....I didn't like it.
There was no plot.
There was no literary protagonist. There IS a main character, though.When I say plot, I mean an objective that the protagonist is after from the beginning; Some kind of imbalance that they sense needs to be rectified or corrected. When there is no objective, there is no obstacles in their way, either. This movie is 3.5 hours of, just, things that happen and it never clues the audience in on the endgame...so there's also hardly any climax, either. Its just, this happens, then that, then that, then that...with characters you can't really call "likeable" or "rootable" I wouldn't have cared if DeNiro died at any given moment in the film because I couldn't connect with him.
loading replies
@iamdwg That is an interesting perspective that is totally different from what I enjoyed from this movie. But it still is a perspective, and I was wrong of me to call it a definition. As we know, there isn`t only one way to make a plot enjoyable in a movie.
What I liked about it is that is similar to what I think an old person goes through remembering the past, that way it wouldnt have that type of plot. s House talking with the caretaker about his daughter and about the past. It was melancholic in the way I think we all will be like when we (if we) reach that age. The movie keeps going back to the past and going forward to the "present" of Frank driving Buffalino. That way we get their story together and when the ending comes you don`t get that surprised.
Specially the ending, the MC in the Old Folk
IT is different from every other Scorcese movie out there, but it still very similar at the same time.
But it is still a Scorcese movie as far as I can remember. It feels a slower (of course, look at the runtime) of Casino or even The Wolf of Wall Street. All these plots don`t have that problem from Dramatica. Because it is history, and all the MCs plots from Scorcese movies are based on real life. That way their motivations are pretty real and honest. They are all mafia man, they are in there because they are greedy. The only real antagonist is themselves, and the barely mentioned cops that arrest them.
Take The Wolf Of Wall Street as an example, what is the problem from that movie? who is the antagonist? There is none, at least on the level of The Irishman there is none. It is basically just a tale of a guy that took too much cocaine and got rich scheming a bunch of people. Of course, if you can explain what differentiates the plot of this movie with the plot of The Irishman Id like to read. Seems like could be a lot more to learn about this. What I mean is: could we apply the Dramatica to other Scorcese Films? If not, that means that a movie doesnt need that type of plot to have a story. Specially since the story is literally (with flair) from history.
....I didn't like it.
There was no plot.
There was no literary protagonist. There IS a main character, though.When I say plot, I mean an objective that the protagonist is after from the beginning; Some kind of imbalance that they sense needs to be rectified or corrected. When there is no objective, there is no obstacles in their way, either. This movie is 3.5 hours of, just, things that happen and it never clues the audience in on the endgame...so there's also hardly any climax, either. Its just, this happens, then that, then that, then that...with characters you can't really call "likeable" or "rootable" I wouldn't have cared if DeNiro died at any given moment in the film because I couldn't connect with him.
loading replies
@iamdwg Well, I can understand not liking it. It is not for everyone. But if you are looking for a likeable MC in a Scorcese movie, I have bad news for you. Your definition of plot is all wrong too. What Scorcese is telling here is a hollywood (netflix *cough) version of the REAL history of Frank Sheeran, Hoffa, Bufalino etc. All those people are or were alive at some point and some events in the movie actually happened. Well, this isn`t exactly new with Scorcese, most of his movies are like that.
The real difference between this movie and all his other movies is that this one doesnt glorify the MC. Remember Cassino? Or better yet, GoodFellas? I mean, all these mafia people are in the MAFIA. I dont know about you, but I feel really icky if they make such characters as likeable or rootable. They are criminals, that doesnt mean they shouldnt convey a sense of understanding of his motivations, but likeable and rootable are things I like on actual good MCs like the cops that arrested those people.
I felt that this show really should be evaluated in three parts, as it’s almost as if there were three shows in one. The first season was based on the novel of the same name, so the writers had clearly marked signposts to follow. As the novel was quite compelling, so too was the first season of the show. However, this is where the book ended, and the writers had to take up the slack. The natural progression of events led them to follow the court case surrounding the death of Hannah Baker, as well as the criminal trial of Bryce Walker..
I felt that these two seasons should be evaluated in terms of being different shows. The first season was clearly the best season of the four b/c, that’s the material the book covered, and the writers didn’t have to come up w/ any of their own material. The second season, although panned by some fans and critics, still followed the same themes of the first season, yet it was not up to par in terms of storyline or writing.
The third and fourth seasons should be considered a third show all on their own. While they did stick to similar themes from the first and second seasons, the writers clearly had no plan in place to go beyond the end of the novel. These last two seasons, especially, felt completely disjointed from the first two. The third season was long and drawn out, and the payoff in the end was neither surprising nor all that interesting. If they had maintained more of a mysterious atmosphere over what they were doing, it might have been better.
The fourth season was just a mess. Watching a main character who’s moody, bitter, angry, intense, depressed, and slipping into schizophrenia is not a compelling watch. They began this in season three and continued on in season four. It really added no particular value to the show or the character of Clay.
