Shout by Clayton Parker
VIPOG12Take Alien. A perfect movie. Then ruin it with a bunch of action bullshit. You get Aliens.
loading replies
@claytron You gave Alien Resurrection the same rating lol CLUELESS!
A good movie ruined by lame pop culture references and political agendas.
loading replies
@gloom8 we can overlook the toxic masculinity """"joke"""", but what about the Velma raceswap and please hollywood allways try to insert political BS to their products.
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 I think you're just seeing what you want to see
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 Highly inaccurate take, it’s fine that you enjoyed it though.
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.
Shout by Clayton Parker
VIPOG12Take Alien. A perfect movie. Then ruin it with a bunch of action bullshit. You get Aliens.
loading replies
@claytron do you give a good rating of 7 to all ruined movies?.... Dillweed
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 whoever gave suicide Squad a good review need not to watch movies anymore.. That movie was crap
released some time in 2020
loading replies
@queensroe Maybe in some other multiverse.
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 a 3 really? Lmfaooo what?!
Hated it.
As simple as that.
Terrible way to take the series to. I mean it's not as bad as the prequels, because the acting is quite all right, but it hits so many bullshit moments where I was facepalming every other scene it's unbelievable.loading replies
@imtherhetorician For the third time in this thread — it is MY opinion and I'm not forcing it on you, or anybody else. I don't like the direction, becaue I don't like the direction. That's it. And based on the amount of many ”likes” some people seem to agree.
But you don't have to :) I don't only like the OT, I LOVED the TFA, I think it was a the best SW movie up to this point.
Instead of throwing shit at me try to convince me otherwise, but with a proper rhethoric, facts, and observations, like many online articles and video reviews did. If people got scared because of — once again — MY opinion, that just says a lot about them in general.
Also I don't really care what Lucas said, he made prequels, and changed the OT to the point it sometimes makes no sense :)
Review by Corrupted Noobie
VIP9Didn't have high hopes, and thank god. Still sad to see yet another fan favourite video game character be ruined by the adaption to film.
It's bad, and mostly because of the script. The story is awful and is very inconsistent. Sonic can run around loops and jump on missiles in mid-air but can't run up a slightly tilted wall? Also the amount of force-feeding of exposition they give in the first third is so bad. Not to mention the non-original and unneeded "Ya, that's me, how did I get here?" trope at the very beginning. The writers clearly didn't care how their story would be so generic and fall into the background because Sonic would draw people in. Like, in the action scenes, people should be dead. But, when you look around the streets, there's no one there. It honestly feels very empty throughout.
It feels like a rushed and cheap way to give a character that has been prevalent in the gaming community for almost 30 years a film. It really seems like they found someone's fanfiction and made it into a motion picture. Because if the first trailer was anything to go off of, they probably saw Sonic fanart on DeviantArt and thought that's what he looked like.
But speaking of looks, some positives. The colours work well, the art direction is okay and cinematography ain't half bad. The production design is pretty good and we all know Sonic looks much like himself again. As for a score, I don't remember it. Flat sad music is all that comes to mind.
I truly believe hardly anyone cared about this project, and that goes for the actors as well. I was kinda intrigued by how Jim Carrey would play the role here. After his great show Kidding where he used his over the top acting in a profound way. I was hoping to see it continue with this weird eccentric character. But no, it's just the old Jim Carrey again. His ability to move the way he does did seem to fit right in my mind, but when he spoke it just didn't work. Plus, the way he was written is so lazy.
I laughed once, right near the end at that damn Fitbit joke. The tonal shift of that character and her delivery honestly caught me off-guard. The best part of the movie.
Not the worst video game movie, but certainly not improving the general view on them either.
3/10
loading replies
@corruptednoobie I think it’s actually faithful. Watch the Smurfs and then this. Hollywood has made worse adaptations.
Characters that didn't have any logic. Annoying rebellious acts for no apparent reasons. "Wise" elder characters who bicker and are useless. Story line was inexcusably weak, character development was pathetic, and it was altogether a bad show. Original Airbender was good, this was not. Teen drama crap.
loading replies
@kuzronk is that comment supposed to invalidate what I said about this show?
Only cultist Trump supporters wouldn't find this funny. Hilarious AND it has some heart.
loading replies
@the_argentinian Categorizing really isn't a liberal action, oh wait, Yes it is, but you blame others for doing the same thing. As long as it is on your agenda you are ok with it otherwise it is wrong!!???
