I'm surprised to find that I don't believe this movie holds up to modern audiences. It has some good cinematography and is good for its time, but not that watchable today. Only Kubrick fans who want to be educated on his early work should watch this. Kubricks previous movie, Paths of Glory, is a much easier recommendation and a much more reasonable length as well.
loading replies
@finfan Of course you would watch it if you were studying Kubrick, good or bad or it's his work. You might not enjoy it very much (I didn't) but it's still a part of his canon.
All those Oscars for what exactly ? OK, the style and filming is good, looks more real with the shaky camera. Acting is OK but I don´t think it warrants a nomination for an Oscar. But the biggest issue - where is the story? This is just a chain of short stories whos only connection seems to be the general location and some of the players. You learn very little about the characters and their motivations. Character developement ? Nope. Therefore I found it impossible to relate to or feel anything for them. In fact I was mentally out of this after an hour.
And the number of errors in this movie is extreme (check IMDB) which could have been excused because a lot of war-movies have them. But with all the flaws in the story the pile becomes just higher.And something else entirely: I wish we had ratings by demographic. Look at IMDB you see the rating drops with age.
loading replies
@finfan I came here to figure out why everyone rated this movie so highly but turns out normal people seem to agree it was meh.
Starts out interesting with Bond going on a personal vendetta but it hits a wall the moment he meets the woman pilot. It becomes increasingly boring after that with bland and boring characters througout and that includes the women. The character of Sanchez seems to be written with Davi in mind but he is unfortunately as dull as the rest. The finale is explosive (literally) but it can't save the movie as a whole. Pretty generic and you could easily replace Bond with a Joe Smith. Giving "Q" a bit more to do than usual and a very young Benicio del Toro are some saving grace but that's ultimately not why I watch the movie.
loading replies
@finfan Haha. Lethal Weapon 2 came out the same year and the best line in that move is, "It's just been revoked." America would have figured it out.
Nah, this isn't my favourite Bond movie, but I do like Dalton, and I do think the theme is great.
Starts out interesting with Bond going on a personal vendetta but it hits a wall the moment he meets the woman pilot. It becomes increasingly boring after that with bland and boring characters througout and that includes the women. The character of Sanchez seems to be written with Davi in mind but he is unfortunately as dull as the rest. The finale is explosive (literally) but it can't save the movie as a whole. Pretty generic and you could easily replace Bond with a Joe Smith. Giving "Q" a bit more to do than usual and a very young Benicio del Toro are some saving grace but that's ultimately not why I watch the movie.
loading replies
@finfan Hey dude, I think you accidentally gave this a 5 instead of a 10. Please correct :laughing:
Nah, it's fine, but Licence to Kill has the best Bond theme of all time. That's surely worth an extra point!
I´ve seen Jurassic Park a couple times over the years and I´m always amazed how well this stands up to to later movies. This never looked old, not 10 years after, not 20 years after it was made.
loading replies
@finfan Or 30 years after – today!
Yes, the car chase is what sets this movie apart from similar ones. Althought I remembered it to be longer. But the rest of the movie isn't bad either. It's a thriller in the truest sense of the word with convincing portrayals from, both, McQueen and Vaughn alike.
loading replies
@finfan I watched it a long time ago, but I ofter hear Lalo Schifrin soundtrack which is majestic!
The war to end all wars. Unfortunately we all know how that went. The German capitulation lead to the rise of Nationalism and The Second World war with even more deaths.
After that came wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Gulf Wars, Yugoslavia to name but a few. And now Ukraine.
We are to stupid to learn.
loading replies
@finfan absolutely right on Sir. We never do and never will
I enjoy those movies much more today because they focus on story and acting and not on CGI and SFX.
Yes, the conspiracy at the base of this movie feels rather small considering what is happening in the world now. But keep in mind when this was written.
Althought I must admit I was thinking about a certain President a lot while watching this now.loading replies
@finfan you could say the story is actually loosely based on Nixon. You know the guy who actually used the CIA to spy on his opposition. Ever heard of watergate?
