Makes me want to cancel my Disney subscription. Quality over quantity! Do remember when Disney had the best movie storylines... what happened? Can make an interesting TV show story? Seems not... Please don't ruin a successful franchise.
loading replies
@daniel-e-jones-me-com I’d definitely cancel my Disney subscription over this if I were you
Shout by Elliot
VIP6Jeez, the snowflaky reactions of straight white men because not every single episode and narrative centres them - anything deviating from that priority is apparently "woke". Get over yourselves, you egomaniacal bigots.
Anyway, another great episode that nicely expanded Ellie's backstory - bonus points for the Mortal Kombat II appreciation, too :nerd:
loading replies
@2ls1t These are the same kind of people who would complain about black people being in movies one century ago. Deep down they know they’re out of touch and behind the curve, but it takes years to realize that. It’s fucking embarrassing, I apologize on the behalf of straight white men.
Shout by Elliot
VIP6Jeez, the snowflaky reactions of straight white men because not every single episode and narrative centres them - anything deviating from that priority is apparently "woke". Get over yourselves, you egomaniacal bigots.
Anyway, another great episode that nicely expanded Ellie's backstory - bonus points for the Mortal Kombat II appreciation, too :nerd:
loading replies
@dw11 I understand that the world may seem like a magical place growing up, but I think you still lack some maturity if you think that acceptance and inclusion is about ‘laughing at gay stereotypes’. Maybe place yourself in their position for a second. Would you feel included if there were no straight white men in media, except Ron Swanson from Parks and Recreation? So only the most exaggerated, stereotypical version of a straight white man. Does that seem right or inclusive to you? Gay people exist everywhere and they deserve stories told about them, you’re gonna have to mature and adapt to that. Or you can just stick to movies and tv shows specifically targeted at people like you, but simultaneously leave no cultural footprint whatsoever, such as The Terminal List or anything produced by The Daily Wire. The choice is yours.
Is it just me or is there some circlejerk going on at Disney where they keep using the same group of actors over and over again for their different brands? Just stop using Taika Waititi already.
The movie itself is pretty whatever.
It reminded me a lot of Onward; you could do a lot worse, but it probably won’t be remembered within the broader Pixar catalogue.
Not a lot of depth or subtext with this one, it’s a pretty straight forward adventure (which is also fine of course).
Some good animation (lots of visual ideas are being pulled from Star Wars), decent voice acting, fine characters, story’s alright.
It’s kinda inoffensive and doesn’t really warrant some of the extreme reactions it’s gotten.
The whole ‘woke’ label is baffling to me, it just seems like a smokescreen certain people use to cover up for their own homophobia, which only emphasizes how the word ‘woke’ carries little to no meaning nowadays.
Any regular person will be fine watching this, regardless of their political leaning.
Ffs, it’s mass entertainment after all.5/10
loading replies
@antiwoke If you think that two people of the same gender kissing in the background for 2 seconds is political or woke, it says more about you than it does about Disney.
Shout by Nox
Half way through. I'm loving it. I have special memories to Pinocchio. When I was a little kid my big brother heard me crying in bed cause I got afraid of death. Never before did he show me he cared for me and even though he was only 13 (I was 6) he came into my room and calmed me down by telling a story about Pinocchio. It's my earliest memory. And this just brings it all back. Now I get to watch this with my 8 year old and she's mesmerised. I don't care what anybody says, this is magic.
loading replies
@noxiuz Nearing 30 year old cynical arse here. Kids movies meant for kids don’t need to be shit or have lower standards, just look at the old Disney cartoons, Pixar, Dreamworks, Harry Potter, Spiderverse, Lego movie, or anything made by Zemeckis himself in the 80s. I’m glad your little one liked it, but we all liked crap when we were younger, and that can leave an impression on us (one that we often look back on and cringe at). Don’t call out other users for making a convincing case that the movie’s shit.
The cynical side of me wants to call this Everything, everywhere all at once for consoomers.
The optimistic side of me sees Kevin Feige finally pushing the boundaries of his own franchise.