"White people are better at everything – even things which are unique to other cultures."
loading replies
@artisover at least you can admit it
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
@saint-pauly And this is coming from "Saint" Pauly... Well, I'm not surprised!
Review by hirkiti
VIPEP2I'm a huge fan of SF and AI based plots - I was really looking forward to seeing this but it was a frustrating disappointment. It has terrible horrible shamefully bad writing. Not a single original idea about AI and in fact they don't really deal with AI apart from robots basically being exactly like humans but nicer. No original futuristic sci-fi ideas either with a lot of the futuristic stuff not making any sense. For example the AIs speak to each other in English, no super fast data pours between them. They can't even speak remotely over cellular or whatever... they use walkie talkies lol. They had an old women robot that limped around though the robots do not age?!? I could have forgiven all of this in the 80s or from an adaptation of an Isaac Asinov novel but we're in 2023 and we've all watched the Matrix etc... Also it had very little action and the action sequences it did have were bad and boring with yellow lazer tracers zapping around in the near dark or fog. Visually it was ok and the score was decent but the poor writing completely ruined it for me. Half way through, I couldn't wait for it to end. You can't be a serious Sci-fi fan and think this is any good, it's just not possible... yes that's you good reviewers.
loading replies
You can't be a serious Sci-fi fan and think this is any good, it's just not possible... yes that's you good reviewers.
That gatekeeping at the end of your comment, yikes.
"I'm right, you're wrong", lol
Grotesque insanity. Absurd Fakeumentary with claims that Democrats are the ones in the south who ran the slave plantations of the south...
loading replies
@danmoorehead That's because they were.
Meh...... Seems like its always tradition that girls need to be as naked as possible in fantasy movies like these
loading replies
If you're that sensitive to this you better not watch his other work...
(ok i know this movie is heavily discussed or whateva but....it was boring as hell. anyways...)
loading replies
@nothingtobust you are boring as hell
Grotesque insanity. Absurd Fakeumentary with claims that Democrats are the ones in the south who ran the slave plantations of the south...
loading replies
@danmoorehead u must learn! Don't deny the true history!
pathetic patriotic fearmongering bullshit ... first 15 minutes is enough to facepalm. PR movie for white house to sell the tax-waste for the war on terror to the public. Not worth the money to watch this - or even the time
loading replies
@oya-kesh Wow! Very impressive review. Do you work in the journalism field by any chance? Because it seems like you based your entire review on other reviews and by watching a couple of trailers. You have really (and I mean, REALLY) contributed something beautiful to the world. We could really use more unfettered hatred. You are my hero. (NOT)
Grotesque insanity. Absurd Fakeumentary with claims that Democrats are the ones in the south who ran the slave plantations of the south...
loading replies
Anyone who says that this Documentary is fake doesn't know actual United States History and needs to read a book. A typical liberal that's butt hurt over the truth after being lied to.
Review by Toliman
VIP10TLDR ? 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.
loading replies
@toliman Thank you for saving me 2 hours of my life. Love all these actors but suspected the agenda. Fake news movie!
Review by Toliman
VIP10TLDR ? 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.
loading replies
@shubniguroth One "could" imagine that if every usage (ie the three times I used it) is flawed, there are (at least) 3 reasons.
Either that: #1. I don't understand, #2. You did not, and #3. that there's a reason, subtext or point being made that was not understood.
Facts aside, the film is terrible IMO. Feel free to disagree, but arguing for "grammar" makes you look irrational, retributive resentful, bitter and angry. At least talk about the film.
My lackadaisical/carefree use of grammar is intended, to make a larger point later on.
The film is trying to develop a conceit that people will personally accept, or reject by allowing a slippery slope.
If I/you didn't have any knowledge of Cheney, and I don't, I'd probably believe the film was accurate in some ways. The Opening Quotes go that far as to say it's interpreted from biography and history of what was available. But the intent is to create "Post-Truth", a dramatic and compelling fiction based on emotions.
This Post-Truth is akin to what people with Borderline Personality Disorder experience, subjective reality being distorted by their own emotional dysphoria, never recalling or storing accurate events, only emotional events that become eroded and jaded with time because their memory is overloaded by dysfunctional emotional regulation, regressive memories being reinforced with fantasies and interpreted versions; "feeling" true, rather than being true.