As for the storyline in the final season, it was absolutely ludicrous. I won’t go into the details, but suffice it to say, the writers really didn’t put much thought into what they were doing. The last two episodes of the show were especially pointless. The prom episode was completely unnecessary, as was the finale, at least the way it was filmed. And, it certainly didn’t require 90 minutes to portray the events of what happened in the finale. Not to mention, the last scene of the show was absolutely awful.
I think that the worst part of this show, however, was the treatment of two characters, Bryce Walker and Montgomery de la Cruz. In the third season, the writers actually spend quite a few resources rehabilitating the image of Bryce, as if there was some redemption to be had for him. He was a serial predator, and his actions would have stemmed from a deep-seated psychological disorder that wouldn’t have simply gone away, b/c he acknowledged his wrongdoing and felt bad about it. They did something similar w/ Monte in the fourth season, and I felt that it was incredibly disingenuous, dangerous, and irresponsible to take this path, b/c it showed that they really hadn’t researched the topics they were writing about. It was really surprising to watch this, and even both of Jessica’s relationships w/ Justin and Diego were quite questionable, especially given her role as head of the women’s rights movement on campus.
loading replies
@jmg999 I like your comment. But I disagree with this statement: "Watching a main character who’s moody, bitter, angry, intense, depressed, and slipping into schizophrenia is not a compelling watch."
You could do a really interesting character out of that, look at The Silver Linings Playbook - without the schizophrenia - , the problem was the writers, they couldn't write it compellingly.
You have to go in expecting it to be a bit silly and it doesnt have the most talented editor but if you can get past that then you'll find fucking salvation!!! Imagine supernatural if it wasnt a homophobic, misogynistic, racist fuck up of a show. With actually funny as hell lines and great actors!! watch this, its really worth it!
loading replies
@empleat There is plenty studies that show it means something. I mean, do you really believe entertainment exists in a bubble protected against everything? If something is created by humans, flawed humans, it cannot lack meaning or intent.
The perfect example is anime, they really don` t care about the effects of its entertainment. They create things targeting escapism and desires, fantasy and power fantasy, Shounen for the teenager, Seinen for the young adult, Shoujo for female teenager, Josei for the female young adult. The problem is that most entertainment has its cliches that can sometimes become too much escapism. I mean not to say it is a relation of causation, things are not that simple in society, but there is probably plenty of reasons on why Japan is one of the few countries that exist Hikikomoris, the current low interest in young people having actual sex, low birthrate etc etc.
If you have teens consuming heavy porn (let`s be honest, even if they prohibit it, they still can get they horny hands on it) since the beginning, that affects a person. Specially people that already suffers from some emotional and mental difficulties. They have this idea of what sex is, wrongfully, based on porn, they have they fantasies that are reasonably satisfied by porn and hentai, and they probably can bother to find another partner to actually have a relationship beyond sex.
Of course, there are a lot more variables for why this happens. Social pressure in Japan against its teenagers and young adults are a known thing. At least at second hand. But there are more examples of entertainment having correlation against problems happens in their culture.
This is a fascinating watch, it’s such a great insight into filmmaking.
I’d advise anyone to watch this and the theatrical cut back to back, you’ll learn so much about the process, rearranging scenes, editing, etc.Pros:
- Compared to BvS: the script is much more structured, coherent, and simple. Also, this film doesn’t try to have any political depth or social commentary, which is a plus because that requires a filmmaker with subtlety, and Snyder is no such filmmaker. Finally, it doesn’t make any major mistakes like the Martha scene or Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.
- Compared to the theatrical cut: it does a much better job at fleshing out the characters. This particularly helps for Cyborg and Steppenwolf. It kinda turns Cyborg into the coolest character of the DCEU. Also, the editing of the action scenes is much better.
- I love that it has a big, epic tone. The storytelling feels like it takes a lot of inspiration from Lord of the Rings.
- Some great character moments, particularly with Alfred (I also liked Flash running back in time, the killing of Steppenwolf and Aquaman’s scene with Vulko ). There are actually quite a few laughs in this, more so than you’d expect from a Snyder film.
- The score is good (ignoring the overplayed WW theme).Cons:
- It looks kinda hideous. There is an artificial and fake feeling to most of the scenes. The way it’s directed and shot can only be described as cheap and a visual overkill.
- Casting. Some of the main actors aren’t competent enough to star in a film like this. As long as they keep Momoa, Gadot and Miller, these films will always feel like discount Avengers films.
- It kinda drags, there are some scenes that could’ve been cut or shortened in order to improve the pacing. This is one of the things the theatrical cut does way better, even if it’s much more bland as a cut.
- The Flash still runs and acts like a moron. It particularly stands out in this cut because his Looney Tunes-esque antics are cringeworthy and don’t fit here, and his character still feels very barebones.
- Like BvS, the setting up of future films feels very clunky and forced.
- Though nowhere near as bad as in BvS, I once again noticed some painfully overwritten and forced dialogue.In short:
Is it better than the theatrical cut, or BvS? Yes.
