@insert33 I'm not saying you should like the movie - I personally think the scond half was weak as well - but that is such an odd critique considering the strongest part of the movie was done practically in a single room.
@i-bex what? what "odd critique" are you talking about? My only critique was that it was a boring slog only praised for impressive technical feats rather than actual its actual value as an entertaining, well made movie. Also The first half was terrible aswell. I honestly fell as though the word great has lot all meaning, its far to common now for people to just call everything that was slightly interesting to them great.
@insert33 You say it's only praised because it's technically impressive. I'm saying the most praised part of the movie is the least technically impressive one so it doesn't makes sense to me.
@insert33 if you think this is boring I wouldn't like to know what you consider entertaining. Yikes.
Shout by sun-burntBlockedParent2022-07-28T17:31:49Z
I will never understand why people conflate things that are technically impressive as being good. This movie, like most of Kubrick's movies are, technical feats. Now just because the movie is technically impressive doesn't mean that it goods. Yes the sets and costumes look great in this movie but that will never make up for its laundry list of short comings. To put it simply this movie is a boring slog.