Review by Jordy
VIP8Barbenheimer: Part 1 of 2
This is the kind of film I really don’t want to criticize, because we don’t get nearly enough other stuff like it. However, mr. Nolan has been in need of an intervention for a while now, and unfortunately all of the issues that have been plaguing his films since The Dark Knight Rises show up to some degree here. Visually it might just be his best film, and there’s some tremendous acting in here, particularly by Murphy and RDJ. However, it makes the common biopic mistake of treating its subject matter like a Wikipedia entry, thereby not focussing enough on character and perspective. As a whole, the film feels more like a long extended montage, I don’t think there are many scenes that go on for longer than 60 seconds. There’s a strong ‘and then this happened, and then this happened’ feel to it, which definitely keeps up the pace, but it refuses to stop and let an emotion or idea simmer for a while. There are moments where you get a look into Oppenheimer’s mind, but because the film wants to cover too much ground, it’s (like everything else) reduced to quick snippets. It’s the kind of approach that’d work for a 6 hour long miniseries where you can spend more time with the characters, not for a 3 hour film. I can already tell that I won’t retain much from this, in fact a lot of it is starting to blur together in my mind. There are also issues with some of the dialogue and exposition, such as moments where characters who are experts in their field talk in a way that feels dumbed down for the audience, or just straight up inauthentic. Einstein is given a couple of cheesy lines, college professors and students interact in a way that would never happen, Oppenheimer gives a lecture in what’s (according to the movie) supposed to be Dutch when it’s really German; you have to be way more careful with that when you’re making a serious drama. Finally, there are once again major issues with the sound mixing. I actually really loved the score, but occasionally it’s blaring at such a volume where it drowns out important dialogue in the mix. I’m lucky enough to have subtitles, but Nolan desperately needs to get his ears checked, or maybe he should’ve asked some advice from Benny Safdie since he’s pretty great with experimental sound mixing. My overall feelings are almost identical to the ones I had regarding Tenet; Nolan needs to rethink his approach to writing, editing and mixing. This film as a whole doesn’t work, but there are still more than a few admirable qualities to it.
Edit: I rewatched this at home to see whether my feeling would change. I still stand by what I wrote in July, though the sound mix seems to have been improved for the home media release. It sounds more balanced and I didn’t miss one line of dialogue this time around. I’m slightly raising my score because of that, but besides that I still think it’s unfocused, overedited, awkwardly staged and scripted etc.
5.5/10
loading replies
@jordyep One of the problems with Nolan's sound mixing is that he compresses the mix. That means the difference between the loudest sound in the movie and the quietest sound isn't as high as your average film. You can measure this digitally and Oppenheimer has a really poor dynamic range. Nolan seems to like everything loud constantly. Rather than quiet passages and then loud when it needs to be.
The second is that because the mixing is so bad and audio muffled if you don't have a full seperate home cinema where everything is calibrated well and speakers have good technical design it becomes even harder on something like TV speakers where the majority listen
Ironically I find this approach and his confusing timeline/scene cuts and lack of dialogue intelligibility mean the rewatch value of his movies is very high - cause you typically don't get to understand or see everything first time. Your mind then doesn't bother remembering the plot and just remembers "the experience".
This movie, right off the bat, makes some smart creative decisions: it doesn’t try to imitate the original too much, and it’s not a musical.
They even steer away from the usual Disney formula by taking away the funny sidekick.
And while the film is technically quite impressive (cinematography and score are top notch), I found it to be ultimately unengaging.
Also, there seems to be a correlation between big, feminist action movies and poor lead performances.
I mean, just do the math: Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, and now Mulan.Yes, I also find it important that more of these movies get made (not corporate, tame Disney films, but female driven action movies in general), but they deserve to be a lot better than this.
Problem is, if nobody sees it, chances are execs will take the wrong lesson from it, and think people don’t want to see female/Asian representation, or feminist themes.
So, we’re kinda fucked regardless, but I still don’t find that an excuse to give a heavy push to this mediocre movie, as I see some journalists doing.5/10
loading replies
@lainfan No I completely agree! I want more movies with a female lead, not corporate Disney films like this one.
