TLDR ? This movie is Disingenuous. At best, it's a Ghoulish dark satire of the republican party during the Bush/Cheney era. Except, they forgot to insert comedy or satire. As a result, it's grim and insulting, the parody is often at the expense of the audience being too stupid or uncaring, or religious. Large chunks of american history are deleted, omitted or filtered so that the movie can focus on the death toll of the war, or the "Wazzup" meme, etc.
large chunks of Dick Cheney's history don't make it into the movie, or are stylised / exagerrated / spoofed.
It is a well made disaster of a movie. Care went into making this.
But, it's as bad as Holmes & Watson, Star Trek Discovery, The Last Jedi or Ghostbusters 2016. It's deeply unlikeable at times, and it is actively trying to rewrite history as it goes. I'm not a republican or a conservative, i don't follow politics, this is a highly deranged film that is deceptive at times, and I doubt that any of the events took place, as a result of the ham-fisted effort at painting Cheney as some mastermind villain, working in the shadows. It's only missing that villain laugh track during the more hammy moments.
The most sanguine part of the movie is that they treat the WTC bombing and 9/11 properly, but they draw an enormous bow throughout.
part of the movie hinges on the use of executive power being wielded by Dick Cheney through the Bush Presidency, to the degree that they'll infer it becoming part of the reasons why Cheney brought the war from Afghanistan to Iraq, and that he also used the position to secure oil reserves in Iraq before the war started, as well as ignore questions / receive kickbacks from Haliburton contracts, and infer that he brought a lawyer into the emergency/control room during the "crash" period of 9/11 post-pentagon collision, as airline flights and air corridors were shut down, airports were being closed, and private/civilian aircraft were being tracked and landed in airports, etc. So that he could wield this Executive Power without asking the senate or the Congress or the President for approval.
It walks the line of defamation, and yet, apparently it's from the guy who made Anchorman 2 and Step Brothers, Talladega Nights, The Other Guys. Brad Pitt and Will Ferrel financed this movie, i think. Their companies are in the titles.
All of the Actors do a great job. I even like Annapurna for their video game productions (Donut County, Gorogoa, Edith Finch, Florence), and i've seen a handful of Annapurna movies, like Phantom Thread, Her, American Hustle, and Sausage Party...
I went in with no preparation, and assumed it would be a dark comedy with political overtones, because, politics and Steve Carell, and I can see Aquaman later on. It can't be that bad, it's Christmas week.
This movie has the unfortunate effect of making you hate theatrical movie releases and critics, and perhaps all movies.
Yet, it's so well made, it has style, artistic credibility, and it's directed, shot and lit perfectly, the sound is on point, the acting is sometimes forgettable, But it's similar in style to other "moral" drama films, like "The Big Short", leading into the Global Financial Crisis where they pander heavily on people's motives and actions of "we're getting away with it", sic. The pandering is incredible.
It is a better political movie than most, but it's utterly manipulative and disingenuous at it's heart, and nothing can make that funny or amusing.
Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 11/9 is unhinged and deranged, while Vice, is just powdercoated hatred and bile, trying to hide under progressive and democratic ideals. it's more like an upmarket youtube political conspiracy movie talking about Hilary Clinton's "SECRET Brain surgery", George Soros, the Koch brothers or the Jewish conspiracy movies you get recommended after watching "The Young Turks" or "David Pakman".
They even sink low enough to include a "Ghostbusters 2016" poke at the audience in the end credits by lampooning the partisan nature of the film, in an attempt to skirt criticism and outrage
A sideplot about an hour in, has a series of scenes in a focus group with the same strangers. The marketer/political consultant asks the group to raise their hands to choose between climate change or global warming. Another time, it's a choice between Estate Tax or Death Tax, inferring that marketing & political think-tanks, along with Fox News, used politically correct language in the 90's and 2000's to make conservative ideas palatable.