Vice's perspective is clearly in the Post-Truth version of reality, in which Subjective drives Objective. The emotion is more important than the object, method or measured Truth. Vice, tried. It had great aspects, the film is a monument in some ways, but it's also terrible, for many of the reasons I posted when it was in theatres, and you had to pay to see it.
You could have disagreed.
Honestly, It does not matter. It's an opinion on "the internet", and it's grammatical consistency doesn't change the argument as it was made, ~9 months ago as a post-mortem soliloquy / diatribe / screed in cathexis for the film's waste of time, money and energy.
I can appreciate that you didn't like aspects, few people appreciate opinions that aren't theirs, or have enough time/effort/wisdom to reflect before reacting. Hence, Engagement and Click-Bait's ego-driven leverage over people's emotions relies on "takes", etc.
If your benevolence and altruism allows for introspection or imagination, when reading an internet comment... then #1, #2 or #3 would be valid.
But, if you can't imagine or give someone "on the internet" any altruistic reading or intent,
Then, #1 it's because I don't understand grammar.
But, if #2, and one could be benevolent and/or that imaginative...
Why would you be wrong, when Occam's Razor would point to the most reductive; i.e. #1 That I don't understand the usage of sic as a semantic reference, providing an exact quote to a movie's dialogue and script as an exact context. If you proceed with this emotive line of thinking, you can also point to the fact that I also don't use quotes properly either, and that I rely on strange tangential arguments to make an emotional metaphor, poorly.
And, It's just horrible writing.
It also reinforces the argument that "I don't have any idea what I'm doing", and you can thus, use this logical parry (Argument from fallacy) to dismiss all of my opinion and arguments, and ignore everything written that you disagree with, having "won" internet points in dismissing my screed.
And, yes it is a screed, and perhaps Conservative Agitprop, given the content. Eh.
As long as you're right.
However, there's still point #2 and #3
#3, I used sic, and not [sic] or (sic) as a reference or quote.
Sic. has more than one context.
Especially when it's deliberately not appropriate.
Especially in post-modern ironic and meta-contextual semiotics, words can have their opposite intent, or act as a semiotic / referential / symbolic meaning, especially in a culture that uses verbs as brands and nouns, language and meaning can be redefined by context(s) or have multiple and parallel contexts.
e.g. a "Hot Take" being a symbolic reference of grasping, or in reference to media/journalism, a sliced moment from a whole that is consumed/removed, that is "Hot", in the reference of being inflammatory in nature, but also served/prepared as if it were "heated'.
Two words that can have an abundance of meaning in it's use and overuse, and meta-contextual usage, that a "take" is often removed or omitted opinion, derived to "grok", a digest /interpretation of someone's opinion or motives from a thin slice. so when you have someone's "Take"; it's often a strange or false interpretation, or a disingenuous interpretation that benefits the POV of the writer, not the reader.
That context comes from its usage, and all of the other allusions, meanings and contexts of Take, i.e. theft/removal, etc. are also applicable when using Take.
TLDR, everything is ironic. Even when it's not supposed to be.
Especially if it's not supposed to be.
Sic, without the brackets, isn't supposed to be literal. It is detached. And, being detached and used inappropriately, it is being used 'stupidly' / 'ironically' to juxtapose that it's not an actual quote, the meaning is inferred and substituted as a simile or figure of speech, that it's being used as a figure of speech.
Especially when it deliberately does not quote a third party, and is an allusion or reference, thus being an ironic transposition or inversion of accurate reproduction. Especially because sic erat scriptum is not being semantically or contextually used to quote actual dialogue or points made.
Perhaps.
The intent of using sic. Poorly. was to create a different semantic meaning of "Exactly" to "Inexactly", which would transpose/ridicule the intent of providing a quote, as an in-joke to the loose transcription of Cheney's biography through the film.
Especially... when in the context of this review, frequent "quotes" highlight moments of poorly transposed meaning, is also a reference to Cheney's biography being opportunistically dismantled in the most alienating and least humanising way to represent someone's life.