I guess it’s a little bit of both in the end.Undoubtedly, the best thing the movie has going for it is the Sam Raiminess of it all. His fingerprints are all over it; you’re getting the weird camera angles, camp, his sense of horror, etc. It definitely has more style than some other Marvel movies, though there's also still some of the usual blandness. I'll give it to Marvel for putting in a scene where a talking corpse gives a heartfelt, sentimental speech. There's more of a psychedelic feel to it than the first film, but every time it tends to get really interesting it feels like Raimi's being reigned it to adhere to Marvel's demands. Elizabeth Olsen and Benedict Cumberbatch are giving some of their best performances as these characters to date, and the music’s really well done. But ultimately the film’s Achilles heel is its own script, which is complete junk. The story is thin, messy, nonsensical, and at times flat out embarrassing. The set-up in the first act is very rushed, while the second and third act feel like they’re written by a Reddit fanpage (you just know for a fact that Marvel only went in this direction because of the 2 Batmen that have been announced for The Flash). It’s Marvel at its most ‘producty’, and it’s going to trick a lot of people into thinking the film is better than it is. Regardless, I hope Patrick Stewart got a big paycheck for ruining his own perfect send-off in Logan at the very least. A lot of the story beats don’t make sense either, with most of the characters arcs feeling rushed and nonsensical, even despite the copious amounts of exposition that are desperately trying to tie everything together. The choices made with Wanda in the third act are baffling, and I still don’t know what the takeaway is supposed to be by the end of the film. Her motivation is problematic in general, and I don’t like the use of the [insert plot device] corrupts the mind of the villain trope, which is becoming very overused in the MCU (Ant-Man, Winter Soldier) and just a lazy way of forcing a conflict where the villain stays redeemable. The new character (America Chavez) is a boring, underdeveloped plot device, while Strange himself doesn't even have a real arc. It's the kind of film where a lot happens, but very little leaves an actual impression. I’m not sure what happened, but I get the impression that a significant portion of this film was reworked and rewritten during post production. The action didn’t impress me whatsoever, but that’s been a case with these films for a while now (some of the stuff in Shang-Chi excluded). Some of the visuals look tacky and unfinished, the action’s a bunch of people shooting flashing lights at each other, shots don’t linger enough, people move like animated characters, it’s all the usual bs (and this is coming from someone who thinks the action and effects in the first one are still underappreciated to this day). Inbetween the first film and the sequel, Marvel has become a machine that’s now collapsing under its own pressure. If Disney would allow it, they really should go back to making 2-3 properties a year. The consistent mediocrity of their current output is killing their own longevity.
4/10
Oh, and your kids will be fine watching this. I’ve seen some uproar about the ‘horror’ and violence of the film, and it’s honestly not that shocking. There’s way more creepy stuff in some of the Harry Potter and Indiana Jones films (or just your average 80’s kids film in general).
loading replies
@medous Look, they’re banking on you as a viewer recognizing that character from the X-Men series, regardless of whether he’s technically a variant. Even though Marvel’s probably going with your route in order to not contradict the X-Men continuity, it’s pretty clear what their intentions are. You’re meant to think of him as that character, even though they can’t say that because it wouldn’t make sense. Hence, I found the way that it was handled extremely cheap.
The cynical side of me wants to call this Everything, everywhere all at once for consoomers.
The optimistic side of me sees Kevin Feige finally pushing the boundaries of his own franchise.
I guess it’s a little bit of both in the end.Undoubtedly, the best thing the movie has going for it is the Sam Raiminess of it all. His fingerprints are all over it; you’re getting the weird camera angles, camp, his sense of horror, etc. It definitely has more style than some other Marvel movies, though there's also still some of the usual blandness. I'll give it to Marvel for putting in a scene where a talking corpse gives a heartfelt, sentimental speech. There's more of a psychedelic feel to it than the first film, but every time it tends to get really interesting it feels like Raimi's being reigned it to adhere to Marvel's demands. Elizabeth Olsen and Benedict Cumberbatch are giving some of their best performances as these characters to date, and the music’s really well done. But ultimately the film’s Achilles heel is its own script, which is complete junk. The story is thin, messy, nonsensical, and at times flat out embarrassing. The set-up in the first act is very rushed, while the second and third act feel like they’re written by a Reddit fanpage (you just know for a fact that Marvel only went in this direction because of the 2 Batmen that have been announced for The Flash). It’s Marvel at its most ‘producty’, and it’s going to trick a lot of people into thinking the film is better than it is. Regardless, I hope Patrick Stewart got a big paycheck for ruining his own perfect send-off in Logan at the very least. A lot of the story beats don’t make sense either, with most of the characters arcs feeling rushed and nonsensical, even despite the copious amounts of exposition that are desperately trying to tie everything together. The choices made with Wanda in the third act are baffling, and I still don’t know what the takeaway is supposed to be by the end of the film. Her motivation is problematic in general, and I don’t like the use of the [insert plot device] corrupts the mind of the villain trope, which is becoming very overused in the MCU (Ant-Man, Winter Soldier) and just a lazy way of forcing a conflict where the villain stays redeemable. The new character (America Chavez) is a boring, underdeveloped plot device, while Strange himself doesn't even have a real arc. It's the kind of film where a lot happens, but very little leaves an actual impression. I’m not sure what happened, but I get the impression that a significant portion of this film was reworked and rewritten during post production. The action didn’t impress me whatsoever, but that’s been a case with these films for a while now (some of the stuff in Shang-Chi excluded). Some of the visuals look tacky and unfinished, the action’s a bunch of people shooting flashing lights at each other, shots don’t linger enough, people move like animated characters, it’s all the usual bs (and this is coming from someone who thinks the action and effects in the first one are still underappreciated to this day). Inbetween the first film and the sequel, Marvel has become a machine that’s now collapsing under its own pressure. If Disney would allow it, they really should go back to making 2-3 properties a year. The consistent mediocrity of their current output is killing their own longevity.