At the end of the movie, Cheney is in a cross-chair interview, after just having had a heart replacement. As the interview starts, the scene pauses, and Cheney/Bale instead, turns away and lectures the audience directly (invoking Frank Underwood's, stylised yet sociopathic 'lectures' in House of Cards) , saying he did what was best for America, despite the cost and the lives lost in the war(s) sic. It's just on the borderline of "helping make america great again" and a typical Frank Underwood self-justification, we fade to black, get a terrible americana/Fly Fishing title credits to the music of West Side Story's Puerto Rican version of "Coming to America" and we return to the Focus Group, mid-credits. The final scene has the consultant ask what people thought about the movie. A member of the group, complains that the movie insults conservatives, while the neighboring person insists it's factual, with the first man then calling it liberal propaganda, and then calling the other a libtard, sic. and hits him, both getting into a fist fight, while the camera turns away, to another woman, who turns to her neighbour in the room, and says she's going to enjoy the next Fast and the Furious movie (sic).
The implied comment is that they did the research, and had to improvise the story in-between, because nobody would speak about Dick Cheney's history or family to set the record straight. When/If you see a biography of Barack Obama in a few years, attending child brothels with kevin spacey in indonesia, receiving oral sex from a pansexual transvestite, while he's snorting a line of cocaine off a preteen boy , while another person is handing Barack a membership form for the Democratic Party ... Vice, is going to be the movie that they quote and use dialogue from.
This is the kind of movie that Alex Jones and infowars would make of Hilary Clinton & Barack Obama, by selectively omitting pages from a biography, and denigrating the characters and roles they undertook. The excuse would be, they couldn't confirm the story, so they took liberties and stuck with the facts, being transcripts, police records, licenses, marriage dates, etc.
I'm Australian, I genuinely don't care about the politics, but the smearing of the republican party is like a sledgehammer at times.
There are several Saturday Night Live level 'jokes' or skits/scenes that don't even make you cringe, they're just deeply unsettling attempts at humor or levity. Care went into the timing to paint several scenes as 'dark', or darkly funny at the expense of others. I expect people would laugh at them, it didn't connect with me, or the other 5 people in the theater.
It's not quite Fahrenheit 11/9 levels of insanity, on the contrary. It walks the line of parody, conspiracy and defamation neatly in a lighthearted attempt to skip 20 years of context, in a 2 minute conversation.
There's an early moment, perhaps 40 minutes in, where Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld is ruminating to a younger Dick Cheney in a random hallway of the oval office, about the imminent bombing of cambodia while Nixon is talking with Kissinger in a spare room of the Oval Office to avoid recordings. Mid-lecture, you hear Carell while we see a village about to be bombed mid-lecture, a typical cambodian/indonesian forest village, women and children sitting around, before explosions occur, and the scene changes back to Carell & Bale, unphased.
This kind of manipulative sledgehammer is used, repeatedly to invoke... satire? outrage ? compassion ?
This occurs about 5 or 6 more times, with even less subtlety.
Alfred Molina's "restaurant" scene, Molina's character offers Cheney and 3 seated guests at a restaurant table, Extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo Bay as menu options , is ham-fisted, but it's executed darkly and humorously, similar to say, Aaron Echkhart's Thank You For Smoking scenes, lampooning Tobacco, Firearms and Alcohol lobbyists.
It's the kind of movie where you could let things slide if you were a lifelong US democrat, because it tries to tell harsher truths of the political and military consequences, overtly, by flashing to bombings, drone strikes, torture, rendition, deception and greed, during the more infamous moments of nixon's career and Bush's presidency.
And it profoundly relies on Fly fishing to represent Dick Cheney, as other movies do (2007's Shooter) to the point where they use gaudy Americana as Fly Fishing decorations (rockets, drones, Oil Rigs, missiles, the white house, Surveillance cameras) in the end-credits.
There's element's of Zero Dark Thirty in the invocation/flashes of torture, waterboarding, confinement, exposure, even the Abu Ghraib incident/leak with a prisoner being dragged by a Dog Collar by Lynndie England (the "work safe" versions) appears here. and rendition scenes along with the "Shadow government" themes of Dick Cheney's role as Vice President during George W Bush's tenure. It is highly implied several times that Cheney set himself up as the Executive, the CEO in charge of the war by undermining George Bush and, being responsible for the birth of ISIS, hiding reports from the president, etc.