Is it a good movie? Not by any metric.3.5/10
loading replies
@jordyep I agree with the whole sentiment, how ever I must point out that Momoa and Miller are only terrible because their part is terrible in itself. Miller have played a great part in the movie We need to talk about Kevin. He wasn't the MC, it was his mom played by Tilda Swinton but it was a good part nonetheless. Even though I believe this, I grant that Miller hasn't really put in the effort to make part in good movies.
Then, Momoa really do need to step up his game. However, I still believe he could do it with a better script and a better director.
I cannot even get in talking about Gadot since I really like Wonder Woman 1, but hated the second. She also lacks parts in good to great movies as she basically just started her Stardom (I mean, really started). I don't know if her accent gets in the way, but I hope she isn't just another pretty face (similar with Miller).
07/10.
This is a cliche-filed solid action movie with crazy gunfight sequences. It lacks a good narrative but the thrilling action makes up for it.
If you are looking for nuance there are tons of Dramas out there. It is not trying to be one of those films. This is an action movie as advertised.
loading replies
@addaks Agreed, however you should rate a movie based on its genre, no? Comparing to dramas, action always loses in my opinion. I think, compared with other action movies, this deserves at least a 7 as youve stated, but I gave it a 8 based on that continuous shot (not the best like the first Kingsmen, however quite good) and some twists concerning the matter that the MC isnt your typical guns blazing "[insert nation here, usually american] hero". The characters here can be seen getting extremely hurt and the direction shows it rather than ignores it or basically makes them bullet proof or beyond resistant. He is just a mercenary who had a damaged past, a cliched one, but this was still better compared with Underground 6 or those Statham action series "The Transporter".
it got some nice lines but also too 'casual' in overall.
有亮點但也非常粗糙loading replies
@showtropes I recommend a rewatch. Most lines have some meaning. Usually over a joke, some have even three different jokes or points or references. The subtlety of it has certainly went way over my head in my first watch.At least the second seasons, since it is the most loved by the fans and arguably the best in the show. But I agree, after Donald Glover and Chevy Chase got out of the show, it got even more slow.
can a show get better than this?
loading replies
@madsfilms Only Fawlty Towers, arguably MASH, but I don`t know about Cheers.
my "manually marked seen" plays don't count in the highscore. That is just mean!
loading replies
@hagbard But do they do butt stuff?
I've never seen a show with more annoying characters in it. No one is likable, all of them are crazy and hateable.
loading replies
@nightperseida I kind see your point, but I disagree with it when thinking about the protagonist, she is basically the personification of "the good person" in the story, she is basically a heroin... as far as I can remember of course, which scenes she annoyed you?
I know i shouldn't compare it to Sherlock but gorram i can't fucking help it. It pales in comparison, and that's a bad thing because i can't concentrate on what's happening. Elementary seems like a retarded parasitical twin that should've been killed at birth but was nurtured by the deranged aunt. Everything about it is... average. There's no spark from Liu and Miller. It's just not there. You can't argue "Oh why can't we do an interpretation of Sherlock Holmes?" or something along those lines, when the fact is, the writing is what makes it. No one will ever match the quality of Sherlock without kidnapping Moffat et al and forcing them to write scripts in the dead of the night.
People who haven't seen Sherlock (most Americans surely) will probably like this show, but for those who have seen Sherlock and are eagerly anticipating the 3rd season, this show will bore you to dead. No, seriously. I'd rather watch Revolution (actually fuck no, i take that back).
Oh and before anyone makes a comment about the books, i've read them. Before watching Sherlock and before the 1st Sherlock Holmes movie with RDJ.
Watch Sherlock.
loading replies
@coolnow This may annoy you, buy hey, the arguments he uses is not wrong -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkoGBOs5ecM
As a skeptical person, the preachy tone of the movie kind of annoys me, not enough to make me stop, but it does make me have a more biased opinion about such religious thriller/suspense. In one hand I found the scary scenes really boring and in no way scary, in the other hand, the point that if a person lives a life of mainly hedonistic pleasures won't find happiness is something I believe as well. While I'm not the norm, one doesn't need to be religious to avoid alcoholic beverages, the use of heavy drugs and other hedonistic pleasures.
That said, the part where one doesn't need the church to be religious was actually a nice message. One does not need an institutionalized religion/church to be religious and/or spiritual. Being an agnostic atheist doesn't make one already a hater of religion in itself (especially since I also take some of its teachings - and from other religions - to heart) but it does make me wary of such organized religious groups like the Catholic Church, or cults like the Church of Scientology.
Regardless of such ideological and moralistic debate, this movie didn't age well, especially if you identify yourself as an atheist, agnostic or whatever definition based on skepticism and rationality to heart. Hell, I don't think that even a religious person would like this movie that much, regardless of its position of organized religion.
loading replies
@jlucascaraujo Oh, and Thomas Kopache is the actor that makes Last Week Tonight's inside joke of Commercials teaching Trump stuff he should know already.
Jesus, why did they need to kill a cat? That was horrific. Animal cruelty should not be promoted on TV. Far too many people out there will give such a thing a go because of humor or some other sick reason.
loading replies
@cyn-c The "promotion" of child killings and dismembering is fine, but kill a cat and everyone (not really) loses their minds.