Absolutely boggles my mind that people were actually EXCITED to go to war back then. Brilliant film.
loading replies
@csbarker People still are, take any war after WWI
You just don't introduce that many (some stupid) new technical things in the last episode of a Sci-fi saga like this (can't list them all, easily spottable for a fan). Some good things like Lando and the return to Tatooine at the end . Not bad, but easily the worst Star Wars. The Phantom Menace is a great film compared to this.
loading replies
@morphinapg well, not in my opinion.
After watching this back then I bought the book and became and instant Clancy fan.
Althought the movies in general can´t reach up to the books because those are too complex there are some really good ones. Red October definately belongs into that category. It´s a classic cold war thriller with lots of suspension. Highly entertaining with great actors. Joh McTiernan did a great job of mixing the elements together.
But as mentioned I recommend checking out Clancys books if you like this kind of storys. Especially the early ones of which a lot of the movies are based on are great.loading replies
@finfan I picked up the book at a train station before a 9 hour journey home a few weeks after the film was released. Couldn't put it down and immediately looked up his other work. Read everything he wrote up until The Bear and the Dragon and some 20 years later I'm starting to re-read them.
It was like a bad episode of South Park.
It tries to be a clever political comedy, like Irresistible (2020), and it fails.
It tries to be an emotional disaster movie, like Deep Impact (1998), and it fails.
And it was 1 hour too long.The "science" was so unrealistic and badly misrepresented that the manufactured sense of urgency was unbelievable. There is no way a comet the size of Mount Everest would've slipped by until only months before impact. A realistic bare minimum time window would be 5 years. NASA and other agencies are keeping track of all sizable asteroids that could pose a threat to Earth and there are no collision courses with any of them for the next 100 years.
Go watch Silent Night (2021) instead, or better yet go watch NASA's DART mission on YouTube that was launched a month ago.
loading replies
@siegfried-kracauer You mean the (conservative) public's growing anti-intellectualism and distrust in Science and facts? I doubt I missed anything, it just wasn't done interestingly. Like I said, it was like a bad episode of South Park.
Ya, there is no real reason to watch this, but I'll go out on a limb here by saying we, who watched this, know exactly why.
loading replies
@finfan yes we do :) I think it wasn't any different back then.
it is outstanding!!!!! i have lost count on how many times i have seen it :heart:
loading replies
@angelia88 love your profile pic
There are bad movies and then there are movies that just aren´t for you. This belongs in the latter category.
Malick came back after 20 years and a who-is-who of Hollywood lined up to get even the slightest part in the movie, offering to work for free and even paying for it. And I don´t understand why. This is the third movie from Malick I watched. I didn´t made it through the first two (Knight of Cups & The New World) and in a way I didn´t made it through this one, too. After an hour with the prospect of another two ahead it faded into the background and I let play itself out barely taking notice of the plot anymore. Maybe if it would have been an hour shorter I would have stuck with it.
Malicks kind of filmmaking is of the sort that lets movie critics exult in critiques that are as hard to understand as his movies. I´m not bashing this, after all it is production wise a well made movie and the actors are doing their best. A lot of people like it and that is fine with me. But if you have, like me, had difficulties with a Malick movie before you can save the three hours because I am sure you won´t like this.loading replies
@finfan I'd say it wasn't quite as terribad as The New World, but maybe I just got milder with age or it's because there's no absurdly offensive Colin Farrell thing going on in this one.
You want my honest opinion ?
- A boring, uninteresting story taken right out of a Bond movie. Shoehorned in between events we've already seen.
- Humor that isn't the least bit funny.
- About 45 minutes too long. All the family reunion stuff did absolutely nothing for me.
- Generic action scenes with at times below average looking CGI
- Zero emotional investement
- Hilarious Russian accentsConclusion: dissapointing
loading replies
@finfan 2 months after watching it.. I can't even tell you how it ended. I don't remember! That's how boring it was.
It's funny to see bad reviews for this movie, and a lot of criticism towards JJ, but it's clear that all the choices made in this movie was to correct the choices made in The Last Jedi, the movie that was hated by all the fans till yesterday, but now people are praising.