This movie, right off the bat, makes some smart creative decisions: it doesn’t try to imitate the original too much, and it’s not a musical.
They even steer away from the usual Disney formula by taking away the funny sidekick.
And while the film is technically quite impressive (cinematography and score are top notch), I found it to be ultimately unengaging.
Also, there seems to be a correlation between big, feminist action movies and poor lead performances.
I mean, just do the math: Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, and now Mulan.Yes, I also find it important that more of these movies get made (not corporate, tame Disney films, but female driven action movies in general), but they deserve to be a lot better than this.
Problem is, if nobody sees it, chances are execs will take the wrong lesson from it, and think people don’t want to see female/Asian representation, or feminist themes.
So, we’re kinda fucked regardless, but I still don’t find that an excuse to give a heavy push to this mediocre movie, as I see some journalists doing.5/10
loading replies
@jordyep What do you mean, not corporate? This movie had a heavy corporate hand in it. A clear effort was made to avoid Chinese government censorship (which in my opinion hurt the character writing.) I think the result is a movie that doesn't satisfy neither Chinese and western audiences.
ps. I do agree with the point you are trying to make though.
Sorry folks but this one didn't go well for Marvel. I don't even know where to start. Acting was average, more like below average. Screenplay was as much ordinary as it could be. No surprise here. CGI was OK but it's somehow expected from Marvel. But I totally didn't like the idea of Wakanda. Hidden city in the center of Africa with tons of technology and advanced weapons and systems and so on. But how the hell did they build all of that? No explanation. It just happened. Yes, they have Vibranium, but they don't sell it. In fact they never did and for whole world they are just a bunch of shepherds and farmers. So where did they take all that money to build empire like this? I don't like movies without explanations and this is one of them. Almost nothing has been told about Vibranium whatsoever. Oh yeah, it's some super thing from the universe capable of anything. That's all the explanation you get. There are too many clichés we have already seen too many times. And we have to see them again. One example: I challenge someone for a fight because I want to kill him. And when I have the chance to kill him, what would I do? Kill him or throw him down from the cliff to the water where he can survive? But enough. If you hesitate if to watch this, I can recommend not to waste your time. Wait for the Avangers where you can also see the Black Panther. You won't miss anything if you miss out this movie.
loading replies
@dumbsloth87 LOL, that made me laughing :) But in fact it may be one of the reasons.
Sorry folks but this one didn't go well for Marvel. I don't even know where to start. Acting was average, more like below average. Screenplay was as much ordinary as it could be. No surprise here. CGI was OK but it's somehow expected from Marvel. But I totally didn't like the idea of Wakanda. Hidden city in the center of Africa with tons of technology and advanced weapons and systems and so on. But how the hell did they build all of that? No explanation. It just happened. Yes, they have Vibranium, but they don't sell it. In fact they never did and for whole world they are just a bunch of shepherds and farmers. So where did they take all that money to build empire like this? I don't like movies without explanations and this is one of them. Almost nothing has been told about Vibranium whatsoever. Oh yeah, it's some super thing from the universe capable of anything. That's all the explanation you get. There are too many clichés we have already seen too many times. And we have to see them again. One example: I challenge someone for a fight because I want to kill him. And when I have the chance to kill him, what would I do? Kill him or throw him down from the cliff to the water where he can survive? But enough. If you hesitate if to watch this, I can recommend not to waste your time. Wait for the Avangers where you can also see the Black Panther. You won't miss anything if you miss out this movie.
loading replies
@hlava rating is high because if I rate it anything less than 10 people will call me racist.
And people liked this movie, why?
loading replies
because it has a good storyline, marvellous acting by all the actors.
I really wanted to love this because I adored both Arrival and Blade Runner 2049 but this was one of the dullest things I’ve ever seen. Didn’t connect to any of the characters or care about anything that happened. Even the incredible production design and cinematography didn’t make this watchable to me.
loading replies
@jygglypuffdaddy Arrival and Blade Runner 2049, two really really bad movies though. If that's your standard... Have you ever seen a Dune movie before?
