majority of Hispanic people don’t and won’t use it.
They use it as often as Progressives use Woke.
lol, ‘hispanic.’ is this the 1970s?to be fair, i didn’t even know cuban folks were classified as latine.
Fewer than a quarter have even heard of the term, and almost none use it. Hispanic is actually the preferred term. You’re taking up a fight for people who didn’t ask for it.
…you mean people…like me?‘latinx’ seems to be a US thing, so…good for them, i guess.
‘latine’ is much easier on the speech, at least with me and folks who use it.
‘hispanic’ really is an antequated US thing, tho’.
Hispanic means natively Spanish-speaking.
Way to Streisand Effect the word Latinx.
As soon as I saw the word, I knew there’d be some fucking whiner in the comments. Get over it
I’m Puerto Rican and personally don’t use Latinx (would prefer Latine as an inclusive term myself) but at this point what is more tired than the use of Latinx is random people in the interwebs complaining about it.
I hope that Latine is what eventually wins out. It just works so much better in spoken English. Saying Latin-ex is cumbersome in a way that Latine is not. I have heard Latinx pronounced more often Lah-tinks than I have Latin-ex.
Latine works better in Spanish too, tbh (no idea how the Portuguese speakers handle it).
Excuse me, the appropriate term is Andx Garcix. Please check your privilege.
“All words are made up…and some of those words are stupid.”-Thor (basically)
The movie actually makes a very funny joke about exactly that
Colombiano aquí. Detesto esa palabra, todos mis amigos y familia también, pero bueno, los gringos hacen lo que quieren.Translation: Colombian here. I hate that expression, my friends and family too, but well, gringos do what they want.
Will this end up like Crazy Rich Asians where the beautiful wedding we’re supposed to “ooh and ahh” over will just make me want to reach for the guillotine?
“returns from NYU Law with a promising Mexico-based offer under her belt and announces her engagement to… an heir to a beer dynasty … raised by his ultra-rich, larger-than-life Mexican parents… “opulent package elevated by costume designer Caroline Eselin Schaefer’s lavish work”I’m getting those vibes off the review already.
I don’t know, but I’m more than a bit wary of anyone who has a guillotine handy.
Trust me, it’s best to invest in a good quality one now, before demand is too high and the market is flooded with cheap ones that won’t do the job properly.
Andy García es un gusano.Muerte a los gusanos.
It’s using the name as a cheap way to brand itself, but it doesn’t seem to resemble the original in any way. Anyway, that’s enough about the AVClub. Movie looks fun.
Oh, the electrum episode. That was a good one!
You’re so clever, maintaining engagement that drives ad sales.“Someone stop me from kicking this dead horse!”
Did Steve Martin have work done?
He had his fence painted and his roof re-shingled.(I don’t *think* those are euphemisms…)
He had his face painted and got shingles?
Now I’m quite fond of the Steve Martin version (and even the sequel) but I draw the line at “hilarious”. “Amusing and heart-warming” is the way I’d describe it.
It’s pretty damn funny. Martin’s meltdowns and anything involving Short were gold. Sounds like the main difference here is the strained relationship between the parents (Keaton got annoyed as all hell with Martin, but that’s about it).
You guys are sticking with Latinx, i see. good luck getting that to catch on, hasn’t worked so far