They walk the line when it comes to defaming the Cheney family, there's also an implication of Lynne Cheney's father, Wayne Vincent murdering his wife in an argument by drowning, and of Lynne Vincent, being raped by her father Wayne in an over-edited and dubbed scene that was heavily muffled to avoid the censor noticing. Wayne, is seen pointing to his daughter during a muted, abbreviate shouting scene implying alcoholism and frequent domestic violence.
It extrapolates the most defamatory versions of people, and highlights that absurdity.
It takes what should be parody or simulacra, a 'bad saturday night live' sketch comic scene, and extrapolates moments as their cheapest moments. It's also high budget, they take Sam Rockwell's version of President Bush, Governor Bush, and rotoscope him into the more infamous moments of Bush's Presidency, i.e. the mid-war "Mission Accomplished" presentation on the Carrier Deck.
It's hard to believe that a movie with this cast based on a figure hated this deeply could somehow result in a miss, but this movie is an absolute mess. The movie struggles tremendously to pick a tone, often seesawing between parody, sarcasm, and deep drama. It comes across as a parody of itself. With a figure like Cheney it's amazing that you can mess it up.
On top of this, the film is more fiction than fact, and it actively works to create screen time of someone's fever dream rather than historical events. It is an insult to the audience.
Other than having a talented cast this film offends the senses, even for the larger of Cheney haters. A complete disaster of cinema.
[7.6/10] We want our villains to be lively and hateable. We want them to twirl their mustaches. We want them to show their evil loudly in public and harshly in private. We want them to be as thoroughly repugnant, devoid of human connection, that it’s clear to anyone watching how profoundly they’ve lost their way. Sure, we like a good complicated bad guy in our stories these days, but moviegoers still wants to be thrilled, chilled, and know exactly whom to root against.
Vice is a two-hour antidote to that want. It is a paean to the banality of evil -- half exposé, half resentful hagiography for a man who, on the film’s account, did more lasting damage to the world than any big screen nogoodnik imaginable, and did it all by being quiet, unnoticed, and boring.
It would be far too much to call Vice an admiring portrait of Dick Cheney. Writer-director Adam McKay clearly despises the man and all that he’s wrought, to where his film is as much a laundry list of misdeeds and power-grabs as it is a sort of unitary executive bildungsroman. McKay makes his perspective clear, both in the text and in the many direct asides to the audience in the film, which gives the viewer plenty of room to be wary of cherry-picking and slant, but which also puts the director’s cards on the table early.
And yet, there’s a sort of begrudging respect beneath the disdain at the core the film. McKay and company seem as impressed as they are aghast at what their subject accomplished despite little discernible personality and negative charisma. Vice depicts a bloodless coup, an assemblage of power for power’s sake, that flew under the radar despite being at the apex of government because it was mired in bureaucratic tedium, unshowy secrecy, and spotlight-shirking calculation. Even before Vice’s Cheney turns to the camera and delivers his A Few Good Men self-justification and non-apology, there’s a sense of bedrudging admiration next to palpable contempt at the way this superficially uninteresting guy remade our government in his image, due in no small part to seeming so thoroughly uninteresting.
That also’s the film’s grand warning. It presents the stone foundations of democracy and the firm protections of civil liberties crumbling unnoticed because the methods for their undoing are too mundane to grab people’s attentions. While the film’s depiction of partisan food fights and focus group subject more interested in the latest Fast and the Furious movie than in good governance comes off like a hoary, “get off my lawn” critique of political engagement, Vice is chiefly focused on the evil that prospers when good men do nothing, because the bad men are too steeped in jargon and wonkery to warrant much notice or care.