I loathe this recurring trend I'm seeing with a load of movies being put out, not just in the horror community. Studios take this engaging and expansive concept that could be fleshed out into a thought provoking and timeless archive of our culture, this Winchester story being the perfect capsule of life and death. There's plenty of interesting shit that's lightly tapped into... but like a ton of other projects of recent, we take this potentially enriching thing and throw it into the mainstream bubble. I can see the executives going, "Yes, this tale of a woman building time capsule rooms of dead people, and where they died, is cool and all... but it needs more poltergeists, jumpscares, and marketability." We're taking potential arthouse movies and slapping a studio coat of paint onto it. It's really disgusting.
In this movie, there are so many interesting conversations that are briefly explored. This woman is being told by supernatural beings (who were all killed by weapons from the company she owns), to build rooms in her mansion that capture their spirits and replicate the location where they died. That is so neat, and it amounts to barely anything. No big message at the end, no character study of this woman and the visiting doctor, who's also troubled just as much as her... really nothing. There's a lot of short scenes that go nowhere and inconsistent rules within the house. It's a generic ghost movie with a promising concept being used as the gimmick to draw suckers in like me. The synopsis is far more interesting than how it's executed.
I give credit for teed-bits of the production design, but we just had Crimson Peak and other great period piece movies, so I don't know what's the point of giving this credit for that. And for heaven's lord, I'm an apologist of egregious jump-scares, but this movie is not helping my case. I can't count how many times I wanted to walk about because of the predictable and ineffective jumps. Let's lock this movie up behind thirteen nails and forget it.
loading replies
@filmtoaster I won’t argue the movie isn’t special because at best it’s a decent dramatization of a widow’s sad descent into guild ridden delirium (in my subjective opinion)...
There was a big message conveyed aside from the illogically contrived gun control lobbyists’ political agenda ever present throughout that guns kill people more than people kill people and are therefore inherently evil, which is stupid. As long as more than one human exists we will find some way to kill each other. Needless political agendas aside...
It does touch on the anger, pain, and guilt that can be left behind in survivors of traumatic events and sometimes the unfinished business these entities have is merely helping those left behind come to terms with their reality and forgive themselves which in turn may help the entities themselves achieve their own necessary closure. That’s what I thought it was trying to say anyway, albeit it could have been done better, sure.
I completely agree that more could have been done. I’m still curious about the unresolved story about the first entity the Doctor sees, the devilish looking boy with the pitchfork and severed legs who we never see again but probably belongs in a sealed room. Maybe it’ll get picked up for a miniseries like haunting of hill house did, and maybe we’ll a better story then if any decent writing is done.
Characters that didn't have any logic. Annoying rebellious acts for no apparent reasons. "Wise" elder characters who bicker and are useless. Story line was inexcusably weak, character development was pathetic, and it was altogether a bad show. Original Airbender was good, this was not. Teen drama crap.
loading replies
@clobsters I did see Avatar, it was awesome. I mention it in the review as I'll point out for you below. I have no idea what you're asking me about TLOK. I obviously comment on it's flaws in the review. I'm confused since you missed that I'd watched Avatar, and not sure what you're on about tbh.
... Original Airbender was good, this was not ...
Hated it.
As simple as that.
Terrible way to take the series to. I mean it's not as bad as the prequels, because the acting is quite all right, but it hits so many bullshit moments where I was facepalming every other scene it's unbelievable.loading replies
@jokes-senpai Well, it was a lost cause after the Leia scene, so you're right.
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 you're sure we watched the same Joker movie? were you seated with the front toward the theater screen or away from it? There is nothing wrong with the reviews here, your review is the one that smells fishy... you've done nothing but bad mouth the film but you've barely explained what exactly dissatisfied you... I really hope nobody takes you seriously and gives this film the chance it deserves...
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 ur bugging.. Great Movie Even Greater Acting
Hated it.
As simple as that.
Terrible way to take the series to. I mean it's not as bad as the prequels, because the acting is quite all right, but it hits so many bullshit moments where I was facepalming every other scene it's unbelievable.loading replies
@dannyland Look, I get it, Disney wanted a clear horizon for the next installments. They killed off all the main characters, Carrie Fisher died in reality, so they need to kill her off somehowe between this and IX, they should kill Chewie, destroy the Falcon and send the droids to some junkyard and that'll give them a clean slate to build next trilogy on.
I LOVED TFA, watched it in every format I could in cinemas, and just yesterday I went for a special screening of TFA before TLJ and I loved every second of the first one just to have my hopes crashed in the next. Everybody's allowed to have an opinion and that's just mine. I love me some Star Wars, don't get me wrong, but this was just too much.