4/10
Oh, and your kids will be fine watching this. I’ve seen some uproar about the ‘horror’ and violence of the film, and it’s honestly not that shocking. There’s way more creepy stuff in some of the Harry Potter and Indiana Jones films (or just your average 80’s kids film in general).
loading replies
@onivlis I don’t think that’s worse than the infamous face melting scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark
This one doesn’t sit well with me.
So we should blame big tech companies for making us addicted to their products, and the nasty consequences that come of it?
I very much question that morality.
Addiction is a problem of the individual, something you have to fix by yourself (with the help of others).
It’s not something that a company, seeking to make profit, should be held resposible for.loading replies
@pedro Then why are you even on this site mate? Anyway, if that’s your opinion, that’s fine, I don’t entirely disagree with it. But it’s not Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/whoever’s problem. It’s the problem of the masses who are demanding more social media. If you don’t like that, go live in a country like China, where social media are banned.
Too polished, overacted crap. It has no heart, its like a soap opera with a gazillion dollar cgi budget.
loading replies
@magenof Yeah, it’s odd how its main competition (with a budget 1/3 of this) was able to secure great character actors like Rhys Ifans, Matt Smith and Paddy Constantine, while most of the cast and crew here are completely unknown, even within the indie scene. Feels like they spent most of that budget on the CGI. It doesn’t even come close to The Hobbit so far, let alone Lord of the Rings.
Ms. Marvel episode 1 impressions: First of all, why is Disney shooting these Marvel shows with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio? Shows meant to be shown exclusively on 16:9 displays. It's rather annoying. Especially after they made their huge marketing push of having 16:9 open matted versions of the Marvel movies on Disney+ with the "IMAX Enhanced" label. Seems really backwards to have the Marvel movies in 16:9 and the shows at a wider aspect ratio.
Second biggest problem: WTF did they do to her powers? This isn't faithful to the comics at all. Why is her ability this weird energy crystal power instead of polymorphing? And instead of getting her powers from having Inhuman genes, they made her get her powers from magic bracelets? It's like if they made Spider-Man shoot lasers instead of webs. She might as well be a totally different character.
In fact, making the source of her powers come from magic instead of from a genetic modification is a hilarious blunder as magic is considered haram in Islam. They might as well have made her a super fundamentalist Christian superhero who gets her powers from witchcraft.
I could excuse the strange casting choices that made Kamala and Bruno look too young compared to their comic counterparts if it weren't for the fact they ruined her powers. The constant shapeshifting body horror of the comics was central to Kamala's character.
For me this is another hatewatch just like the Halo series. Like Halo, while it has some things that appeal to fans of the original lore, it has many other aspects that drag it down and make it difficult to fully enjoy the show.
MODERATOR EDIT: Be more respectful.
loading replies
@victoriaz Maybe try to appreciate films and series as their own artform, don’t compare things to the source material. It doesn’t need to be like the comic, because the comic isn’t some untouchable holy grail of perfection. Give artists the room to create and invent, try to be open minded.
Oh and shows don’t need to be 16:9, cinematic aspect ratios have been used in shows for nearly a decade now lol.
So Much Anticipation For The Batman And Tried Keeping My Expectations Low - Simply Said It Was A Good Movie But Not A Batman Movie - Loved The Dark And Gritty Feel But No Matter What Batman Is A Super Hero Even If He Is A Tragic One - Robert Pattinson Should Have Stuck To Twilight
All I Can Say Is That Christian Bale Is Still The Best Batman & Christopher Nolan Knew Had To Make A Dark And Yet True Super Hero
loading replies
@zdistrict People like you are the reason why we can’t have nice things
Even with the soapy melodrama, occasional bad acting and a considerably lower budget (probably 2% of the budget of this show per episode): Arrow managed to create better characters and more visceral, memorable and coherent action scenes in its first 2 seasons compared to this show. I’ll even go as far to say that it looks better, despite using incredibly basic set ups and filmmaking techniques. Getting Hailee Steinfeld was a great choice, but her character isn’t leaving a very strong or likable impression. In comparison, Joss Whedon managed to make you care about Clint’s character within 15 minutes of screentime. Well, enough to make you care as a side character.