At the same time, it draws out the startling contrast in the staid environments in which these grand decisions are made, the lifeless conference rooms, generic offices, and bland pronouncements, with the hellfire, death, and destruction that burst forth halfway across the world. Like McKay’s last feature, The Big Show, one the biggest strengths in Vice is its editing. Nothing conveys the film’s point-of-view than when editor Hank Corwin shows the prosaic stroke of a pen or an eminently domestic family meal and juxtaposes them with the unflinching horrors of war and consequence. It emphasizes the distance between the pristine-if-unflashy world that Vice’s protagonist lives in with the muddy, thorny aftermath for the people who have to bear the brunt of his decisions.
That’s good because Vice is anything but subtle. Between the film’s narrator (who at least serves a thematic purpose in the story), the numerous title cards and chyrons, and the same type of explanatory segments used in The Big Short, the film is as much a visual essay, directly telling the audience what’s happening and how and why, and what McKay & Co. think the import is, as it is a self-contained story. To call Vice didactic would be a severe understatement, since it not only aims to straight up educate its audience, but resorts to visual over-explained visual metaphors that make The Simpsons’s Behind the Music parody look restrained.
Still, the style, while occasionally eye roll-worthy, mostly works for the film. There’s something to be said for adapting the life of such an ordinary-seeming, matter of fact man with such bombast and directness. And sometimes McKay’s predilection for playing with the form pays off, earning big laughs with a “what if” cut-to-credits and a Shakespearean interlude immediately undercut with the boring and mildly awkward reality. As amusing and showy as these moments are, they serve the film’s purposes, showing how different things might have been for want of a nail and how movies like this one dress up the decisions that change lives in the flourishes of the grandiose but which more often come down to less-than-dynamic, unphotogenic functionaries simply saying “yeah, sure.”
As much as Vice laments the consequences of that ocean of “yeah, sure”s, and harbors clear scorn for the man who uttered them, it also takes some pain to humanize Dick Cheney. It depicts him as a loving father who’s mercenary to a fault but who draws a “line in concrete” in front of his gay daughter, whom he loves and accepts unconditionally, regardless of the liability she creates for a conservative politician. And it shows him seeking power not out of some personal greed or avarice, but to live up to the best hopes of a wife that he loves, and with whom he has an ironclad partnership that balances out both some of his softer inclinations and his lack of telegenic spark.
That’s born out by the performances in the film, which toe the line between impersonation and parody on the one hand and live-in human being on the other. Christian Bale completes another startling transformation, not only gaining the girth (and the talented makeup team) to represent Cheney visually, but slipping so completely into the persona that you nigh-instantly forget that this same guy played Batman six years ago. Amy Adams more than holds the line as Lynne, Dick’s ambitious, rock-ribbed equal who communicates the conviction and determination that catalyzes and sustains the ascent at the center of the picture. Turns from Steve Carell and Sam Rockwell as recognizable figures from the Bush administration occasionally conjure up visions of a darker-edged Michael Scott or the mocking tones of producer Will Ferrell’s impression, but eventually blend undetectably into the world of the film.
It’s a world where elaborate symbolic sequences of board games and teacups are used to make sure the audience is keeping up with each development, where each of Cheney’s “greatest hits” is touched on and explicated, and where McKay attempts to attribute much, if not most, of the world’s problems in the last two decades or so one man and his particular brand of political machine. But it’s also a world where the film’s greatest villain offers no theatrical boasts or colorful schemes or boo-inducing fervor. Instead, he packs a head-down cynical pragmatism, a stultifying bearing and affect, and the slow grind of mundane, byzantine politicking that rarely makes for great stories, but which despite that, or because of it, can remake the world.
I'd prefer first ending :)
I don't mind the bias perspective so much, but I do mind the giddiness that is displayed at spending the whole movie one-sidedly bashing Cheney. I guess that was the whole point, but it sure removed the feeling of any kind of fair representation. Which is fine, I guess, as as long as they're not trying to get me to accept their point of view. Well made, but with all those resources and actors, that should be expected.
First and foremost I loved the way that the story was told. In a way it was as if The Wolf of Wall Street and JFK had a demon child - while the film was very political I really get a kick out of when a film like this breaks down the fourth wall to tell a story (I, Tonya is another great example). The acting (imitations?) is good but it is really the makeup people that steal the show. While the film is fairly light at first it really takes a dark turn later on as the film drives home its message. Is this a film about the legacy of Chaney? No, it's a film about today as the same awful people will always be around.
