F

Once you embrace the cynicism and ignore your neverending anger about Hollywood's zombie-like state, which is dead, but not quite, which nowadays cannot produce anything but unworthy remakes of classic films, the film is quite enjoyable. If you're a fan of the series of course.

But, I don't understand what did the commentators expect; not a single sequel of 70s/80s/90s classic is comparable to an original, they as a standalone pieces can't be even considered good, that's why you have to evaluate things in context, and the context is that this film, and many others like it, were not made for art's sake, for glory of the creation, were not made out of ingeniousness of an author, out of a unique idea - they were made rutinely, industrially, on a Ford's assembly line, without a pretence of anything else but for (more or less mindless) entertainment that makes your minutes and hours go by, and most importantly, because big heads concluded this model of filmmaking is the most profitable.
You know it, filmmakers know it.

Still, I feel that there's enough good philosophical and social ideas displayed, (some obvious, but some hidden, like the dialectics, evolution of Smith and Morpheus, evolved and more complex class struggle when it comes to humans and robots, capitalist incorporation of its critique, like the reality becoming just another simulation, and most importantly, true belief in positive social change), and that Lana Wachowski has more, but is restrained by powers that be for exactly described reasons.

Visually I wasn't impressed, also I was expecting a bit more from the "sci" part of sci-fi, first part of the film is too slow, and the second part is too fast, but it's hardly embarrassing like some make it

Face it people, Hollywood is finito. Nowadays, there is hardly a new film truly worth watching that isn't an art film. Your self-righteous wrath won't get you anywhere, you should've learned this by now (I did with the X-Files remake), and it certainly won't make you a better person if you bitch about it more than the next guy. If you look for deeper meanings of this world, then leave entertainment media, and go read some books (preferably not belletristica or poetry, those are for suckers).

The author tried too hard for this one, too many themes, too many rough breaks, too many radically different influences. Shocking scenes and visuals for shock value only are so cliched and not worth watching. I think that stylistically it would've been better to go full kitsch in some parts, but I guess that the issue of the budget.
The pacing is so inconsistent, first half of the film is promising, the middle is boring and annoying, I couldn't wait the film to end for at least half an hour of it. Film has a lot of long scenes without any reason for it, should've been at least 10 minutes shorter.

There are some really good stuff, those topics that deal with basic needs of a human individual, to be loved, to be accepted, to be safe.
But that serial killer stuff, Alexia's psycho motivations aren't explained at all, this plot choice served as a cheap set-up for the rest of the film. Lot of gender topics were touched upon without ever deciding what to do with them.

The final scene is biblical and probably saved the film from irrelevancy, although I hoped that Alexia would get killed with that damn hairthing by Rayane.

Don't get how so flawed film got so many important awards. The competition must've stunk.

Fantastic film, I'll need to watch it again to analyse it properly, but whenever a film manages to perfectly hit the reality of its subject and theme, whenever it manages to fulfil the genre conventions without falling into cliches and without being predictable, you know it's a goddamn fine piece.
It has an unmistakeable atmosphere (great and fitting music, scenery, mise-en-scene and tempo), an alluring feel around it which is (I suppose) not easy to create nor sustain throughout the two hours. Its internal coherence is amazing and the actions really do have consequences ( I might've missed some of these little hints, but I really liked the one which suggests that Dixon would've killed himself with that shotgun if Mildred didn't accept his offer of him going with her to Idaho )

What I want also to point out is the evolution of the motives – from exposing the dullness, the stinky staleness and stuffiness of the small middle of nowhere "community" (whose apparent, on the surface idyllic nature becomes shaken not by the tragedy, by inhumane crime, but by attempts to touch into and clear up the (for some comfortable) quagmire (Twin Peaks reference of course)) and sad, pathetic lives of the inhabitants – to the personal arcs of the complex characters who are trying to find their ways of existing in, but also confronting the described society while being pushed forward by personal drives and morals or pulled back by desperation and nihilism.

Pretty nihilist film, its characteristics are the perfect represent of the US society in which people are incapable of creating lasting bonds with other people, or, more abstractly, of properly engaging with an idea of other people's identities. This radical individualism is apparent throughout the (too long) minutes, but is never problematised. Also, there is an unmistakable element of some kind of soft masochistic pleasure in solitary grieving/pain, which undoubtedly leads to romanticising the imaginary freedom of "chosing a lifestyle", rather than seriously delving into the conditions which made contemporary nomadism possible.

The atmosphere is too lulling for the viewer and distracts from the harsh realities and pure surviving (few windy and snowy scenes are simplistic cop-outs and really not enough) that these people have to go through, physically and mentally. I say this with no pleasure or self-entitled smugness - this film is a product from a liberal arsenal which numbs the people who think they're morally enlightened on the issues of the true nature of the lowest strata of American society. This film tries so hard to be an authentic portrayal, but ultimately it fails miserably on multiple levels.

Except for Frances McDormand's role, this film is completely forgettable and not worth watching, if you've already seen Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri, then you have another reason less because you've seen how she performs these kind of roles.

So daring film for its time.

Talking about hard hitting issues such as society's desensitization to violence and the unavoidable role that media has played in it. Spectacle of the violence and the violent ones brings the views, the clicks, the attention, the money, but only if it's framed right. This surrealist masterpiece takes us out of that comfort zone from which we could consume violence safely, it shows us the glimpses of its true cost, that consequences of violence are secondary to the consumer, shows us that the lines between the reality and the media produced spectacles don't exist, and that the media universe has entirely blended in with its once object of reporting. The scene where the journalist starts killing himself is so full of symbolism; it should be absolutely clear that media aren't just a neutral observers and messengers, they create what we perceive as reality.

Watching this film I couldn't help but think about Jean Baudrillard's theory of hyperreal, of the real that's more real that reality itself, and of his essential "The Gulf war didn't take place". War propaganda and highly organised media hype gushing for war, especially in the USA, are topics that are unfortunately becoming increasingly more relevant today, and the mainstream media's role, the CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NYT, WP, of being almost more blood-thirsty than fricking Pentagon generals is the phenomenon which must not be overlooked.