The Rise of Skywalker is a great movie, specially for fans, it's a great way to end this saga, filled with fan service. I don't think I can say more than that without spoiling the experience for everyone.
All the critcs you see here, or on twitter, are coming from people who thinks star wars, a space opera, should be a deep and complex movie with fanfics about romances.
loading replies
@benitesgui it has just to feel like star wars, which these 3 movies just don't.
Mandalorian does. Easy as that.
bs movie
loading replies
@dcabro More like ba for bad ass lol.
Shout by FinFan
Much better than the first one. I can't point on single thing out that I like better. It's just that the whole movie felt like something carved from a solid billet instead of put together from several pieces. I am sure the experience from the first helped as much as the fact we didn't have to introduce every character. The additional runtime helps adding depth and detail and the climax really felt dramatic.
It's a lot of things all over that makes this a step up from X1.loading replies
@finfan I recently watched all the X-Men movies and I must say I prefer them to the MCU. The problem of not being accepted (since the mutation is feared by others) and the evolution of humanity are more compelling themes for me.
Plus, what a great cast we have!
X2 works really well, yes!
They didn't do only a below average movie… They also runied Dead Pool!
loading replies
You said it's a "below average movie", but yet you gave it 6/10 stars (or in this case hearts) which is technically above average.
Shout by FinFan
Not quite sure where to put this. If you span a period of 25 years in a two hour movie there are supposed to be gaps in the story. But it is tough to put events into a timeframe if you don't know much about the history.
I like period dramas and I am a huge fan of Saoirse who played well. As did Margot. They both carry the movie a lot. The oscar nominations are also well earned. But that's just it. It looks pretty but it's lacking in storytelling. The material would have been better for a mini series. I am not dissapointed nor do I regret watching this. I think a "7" is an honest rating. It takes into consideration the effort made to produce this movie.loading replies
@finfan ... yes i'm agree with you that this is the right stuff for a Mini-Serie, but still all in all the movie was fair and good 7/10
I wasn't expecting a lot from this movie, maybe some mid-level doomsday story. So my dissapointment is rather low.
This movie tries to combine a family-drama with said doomsday scenario and it actually works at first. The build up is good, you go through the different stages, like the selection and leaving your friends behind, and you wonder how you would react in this situation. Because something like this is quite possible. I found this very engaging and the athmosphere was really dire.
But right around the middle they seem to be running out of ideas. Things like the kidnapping of the child or the fight that broke out on the truck you could smell coming right away. It could have served for some good character developement but it was basically just filling run time. Especially the accidental killing by John was but an afterthought. The movie just rolls along for quite some time with both of them trying to re-connect and it's ticking boxes along the way. There are no suprises. Towards the end it becomes better again, which suggest a lot of the middle could have left out. But we need to clear the reason for them breaking up so we get that in a short conversation. Didn't do anything for me.
At the end, in the bunker, you get the feeling again that this was all for nothing and that they will die. I would have applauded had they had the guts to do it. But, since this is a movie, there has to be a happy end, and they don't. Here is where it becomes a fairy tale or fantasy, where Hollywood takes over.
Mere hours after a nine mile asteroid smashes into Western Europe, they all come out of the bunker and the sun keeps shining. Those things are called Planet Killers for a reason as there would have been darkness for decades. Ask the dinosaurs. Oh, right.
Yeah, I know, that's what movie's do but it adds up.Everyone is always so eager to help our protagonists while at the same time hundreds if not thousands are left to their own devices. And, boy, Dodge really build tough trucks.
Anyway, alltogether just decent with a big hang-over in the middle. The CGI is pretty good though. Not something I would recommend but also not something I label as "stay away".
Good potential, bad execution. Fife points for the movie plus an extra for the looks.
loading replies
@finfan not that makes it any less egregious, but there is radio chatter at the ending saying it had been 9 months since the impact when they opened the doors.
Shout by FinFan
First off, great movie ! Not that overdrawn Hollywood stuff. Much more realistic. Really pulled me in and the fighting felt very tense.