Side note - there is an interlude halfway through the movie that made me laugh hard.
Follow me at https://IHateBadMovies.com or IHateBadMovies on facebook
Probably the most funny thing about vice is the extra scene in the end credits, other than that another boring politics movie. The actors try to do well but the story is boring and jumps all over the place. It's hard to follow sometimes and if you're not American (like me) you probably don't care at all.
I admire Adam McKay but this one didn't land for me. Because of the long timespan this movie covers and the time jumps this requires, the movie never gets into a coherent rhythm. This might very well be McKay's intention as he tries to show us how fucked up and incomprehensible our current world is, but as a watcher I found it too frustrating to appreciate it. This combined with the constantly changing editing styles, tabletop split screens, overlaid typography and allegorical dinner scenes, I never quite understood what the movie wanted to be and, more importantly, who the movie wanted to be for.
A pretty middling to bad movie.
Christan Bale is amazing in it, and he thought it was good enough to ruin his body for. But it didn't really hook me.
The movie is a little bit boring at some points, but I thought it would be way more because the subject of the movie is boring per si, so I guess the direction did a pretty good job making it very interesting for me nevertheless.
I am not an US citizen, so I really don't care about all the bias complaints, and I really believe there are a lot of facts supporting the movie's view. Besides that, I loved the "meta" approach to the movie and the acting is really superb.
A well made and enjoyable movie that is unfortunately more interested about preaching the makers politics than presenting a true story. Take it as satire and enjoy the ride, softer minds may take it seriously - mission accomplished.
Extremely messy and pretentious. Can't quite fully appreciate Bale's performance because of the movie.
It was like someone saw the popularity of famous people dressing up and putting on silly voices on SNL and thought that the concept alone was easily transferable to a 2hr+ running time. It felt like a remake of Fahrenheit 9/11 for people with a room temperature IQ.
Waste of time. 2/10
Vice is a 2018 American horror-comedy film directed, written, and co-produced by Adam McKay and starring Christian Bale as former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Though, I didn't really find it hilarious till the end when everything starts going wrong for the Cheney family, I just wished they suffered much more, especially, Dick Cheney but what can you do?
The film is good overall, Christian Bale really did a good job portraying the devil, the supporting actors are splendid as well and the editing is a little weird but okay.
Though the main takeaway for me is that this movie shows how scary it is to give a dreadful person a grasp at power, even scarier to have an ignorant president to let this happen, and the scariest is how all this ultimately roots from the collective decision of the masses.
Pretty enjoyable, very funny, but doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know
Ostensibly a biopic of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Vice argues that he was actually the de facto President, with George W. Bush taking a back seat, particularly in the globally crucial years from 2001-2003. Very much a political satire in the vein of Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis and Jonathan Swift, or films such as Barry Levinson's Wag the Dog and Joe Dante's The Second Civil War (both 1997), Vice eschews conventional narrative structure, breaks the fourth wall regularly, intercuts shots of fly-fishing and animals hunting into the middle of tense plot-heavy dialogue scenes, features several self-reflexive references to itself, has a false ending, has a scene in which characters speak in iambic pentameter, and in a deleted scene, the entire cast breaks into song. Much as was the case with recent "based on a true story" films such as Spike Lee's BlacKkKlansman and Jason Reitman's The Front Runner (both 2018), Vice has one eye on the here and now, using Cheney's story as a vehicle to examine the current political situation in the US, positing that without the power-mad Dick Cheney and the Unitary Executive Theory, there would never have been a Donald Trump. However, although there are many individual moments of brilliance, the film is unsure if it's a straightforward biopic or an excoriating satire, ultimately finding a kind of ideological middle ground that mixes comedy with pathos, not always successfully.