This movie is a dream for pedophiles. do not watch it, every view is cash for them . Please don't start with the artistic story. Those are real little girls in the movie that are really doing those disgusting moves (and how many more did it during the selections?). The real abuse here are the parents that let there little girl take part in this movie just for the money. I'm really shocked to see something like this on Netflix. If you want to make a movie about child abuse you do not need to abuse a child! I can really go on and on about this, because I'm really pissed, but I think I made my point. This is just disgusting.
loading replies
@trakth you fell for a moral panic campaign started by right wing Twitter accounts taking clips out of context.
This movie is a dream for pedophiles. do not watch it, every view is cash for them . Please don't start with the artistic story. Those are real little girls in the movie that are really doing those disgusting moves (and how many more did it during the selections?). The real abuse here are the parents that let there little girl take part in this movie just for the money. I'm really shocked to see something like this on Netflix. If you want to make a movie about child abuse you do not need to abuse a child! I can really go on and on about this, because I'm really pissed, but I think I made my point. This is just disgusting.
loading replies
@trakth ffs, if you don't watch it how do you even know what you're talking about?
Pretty solid.
Apparently a lot of people aren’t ready to be challenged by content matter like this, but I think that’s only a matter of time. We also got there eventually when it came to empathizing with gangsters.loading replies
@jaysyle Both of those things are, first and foremost, meant to shock once you see them. Then, both films make an effort to critique what you’re seeing. That’s the comparison.
You could make a point that it’s unethical to use kids, that’s fair, I don’t entirely disagree. I wouldn’t let my kids do it. However, in this case, if the child actors and their parents were fine with it, who am I to say that they can’t do it? The intent of the director makes it socially acceptable. Those scenes are needed, they need to be shocking in order to get the point across. They’re not in there for nasty reasons.
An immigrant child in a new school battling hormones and her mother's Senegalese traditions tries so hard to fit in she breaks.
Cuties / Mignonnes is everything but cute. It's rough, hard, brutal, tragic and very real. Director Maïmouna Doucouré paints the gut wrenching portrait of the young lady and the clique she's dying to enter with sensitivity, soul and a touch of magical realism that mark the reader like a dark tattoo.
Amy is a complex character (terrifically written by Doucouré and played to a T by Fathia Youssouf) because in the same instant she elicits our sympathy, our anger and our disgust. She makes all the wrong decisions for all the right reasons and because for an 11-year-old on the threshold of puberty, there is only right now and desires that blind them from seeing any consequences of their actions.
As for the ridiculous controversy launched by those who haven't seen the film and fueled by blind ignorance: I find it interesting that people will criticize a female woman of color for directing a film based on her personal experiences, whereas when Woody Allen makes a film about young women throwing themselves at older men, he's hailed as a genius.
Shame on those who shame someone for trying to tell their story. Cinema is meant to be a stage for sharing, not an arena for executing artists we judge despite knowing nothing about them or their art.
loading replies
"I find it interesting that people will criticize a woman of color for directing a film based on her personal experiences, whereas when Woody Allen makes a film about young women throwing themselves at older men, he's hailed as a genius."
And right there, you've hit the crux of the matter. It has everything to do with colour and culture, and less about the facade of concern for protecting innocence. The irony is vexingly hilarious.
An immigrant child in a new school battling hormones and her mother's Senegalese traditions tries so hard to fit in she breaks.
Cuties / Mignonnes is everything but cute. It's rough, hard, brutal, tragic and very real. Director Maïmouna Doucouré paints the gut wrenching portrait of the young lady and the clique she's dying to enter with sensitivity, soul and a touch of magical realism that mark the reader like a dark tattoo.
Amy is a complex character (terrifically written by Doucouré and played to a T by Fathia Youssouf) because in the same instant she elicits our sympathy, our anger and our disgust. She makes all the wrong decisions for all the right reasons and because for an 11-year-old on the threshold of puberty, there is only right now and desires that blind them from seeing any consequences of their actions.