As for the story I have to admit I hadn't known it before. Doesn't surprise me one bit though. But it's good to see that those things come to light at last and the soldiers get the recognition they deserve. One of the sad truth of life. Too many things have happened, and are still happening, we don't know about.
Fu**ing politicians always come out on top. Always have been, Always will be.
loading replies
It was a great movie, i simply did not expect it to be this good. I agree, politics is just dreadful.
The main problem with the movie is that if you´ve seen the first two you know what will happen so there isn´t much suspense. On the other hand I wouldn´t recommend watching it at first because than it takes away something from the earlier movies. In itself it is not a bad movie. So there is your dilemma.
loading replies
@finfan you followed details better than me, the first one I honestly kept falling asleep it was so bad imo. To me this was best one, but I have a very short attention span as you can tell from what I just said. It's sad but I've been so spoiled by great writing, the okay writing puts me to sleep. It's probably good, but there's so much better overshadowing it.
The film features stunning photography of nature and wildlife, and is definitively worth-watching and thought-provoking. I love David Attenborough's accent, he speaks so clearly and understandably that the film can be recommended to people learning English even at lower levels. The ecological message was great for the feast of St. Francis. I did not like the idea of eoncouraging people to reduce the number of children they have, it looks like a bad idea as in most developed countries there is already problem with negative natural increase so it would have a bad effect on these countries. I also wonder about re-wilding the planet and introducing sustanability, would it not lead to job loss among people employed in industries related to overexploitation of nature? Caring about nature is very important but people are far more important than animals. I also disliked the part in which humans are called a species of animal, they are much better than that as they have immortal souls which animals do not possess. Choosing between animal and human welfare, humans are alaways more important.
loading replies
@ladysherlockian While I agree with your comments' first half, the second part has me scratching my head a bit.
Thanks to lower child mortality rates, women empowerment and due to rising cost of raising kids the fertility rate globally is in a decline. This is currently a good thing. Data shows the rate to increases again after we hit a certain development threshold, so don't be too dismayed. Read more at https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate
Why re-wilding the planet would be a good thing is essentially what the documentary is all about. The planet is one eco system dependant on a delicate balance to work optimally. I knew industries raising chickens and cows merely to be eaten wasn't sustainable, but I was shocked at the numbers being quoted how big a portion that is. We've tamed the world and today there's no need for it. Farms should mainly be for human plant-based food, with animals being a natural aid for local eco systems (making up a whole) - just like the Serengeti.
Jobs will just transition from the exploiting soon-to-be-obsolete industries to sustainable ones. Machines and systems now take care of a lot of hazardous and mundane jobs humans used to do. However, someone's gotta design, engineer, maintain and manage those parts. New, "better," jobs will emerge as history is inclined to show us.
Growth doesn't lie in fossil industries or exploitable areas, something a few banks and pensions have yet to realize... IMO this is why having a good education based in STEM is of utter importance, as it can be applied in virtually any field you choose to work in and will enable you to easier transition between jobs or industries if needed.
People being more important than animals can be debated endlessly. I'd say objectively we're equal and the only reason we would be deemed more important is because we literally have the ability to save animals facing extinction. On the contrary, what we've done to practically exterminate plenty of innocent species is an argument against us being the most important one.
We're literally a species of animal. That's a simple fact and thankfully it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. Having a "soul" is yet to be proven, that's just us humans thinking we're extra special or unable to cope with the fact of our lives being finite.
Choosing between animals and human welfare is a silly proposition. The idea of understanding how things function is maybe the greatest specialty humans have, and it would be very unwise of us to choose not to utilize that for the greater good of our planet.
The film features stunning photography of nature and wildlife, and is definitively worth-watching and thought-provoking. I love David Attenborough's accent, he speaks so clearly and understandably that the film can be recommended to people learning English even at lower levels. The ecological message was great for the feast of St. Francis. I did not like the idea of eoncouraging people to reduce the number of children they have, it looks like a bad idea as in most developed countries there is already problem with negative natural increase so it would have a bad effect on these countries. I also wonder about re-wilding the planet and introducing sustanability, would it not lead to job loss among people employed in industries related to overexploitation of nature? Caring about nature is very important but people are far more important than animals. I also disliked the part in which humans are called a species of animal, they are much better than that as they have immortal souls which animals do not possess. Choosing between animal and human welfare, humans are alaways more important.
loading replies
@ladysherlockian Apparently you didn't get the message, or you didn't watch the last ten minutes of the movie.