For my complete review, please visit: https://boxd.it/CWN0R
I lived through all of this, but I was a clueless kid in high school at the time... in the American South... in a Christian school, so, of course I was surrounded by other clueless kids, and adults that were an amalgam of negative information Bible-thumpers who believed the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and (compared to now), quiet far right conservatives one tick away from being radicalized. That said, I had no trouble following anything in this film, was never confused, or anywhere near bored.
I was, however, highly entertained, and, at times a little sickened, and chilled. This is partly due to how effective this was as a dramatic cinematic work, as it's the best and most powerfully and coherently realized film I've seen from the director thus far. But it's also because I lived through it and know the events portrayed happened, and are happening, and all the death and suffering and loss that happened as direct results from the actions dramatically portrayed.
The film opens looking through what appears to me to be the edge of 8mm film stock. I take this to be a more subtle, artistic expression of the opening disclaimer, as the film was made from a focus on the periphery, unable to get a completely clear and focused look at the actual subject (Cheney) given how secretive the man was, and how secretive the affairs were, and how they have not yet been put into full light as justice would demand. So, instead, we have this. Still, there's enough to go on given how brazen and world-shaping the events and commissions were that transpired. What actual words were said is less important (*though it would be nice if those documents hadn't been destroyed) than the commissions themselves, and the largest are known to history, as they were impossible to hide.
As for the film and actors, Bale and Adams' transformations were uncanny. Even Lisagay Hamilton looked eerily like Condi Rice. And the film doesn't shy away from humanizing the couple, given they are people, it would have been as disingenuous as all of the 1-4 rating reviews raving rants claim this film to be if they hadn't attempted to tell the story of the actual human beings that were its subjects.
Still, humanizing does not mean supporting or condoning, and the film certainly does no such thing. At the same time, I actually found it remarkably reserved in the presentation of its numerous subjects, especially considering the director's style, which is both highly kinetic and generally farcical. But the drama doesn't take a hit at all here, despite the bits of frantic editing that dot the film like dessert courses in between savory delicacies.
The film indeed does not have a single tone. And for that I'm thankful. Both because the film is much more watchable, and doesn't run the risk of boring -- at least not if you're both a.) reasonably well informed about the past 20 years of American history b.) not intellectually dishonest or and idiot. However, I do find that it balances these seemingly incompatible presentation styles, even blending them, quite adeptly.
The Big Short I watched earlier this year, thankfully having learned a decent amount about the systems concerned beforehand, so I understood everything that it presented to at least a basic level of understanding, but found the presentation to be shy of absolutely singing. Still, a good and entertaining, and informative film about extremely important, world shaping events, also concerning collusion to commit systemic fraud. But this film is of another caliber. I don't generally like films that come off as "stupid", but the few I've seen from McKay I actually enjoyed for their absurdity. They're goofy, while not being lowest common denominator, but I wouldn't fault someone for it not being their cup of tea. But this film is a different animal. It's a proper historical satire, executed with full weight on both genres.
A reality check/Epilogue: Anyone writing multiple paragraph rants to smokescreen this is either a paid actor or someone deeply brain washed by propaganda to the point that they'll only ever believe what they want to believe no matter what evidence is presented. Remember kids, corporations don't just hire focus groups to create a PR campaign against action on global warming or their wars, they actively pay people to spread disinformation on sites and forums across the Net, intentionally stirring up strife and confusion and distraction. See: the end credits bonus scene. Don't assume everyone online is being genuine, especially if they're trying to get you to blame anyone but corporations. I'd say "don't read the comments", but my name's not Yossarian ;)
Another protest movie that revisits the darkest pages of recent American history with an engaging blend of drama/biopic and fourth wall-breaking mockumentary. Not as grandiloquent and as “The Big Short”, but still as effective in delivering its message. Sure, it could be labeled as unsubtle one-sided reporting, but considering the people in question, why even bother to show the other side of things?
Stupid political hit piece. Stuff like this just keeps driving America further and further apart.
Promising myself would not get political in my comment leaving, well I have nothing. Watch this flick and cast your own judgement. It wont matter one way or another. History Speaks For Itself
The truth does not lie in whether what you stated is consistent with the facts, but in which facts you have chosen to express your truth. Therefore, Hollywood has fully demonstrated the ability to select materials for us.