As for the ridiculous controversy launched by those who haven't seen the film and fueled by blind ignorance: I find it interesting that people will criticize a female woman of color for directing a film based on her personal experiences, whereas when Woody Allen makes a film about young women throwing themselves at older men, he's hailed as a genius.
Shame on those who shame someone for trying to tell their story. Cinema is meant to be a stage for sharing, not an arena for executing artists we judge despite knowing nothing about them or their art.
loading replies
@bassoo7 is that supposed to be a 'dunk'? Think of something cleverer next time, sweetie.
Some of the stuff in this is really stupid (guy calls the American Heart/Cancer/Diabetes Associations 1-800 number, which is certainly a call center, and asks the hard hitting questions). You won't get an answer from that and your viewers are not this stupid (I hope).
That said, a ton of the claims in this really moved me for purposes of my own health. I was pretty excited but decided to google some stuff to see where the scientific/medical community lies on these things. Turns out, a lot of the stuff in here is REALLY unproven, a copmlete lie, or really slanted which is extremely misleading to viewers.
I have to say, now I think this is terrible because of these things. Recommend people read up here and elsewhere to get smart before buying into the claims here without doing other research: http://zdoggmd.com/what-the-health/ .
Additionally, I think this is far more complicated than we think... and at this point I don't trust any of these experts...
1/10 because of misleading and extreme slant without telling the watcher first.
loading replies
Hi @shackrock,
"Decided to google" - there's your first mistake a) assuming google is truth and b) assuming you'll find truth via google content. Try a search engine without a filter bubble.
Lastly, the only truth is cruelty
Regards
It's not really a documentary. It's essentially a 90 minute OpEd piece telling you to go Vegan.
loading replies
@snowrunner so, did it work?
Starts with some overly glossy filmography that looks staged and threatens to undermine the whole thing.
It goes on though to make some extremely compelling arguments.
The solution is to eat less or no seafood. Just as the solution to wildlife destruction is to eat less or no meat.
I feel all of these documentaries are missing the point. We are responsible for the planet yet we corrupt our decision-making through capitalism and greed.
There is a way to feed everyone. We shouldn't be forced to give up meat because it is tasteless or harmful through modern farming. And we shouldn't over fish the seas such that they are breaking down.
Let's have some proposed solutions to tackle all that and the economic fallout it would lead to, that sadly is what the headlines would highlight...
If every person made better decisions, we'd still be damaging the planet. We need coordinated efforts on how to harm it the least.
7.5/10
loading replies
@porteruk "I'll continue to make mine as I see fit with the evidence that I have in front of me, just as you have with yours." this is why you need more evidence, you clearly don't have it all, and having it all would have prevented you... perhaps... from saying most of what you said but that's a journey you need to take on your own and you're not going to believe anything I give you so I appreciate the fact you are at least trying and say good day to you :)
Starts with some overly glossy filmography that looks staged and threatens to undermine the whole thing.
It goes on though to make some extremely compelling arguments.
The solution is to eat less or no seafood. Just as the solution to wildlife destruction is to eat less or no meat.
I feel all of these documentaries are missing the point. We are responsible for the planet yet we corrupt our decision-making through capitalism and greed.
There is a way to feed everyone. We shouldn't be forced to give up meat because it is tasteless or harmful through modern farming. And we shouldn't over fish the seas such that they are breaking down.
Let's have some proposed solutions to tackle all that and the economic fallout it would lead to, that sadly is what the headlines would highlight...
If every person made better decisions, we'd still be damaging the planet. We need coordinated efforts on how to harm it the least.
7.5/10
loading replies
@porteruk This comment is so confusing to me. On one hand it sounds like you almost get it, that you've almost educated yourself enough to break down the walls of societal indoctrination and corporate marketing to know the difference between right and wrong and what decisions you, and others, should be making in your daily life like "no meat" but then you say "We shouldn't be forced to give up meat because it is tasteless or harmful through modern farming." which has several issues with it, one being what you are saying is literally the definition of "greed" which you just finished saying was a bad thing, no? and two I am befuddled by your meaning of "meat" being "tasteless" not that is a big issue at all and probably just some minor error trying to convey what you were thinking and third your belief that it is modern farming that is the issue and not animal agriculture as a whole that is the issue which isn't entirely wrong but also isn't entirely thought out either. You're on the right track but also have so much more to learn. Jump down that rabbit hole, if you dare, and see there is so much more to learn, so much more being hidden.