"It is not about saving the planet, it is about saving ourselves." Nature and life will prevail and persevere, as it has always rebuilt after previous mass extinctions too, if given enough time.
Humans on the other hand will not survive in the long run, especially if we keep reproducing and treating nature as something less than ourselves that we can just take from and destroy endlessly. Nature and humanity don't have to be separate, they can re-learn to co-exist in harmony, as they did before.
Also, what comes after death is your business, but that doesn't mean you have the right to treat other beings on this planet with less respect. They all have a place on this world and are not harming the planet, unlike us.
Review by FinFan
This movie is great on many levels. First it works as a really good sci-fi/action movie. But there is also a message, intentional or not, and it raises questions. But it's not being put on the foreground. Yet you clearly see the references. And it still works today.
The mix of documentary and cinematic style adds a certain level of realism, as much as this is possible with an alien story, but you are much more drawn into it because of that. The story itself is interesting. You don't have aliens coming to conquer or destroy mankind. They are pretty much a sorry bunch with little hope of existence. I like that angle.
Putting this not into the hollywood realm and not placing it in America also just adds to the positive attributes this whole movie has.
I am on the fence if I would want a sequel to be honest. If that would mean it gets the hollywood treatment I'd refuse. I mean - look at the Terminator franchise for a reference.
In any case, after re-watching this movie I raise my rating from "8" to "9" because I really think it is that good. Unfortunately, from where I stand, Blomkamp hasn't even come close to repeating with any of his other movies following District 9.loading replies
@finfan this was really painful to watch and I don't think I'll be able to watch it again. It was so powerful and well made. I want a sequel too, even if the movie is perfect as it is, just to see a happy ending.
And people liked this movie, why?
loading replies
because it has a good storyline, marvellous acting by all the actors.
All those Oscars for what exactly ? OK, the style and filming is good, looks more real with the shaky camera. Acting is OK but I don´t think it warrants a nomination for an Oscar. But the biggest issue - where is the story? This is just a chain of short stories whos only connection seems to be the general location and some of the players. You learn very little about the characters and their motivations. Character developement ? Nope. Therefore I found it impossible to relate to or feel anything for them. In fact I was mentally out of this after an hour.
And the number of errors in this movie is extreme (check IMDB) which could have been excused because a lot of war-movies have them. But with all the flaws in the story the pile becomes just higher.And something else entirely: I wish we had ratings by demographic. Look at IMDB you see the rating drops with age.
loading replies
@finfan Me either. Normal film... The oscar is a joke.
I actually did it. Despite telling everyone I know, I'll never see this movie, I abandoned my principles. Well, that and I pay for Disney+ anyway. So, what the h***, right ? So, did I like it ? Not particularly. Do I hate it ? Same Answer. Truth be told I didn't expect anything.
First of, I felt I was sitting in front of the TV for at least three hours and was surprised it was way less. Is that a good thing ? I don't know. And I still feel they could loose an hour of the movie if the cut all the crap out. Visually it was great, althought at times overloaded. Which is true for many movies nowadays. But seriously, why? A hundred Star Destroyers are not impressive enough ? Let's make it one thousand ! You know what, it's CGI. Once we have the model they cost only pennies. So here's ten thousand (I didn't count them but I want to make a point). Same goes for the resistance fleet coming to the rescue. And those grand scenes where your character becomes a pin tip that is hard to make out. All this just to make the audience awe and to reflect from the fact that there is little content.
Because the story is all over the place with no real direction. Everything is coppled together. Is this the movie they wanted to make in the first place or is it them trying to plug the holes in the dam that came after TLJ? Everyone insists Johnson's movie didn't change a thing but I have my doubts. From my point it was a bad decision bringing Palpatine back. The way they did it with just the line in the opening text. Maybe do a flashback how he survived the fall, who found him, how he got to where he is. But he did little for me at all, that chapter closed with ROTJ. It was literally beating a dead horse. And with every scene and twist they try to climb one more step on the ladder to make something grand, not realizing they already went overboard two steps below.