Dick Cheney’s apprenticeship during Nixon, Ford and Reagan, private sector exodus during Carter and Clinton and ascent to nearly unlimited power as Bush Jr’s running mate / handler. It’s hopeless to argue that this film doesn’t have an agenda - the trailers alone should have made that abundantly clear - and it makes no effort to hide or balance that essential bias. Cheney is played as a man who values nothing beyond personal gain, even going so far as to ask “what should I believe in” during an informal chat early in his career. He’s less transparent later on, as his understanding of political gamesmanship improves, and by the time he’s asked to join the GOP ticket in 2000, he can ask for the moon.
Basically, we’re watching the birth of a hardened super-villain without the inconvenience of actually breaking any laws. Or, I suppose, of being caught for doing so. That’s serious subject matter, but the tone varies unexpectedly from grim and straight to playful and silly. Often several times in one scene, which makes for a somewhat confusing viewing experience. It can’t decide between hammering an important point and nailing a ripe punchline, valiantly tries to accomplish both and rarely succeeds at either. A gimmicky narrative style and ambitious use of jump cuts further muddy those waters.
The acting follows suit. Some scenes are rich and effective, Christian Bale becoming the lead role in more than just a physical sense, while others just... don’t work? Steve Carrell’s casting as Donald Rumsfeld is a good example; a take that could have really come together, but plays instead like a weird mix of his better-known parts in The Office and Anchorman. It’s an entertaining film and an important story, with a few hooks that almost sink in, but struggles with tonal inconsistency and an inner conflict that’s never completely resolved.
Hysterical about the course of history, as McKay usually is. However, it is hysteria worth watching, preferably with popcorn.
Outstanding physical transformation effects add to the satire.
Yet again, thanks to American cinema, we add to the reasons that prove the saying ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’.
I watched it because I like to watch movies about presidents, Republican or Democrat. It had a long list of A-list actors so I trusted in them when I started to notice how stupid this movie was from the very beginning. I kept watching when all I wanted to do was turn it off...I should have followed my instincts. It is neither a serious movie nor a comedy. It was just fucking AWEFUL! I would be embarrassed to be in such a disgrace of a movie. The script was the worst, the editing was comical, and the director should also be embarrassed.
This movie is a Democratic propaganda and also uses sarcasm and parody. A pity because to portray the monstrosity of Cheaney it was only necessary to tell the truth. As he wrote in the post-final scene they say the same thing: "left-wing propaganda" and, immediately, the subsequent reference to Fast & Furious, pure parody.
Incredibly interesting film. Really scary too assuming the events depicted in the movie are true and I guess that maybe not all but most of them are. But not only the story itself also in how it was made. The narrator being the heart donor struck me as very unique storytelling. Also the performances were really good. Who would have thought that Dick Cheney could be played by Batman himself.
I don't know a lot about US politics, so I don't know how true this film is. What I do know, however, is that politicians are generally dicks (whether or not their surname is Cheney), so the film is entirely credible. My interest waned at the beginning, but scenes post 9/11 where it is generally considered the US president (and his entourage) lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, I began to follow the film's politics more closely. It's a well made film, McKay does a lot to engage the audience, especially in those parts of the story that could have been dry and boring, and is worth a watch (and debate) no matter what side of the political divide you stand on.
i do like the movie, iam not an American cause i didn't understand the 30 to 40 % of the movie, Christian bale acting was interesting..
1 / 2 directing & technical aspect
1 / 1 story
1 / 1 act I
1 / 1 act II
1 / 1 act III
1 / 1 acting
1 / 1 writing
0 / 1 originality
1 / 1 stays with you
-.5 / 1 misc (not enjoyable to watch at times)
7.5 out of 10
This was great. The first act was a bit of a yawn but as soon as it gets to the really important world-changing stuff, the movie really grips you in. I loved the satirical tone of it all, and the self aware after credits scene.
I was so angry all throughout this, so I guess it did its job. I really do hate americans, except maybe Amy Adams.