"If every person made better decisions, we'd still be damaging the planet." this almost sounds like an appeal to futility fallacy but then immediately after you follow it up with "We need coordinated efforts on how to harm it the least." which at least sounds like you have hope and not the defeatist attitude the first sentence gave off lol And there is in fact a coordinated effort on how to harm the least it is called the vegan community, as a matter of fact it is the very definition of the term vegan which is to do the least harm and why there is such a 'plant based' (people hate vegans so much the corporations won't use the term while advertising so they use terms like plant based instead) movement happening right now across the globe whether people are doing it for their health, for the environment, to combat global warming, to prevent zoonotic diseases which cause pandemics (like the one we're in right now) or because they are against animal cruelty.
You do have me extremely interested now in watching this doc however since I noticed you used the term "over fish" which is just an industry ploy to get people to believe eating fish is still okay it's just eating too much that is the problem which makes me wonder what exactly did the doc talk about, if anything at all, as far as "overfishing" is concerned and the marketing used by the industry?!
Remember that rabbit hole I mentioned? It's deep my friend... very deep lol
Take the red pill and come on in :)
The movie is way too unrealistic. No one plugs in a USB cable on the first try.
loading replies
Sean Bean doesn't die, way too unrealistic.
This movie is just okay. The action and the effects are good when they happen and the acting of the main character is pretty good as well. However, everything else with the movie is complete shit. The story is completely incoherent.
Why are they going after the asian character anyway? It doesn't explain it whatsoever. I thought maybe it was going to be a big revelation at the end and then nothing happened. They killed over 20 of their own people to save 1 guy. (sorry I forgot his name in the movie)
There were way too many coincidentl moments in the film. The movie is literally built on a coincidence. When a character, mostly Thomas, is in a about-to-die situation other characters come to the rescue just in the nic of time. I wouldn't mind it if it was once or twice but 5+ is really annoying
This is my biggest problem. Thomas worked for WCKD in the beginning of the first movie before his memory was wiped and dropped into the Maze. At the end of this movie its found out that Thomas's blood is the key to the cure. So this movie is telling me that THEY DIDNT TEST THEIR EMPLOYEES FOR THE CURE. ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS. THAT IS THE FIRST THING YOU DO. AGAIN ITS JUST A COINCIDENCE.
loading replies
@davidcastle I dont remember if its described in the books but the only logical reason for me to explain this all means that the Antivirus in Thomas Blood only started to develop after he came into the Maze. Maybe he havent had the Antidote in his body before so thats why they didnt find it out in the first place.
Incredibly overrated. I don't mind dark movies that deal with depressing subject matter. But this is not intriguing. The character doesn't have enough depth. Not an engrossing movie.
loading replies
100% agree.
I feel all the snowflakes are rating it 10/10 because they "relate".
As a film... predictable and slow plot. Borrowed and uninspired direction. Flat emotionally. And a wonderful portrayal by a hell of an actor.
I've just stepped out of the cinema having watched the worst movie of the year. I feel like the director has played me for a fool. I feel like the joke here.
Joaquin Phoenix must want to shake Todd Phillips till his eyes pop out his head for he went 100% down the rabbit hole to create this performance - only for a horrendously bad director, languid editing, and a screenplay-by-numbers to fail this picture into the miserable, sodden, car-crash of a film it is.
The last time I felt so vitriolic after a 'much-hyped' film was Guy Ritchie's Revolver. Another stinker for the ages.
I particularly feel like a joke has been had at my expense by the presence of Robert De Niro, who must have had deja vu cashing his paycheck reminiscing back to his (actually a good film) The King of Comedy.
This film tries to marry that Rupert character to Taxi Driver and comes up with garbage. Much like the garbage epidemic denoted in the plot itself.
I paid 8 pounds to see this. You'd have to pay me 800 to watch it again.