How many times do we need to see a fight between Rey and Kylo ? Plus those fights were awful. Look at the Duel of the Fates or the Anakin vs Obi Wan on Mustafar as a template. They were full of intensity and emotion. Here it was one-two-three- STOP. Change position, repeat. I know a dozen vids on youtube with better choreographie.
And please do remind us another half dozen times that we are in this together because I am not sure I got it. Spanning the whole trilogy I didn't connect with any of the main characters at all. Which is another factor why this whole sequel is not for me.
In the end it is Star Wars as imagined by Disney. It's a benchmark at what is visually possible and at the same time an excample of what to avoid.
Now, I wrote a lot about something I didn't care about at first, didn't I ? I care for the franchise, but not for this sequels. I tried to see them as something seperate, removed from the Lucas movies. But even that didn't help. While TFA was not bad (or maybe it was the enjoyment of new SW getting the better of me) Ep.8 and Ep.9 are just not good movies.
Like everything I write it's my personal opinion. I don't attack people who like the movie so please grand me the same courtesy.
May the Force be with us.
@andreas1138
you wanted my opinion but it is not favorable.
Concerning Ren, I never liked him as his story is flawed to begin with. He wanted to continue Vader's work. But Vader came to the realisation that ultimately he was on the wrong side, killed Palpatine, and by that fullfilling the Prophecy and bring balance to the Force. He became Anakin again. Up to this point Vader was the ultimate evil. Kylo a wanna-be. He didn't understand Vader because if he had he would not have idealized him.loading replies
@finfan Thanks for your tag, I appreciate your time writing the review. I never wrote what I actually liked about this movie. It's all about a particular moment: the sacrifice of Leia to save his son from the dark side, Ben throwing away his lightsaber and confronting his dad. The original trilogy was about a father and his son, this trilogy became in that very moment, a mother and son story. Considering the death of Carrie Fisher, Abrams and his team made a great job. It's an emotional moment for me, it justifies this trilogy and I have to admit that I never felt so heart broken for a SW movie.
About Kylo Ren, we find out he's just hearing voices. Some sort of schizophrenia induced by Palpatine. It's not much, considering it's all sudden, like the resistance fleet at the end. Apart from the moment described above, I admit I care less about other scenes in this movie, even if it's a really fun drive. It's because I am interested in the characters and Ben fascinated me from the beginning. I am less impressed with the other characters. I generally liked Rey. Even knowing she had a hard life growing up, it's nice to see her failing on screen, I was finally able to relate to her in this movie.
I was expecting something different from this trilogy, a more personal journey for Luke and his students, a story about the balance of the Force, but I realized it was going to be a rebels vs empire sort of thing when I saw the teaser of TFA in 2014. I have to admit that Leia's sacrifice impressed me so much I felt happy after the ending of the movie.
Some conclusions I think about often:
1. In ROTJ there is a powerful scene where the main characters are entering the moon of Endor. Vader feels the presence of his son and Luke is preoccupied he is going to ruin the mission. It's sad that we don't have these moments, only action packed scenes (maybe the most similar one is the Kylo Ren\Leia moment in TLJ).
2. I think Abrams was the right choice for this trilogy, it would have been great if he was the only director, he is a master in directing actions scenes and works really well with the actors. I was expecting to see a more active Story group in the LucasFilm department. The story for the entire trilogy needed 10 writers, 5 familiar with the Star Wars material (Chris Avellone, Dave Filoni, Timothy Zahn...) and 5 less familiar with the saga. The story then passed to some screenwriters to write dialogues and scenes. Similar to what happened to Raiders of the lost Ark with Lucas and Spielberg discussing their ideas to Kasdan.
3. The best story excluding the original trilogy is still Knights of the old Republic 2 by Chris Avellone and his team. I don't know if you are familiar with the videogame. There are great analysis and trailers if you search for "Kreia" on YouTube.