8/10
The story of Vice is as dated as expired milk and just as rotten. It's also just as disgusting... and just as boring.
Technically, the directing and editing are above par if you're a fan of Adam McKay's previous outing, The Big Short (which I was). Concerning the acting...
Bale > Rockwell > Adams > Carell.
Amy Adams is fine here but her role isn't really a stretch, making me think she's been nominated for an apology Oscar after not being hit up for Arrival. Steve Carell does a solid job with his 'Micheal Scott goes to Washington' impression, making Vice the closest we'll ever see to a The Office reboot that includes him. Jessie Plemons is too good for the role they gave him and Sam Rockwell is Sam Rockwell and should be in every film ever. Christian Bale clearly deserves the Best Actor Oscar so give it to him but on the condition I never have to stay awake through this film again.
Ultimately, Vice is a frustrating watch because nothing can be done now about a criminal in office 15 years ago. You want to impress me? Make this film about a criminal currently in the White House.
Very interesting film, I don't really follow politics and even if I did im not old enough to remember anything about Dick Cheney. This is back to back films by Adam McKay who is mainly a comedy director to do a movie that kinda is based off maybe not the most easily understood subjects and he does a good job trying to make it simple and easy to understand for us, but also this movie struggles to pick a tone and constantly jumps back and forth between tones and time which brings me to the editing of the film. Vice has some of the strangest editing i've seen to the point where you question what's going on and soon you understand and I think the idea was to make the story more simple and help you visualize what was actually going on but it would take me out of the story to much. Christain Bale and Amy Adams are both great in this movie, Steve Carell is also really good, Sam Rockwell is alright nothing to good I mean not oscar nominee good not even close but apparently the academy thought otherwise anyway movie has it's moments of either being really good or just sloppy.
This film is about Dick Cheney, who was Vice President to George W. Bush.
It's from the same people who made 2015's The Big Short, which I loved. And, like that film, this one takes a relatively dry topic and presents it in an interesting and humorous fashion.
We see how Cheney got his start in politics and gradually climbed the ladder, becoming a powerful figure in Washington, then how he turned the role of Vice President from a largely symbolic one, to one with much power and responsibility.
The film doesn't take itself too seriously, and there's never a dull moment.
Vice is rather biased and is not entirely accurate, but never strays too far from reality. Also, keep watching whilst the credits are rolling for quite an entertaining scene.
Reviews have been somewhat mixed, but I absolutely loved the film. It's probably my favourite of the year so far.
good film, good interpretations although what counts is scary if it is true, the war in Iraq and those non-existent weapons of mass destruction we already know that is true
The movie takes a bit to find it's groove but once it does it's hard not to be engrossed in this depiction of one of the most hated political figures in US history. The cast is phenomenal and the production is top notch. This is definitely a must watch for any Adam McKay fan and heavy recommendation for anyone even remotely interested in this subject.
Very informative movie. I liked the unpolished look of the movie. Christian Bales portrayal was spot on not to mention his transformation into Dick Cheney. Sam Rockwell as George Bush was great. Good movie. Highly advise a watch if your interested in politics as I am.
Incredibly creative storytelling: witty, tongue in cheek, unique use of metaphors. Shrewd (and terrifying) political insights cloaked in humour to make it palatable. Great cast and great performances. Watch for the extra scene mid-credits - it perfectly sums up the current political impasse. I give this a 9 (clever) out of 10. [Political History]
Vice
I absolutely loved this movie.
It is sharply written, terrifying, insightful and often humourous.
The way it is told is unique and engaging.
The whole cast were fantastic and got lost in their roles.
9/10
#NicksMiniReview
https://t.co/XE3bdPaOKC
These types of movies aren't my forte but I'll probably end up watching it due to Christian Bale.
Shout by Neal MahoneyVIP 8BlockedParent2018-12-26T20:39:28Z
A good movie about a bad man. A little on the nose and over the top but that's kinda the point. Christian Bale is fantastic and so is Amy Adams and Steve Carell. The editing is a little too much at times but great for the most part.
I loved the mid credit fake out.