It almost worked for a few minutes during the scenes with Bobby D's Johnny Carson bit. Almost. The rest was as predictable yet immensely tedious as it could be without me being handed a copy of the script on the way in.
Do yourself a favour... Don't ruin your opinion of Joaquin Phoenix by seeing this. It doesn't feel like he is to blame here. But it's best to just steer clear of the movie altogether. It offers nothing to the DC universe. It offers nothing to the Batman legacy. It actively dishounours the greatness of Heath Ledger, Jack Nicholson, Cesar Romero and all future Jokers.
This film itself IS the joker.
Utter crap.
3/10 - for the attempts made by Joaquin Phoenix saving it from 1/10.
loading replies
@porteruk I totally agree with you. Horrible movie. 38 minutes in, I was like, it's the Joker, something has to happen, but it does not. People that rate this movie excellent are jumping on the hype of how it talks about mental disorders and peoples pain. If you want to cover that , do an intense documentary. Don't do a 90 minute backstory that can be done in 7 min. Since it's the Joker, it's expected to sell a lot the first week. If I make a new Avengers movie for 8 million dollars. I bet you it will make at least 80 million that weekend. Just enough to get all the die hard fans. Then after that sales will plummet. Joaquin Phoenix did a great job, but it was a horribly written movie.
I've just stepped out of the cinema having watched the worst movie of the year. I feel like the director has played me for a fool. I feel like the joke here.
Joaquin Phoenix must want to shake Todd Phillips till his eyes pop out his head for he went 100% down the rabbit hole to create this performance - only for a horrendously bad director, languid editing, and a screenplay-by-numbers to fail this picture into the miserable, sodden, car-crash of a film it is.
The last time I felt so vitriolic after a 'much-hyped' film was Guy Ritchie's Revolver. Another stinker for the ages.
I particularly feel like a joke has been had at my expense by the presence of Robert De Niro, who must have had deja vu cashing his paycheck reminiscing back to his (actually a good film) The King of Comedy.
This film tries to marry that Rupert character to Taxi Driver and comes up with garbage. Much like the garbage epidemic denoted in the plot itself.
I paid 8 pounds to see this. You'd have to pay me 800 to watch it again.
It almost worked for a few minutes during the scenes with Bobby D's Johnny Carson bit. Almost. The rest was as predictable yet immensely tedious as it could be without me being handed a copy of the script on the way in.
Do yourself a favour... Don't ruin your opinion of Joaquin Phoenix by seeing this. It doesn't feel like he is to blame here. But it's best to just steer clear of the movie altogether. It offers nothing to the DC universe. It offers nothing to the Batman legacy. It actively dishounours the greatness of Heath Ledger, Jack Nicholson, Cesar Romero and all future Jokers.
This film itself IS the joker.
Utter crap.
3/10 - for the attempts made by Joaquin Phoenix saving it from 1/10.
loading replies
@rcarter25 No way man, check my history. I don't do review hit jobs.
This film had a couple of moments where it tried to be clever and it failed miserably. Anyone who rates this film, they're buying hype.
I gave kudos to Joaquin Phoenix for his acting - he really delivered. But he delivered in a crap film. I feel bad for him. He will look back on this as a major letdown.
You'd have to nail me to a chair to watch this again.
There's some scam going with reviews. It's like payola back in the radio singles days. Suicide Squad got the same and that was crap too.
Just because a movie is 'dark' doesn't make it the quality of a Nolan film. They market them all as if that's what made the Nolan films good. It wasn't - plot, direction, cinematography, as well as acting - all contribute to make the whole.
Gotham was gritty but I've seen more believability in The Deuce. Dark and gritty doesn't mean it just 'works'.
Anyway, each to their own. I though Ad Astra was as bad a letdown as this year could produce but this Turkey arrived a month early for Thanksgiving!
Weak and drawn out compared even to the first one.
Things I liked:
* Trippin' in Mirkwood,
* Barrel-ride,
* Lake-town,
* Dialog between Bilbo and SmaugThings I disliked:
* NO SONGS!!1!
* 3 of the 5 major plot points are rushed through, culminating in a drawn-out battle/chase scene at the end that, after a while, becomes boring and stretches the suspension of disbelieve to its breaking point
* the added female lead is only motivated by her affaction for two members of the male cast. If you can't handle realistic female characters than leave them out.Also: HFR+4K+3D makes prostetics look like what they are: rubber :(.
loading replies
@jbixby OMG, people can have nuance and not just be on one end of two totally polar opposites? Who would have thought??!!?
Contains major spoilers !!!!!
Huge and utterly dissapointing. After TFA I said this movie would make or break the story. For me it broke.
Where to begin? Let´s start with my biggest problem.
After that rebel cruisers bridge was hit and Leia was thrown into space we saw her drifting in the cold empty vacuum of space. This was a powerful scene and I had tears welling up in my eyes thinking that would be a great ending for the character dying how she always lived. Fighting. I did not realise, or care, that it would have been a huge coincidence had they written this scene at that point not knowing Carrie would pass away. But as I said powerful scene. And then she opens her eyes and floated back into the ship still beeing alive. At that point I was seriously considering leaving the cinema. It´s scifi but, please, without as much as a hint of an explanation that is just awful writing. It is Disney all over it. Anyway I stayed and watched the rest but in general I was done with the movie.
There are tons of other things I didn´t like.
way to much unnessesary and stupid humor. Most of the time it does not fit and just destroys scenes. Holding for General Hux - that might have been OK once but two or three times it just becomes goofy. And there is more of this througout the movie.
the writing was all over the place. So much things going on that do little to nothing for the general plot and just add playtime. Like that whole thing with the codebreaker, going to the casino. Just sugarcoating CGI.
and speaking of playtime - way too long. About five times towards the end I thought it was over. It could have ended when the reached the rebel base- no let´s add another battle. When they realised they where trapped. With Luke going out to face Kylo. At some point I would have been OK with the movie ending with the First Order defeating the rebels, everyone dying, and the franchise done with. But of course that is not happening and the movie ends.....no, just show us a kid with a broom looking at the stars and indicate he could be the hero of a future movie.
in many ways the continuation of storylines is not satisfiying. They introduce Snoke in the first movie without an explanation who he is, where he comes from and how he got there. Would have been OK, could have done later. So now he´s dead without so much as a fight and there are questions left to be answered.
what about Rey ? Are we really to believe her parents were some drunk and drifting scavengers that sold her for money like Ren said ? That would be very stupid because how in the universe could she master the Force in ways even the best Jedis or Sith couldn´t without as much as years of training. Another void in the storytelling.
too many, shall I call them, homage scenes ? A lot of times I felt I had already seen this movie. The scene in the throne room f.e. Snoke = Emperor, Rey = Luke, Ben = Vader, the destruction of the rebel fleet playing in the background and the Ben killing Snoke is like Vader killing the Emperor. I know that was said about TFA as well but I feel it´s much worse here. The Battle of Hoth reviseted would be another thing where they re-did some scenes to a T. All that was left was tow cables.
Those are just some examples of the things I disliked and maybe there could be satisfactory explanation later. There is a lot more but it would take too much time to write it down. But I doubt I will go to the cinema for the next one.
To be fair there where some positives in this movie.
I liked the scenes with Rey and Luke althought they did not really lead anywhere. But some nice insights into Lukes story after ROTJ.
The conversations between Kylo and Rey where very interesting and I thought there was really potential to steer the story to something new and exciting. Not happening.
So overall I was not satisfied. I really like TFA, it built some expectations that where all crushed with this. As far as I am concerned I am done with this new story. I am not not very eager to find out what else the canibalise and how they try to write themselves out of this. There is nothing left.
This is my view of the movie. If you liked it I´m happy for you.
May the Force be with us. Always.
loading replies
@finfan This is how I felt. Key annoying points for me where the killing off of Snoke with no build up or story, the weaponisation of light speed, the anticlimax of Luke's story, and the gravity bombs in space, to name but a few.
I've decided to pretend this movie doesn't exist.