Moreover, this feels like a studio giving their impression of a Marvel Netflix show, like Daredevil or Jessica Jones, but it doesn’t understand what makes those shows good. It’s so tame and uninspired. It seems to aim for 80’s cheese at points, but even those old action movies had some bite to them (despite how silly they could get). The comedy is mostly flat out lame and cringy, with the role playing scene probably being the lowest low of the entire MCU so far. The recent Marvel projects have had such a weird shift in terms of comedy. They used to be great at making mass product films that were at least a little bit clever and subversive. It’s no surprise that a lot of people who worked on Community also work behind the scenes at Marvel. It’s like they fired those writers after phase 3 ended, and hired the Friends team instead. Their quality control is spreading very thin.
loading replies
@exium It doesn’t really matter, there are a lot of movies that manage to create good characters in a layered story within 2 hours, and there are shows that can’t do any of that stuff in 24 episodes. Take a movie like Black Panther, that film has more compelling characters and a more detailed story than this show, despite only running for 2 hours.
Jonathan Majors , love the dude, but that performance was godawful. He kinda reminded me of Jesse Eisenberg in Batman V Superman
loading replies
@the_argentinian I don’t care that he’s hammy, campy characters can be fun if they’re done right. This just wasn’t very well done or fun to watch IMO.
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
@ant9090 Lmao, sure thing mate.
Normally, I like Charlie Kaufman, but this is him at his most pretentious.
Not that it’s all bad, I actually liked most of the first long scene in the car.
It’s the kind of scene that will make many casual viewers dismiss the film right away (due to its length), but I thought it set up both of our leads very well.
Then they arrive at the parents’ house, and my opinion on the film did a 180.
It does what every annoying art movie does (not saying all art movies are like that, I like a lot of them): everything starts to get weird for the sake of trying to be interesting, but without any artistic reasoning.
For example, the acting becomes a nonsensical mix of very grounded performances (our leads) on one side, and extremely heightened, cartoony perfomances on the other side (the parents).
Also, the cinematography is pedestrian at best, and I fail to see the reasoning behind the chosen aspect ratio (unlike films like The Lifghthouse or Mommy).
Just stick to writing, Charlie.4/10
loading replies
@the_argentinian Get off your high horse. First of all, I’d advise you to watch Mommy, a film that used this aspect ratio for a majority of its scenes in order to create an actual feeling of claustrophobia when needed (so not for the entire movie, as that wouldn’t make sense, which is also the case here), and did it way more succesfully, I might add. Second, yes, I agree that some people pull out the ‘pretentious’ card too quickly, that doesn’t mean that such a thing doesn’t exist. Believe it or not, but some people do actually get what the film is trying to convey, they just don’t like how it’s being done. That doesn’t make them stupid. To me, the definition of stupid comes closer to people who write smug, pseudo intellectual comments in poor English.
Shout by Pradipa PR
James Gunn really liked the idea of shoving stuff into people's mouth huh. He did it in The Suicide Squad, he did it again here.
loading replies
@xaliber That's what she said.
Succession is a strange show.
Sometimes you watch it and it's pretty good and the next moment it's childish, badly written and just crap, then it's OK again.Not 100% sold on it going into the 3rd season. Episode 1 is a mess.
NONE of the characters are the type of people you'd want to sit down and have a cup of coffee with, let alone spend any amount of time with.
Not sure how long I'll watch this season - it's hanging in the balance right now - 4/10
loading replies
@speeddemon This show is in part meant to be satirical, they’re intentionally written to be nails on a chalkboard. That’s also why it can get childish, the show’s poking fun at how entitled they are.
So many Star Wars races in a short episode did not make a worth while watch and for me overall just made it a poor drawn out experience of what in my opinion is Disney milking the franchise a little more.
loading replies
@nabster Well prepare yourself, there are 5 more Star Wars series coming your way this year, none of which are worth giving a shit about. Disney will just keep pumping them out for as long as the world doesn’t run out of teenagers and adults with underdeveloped taste, which won’t be the case for a very, very long time.
Did I miss the episode that explained how Kate is so good at everything?
loading replies
@the_argentinian What? You never used a zipline to get out of the 38th floor of a building, only to land safely on the ground?
Shout by Jordy
VIP8It’s hard to rate, because there are a lot of entertaining scenes in it, but the movie at its core doesn’t really work.
I can’t shed this feeling that Edgar Wright had a visual cue in his head of a girl experiencing visions of the 1960’s first, and tried to build a movie around that second.
The characters, drama, camerawork, music selection and social commentary are all very good, but the whole set up is kinda nonsense once you know the answers to the mystery.
I kept waiting for the twist that’d explain why our protagonist has these accurate visions of things that happened 50 years earlier , but it’s never answered, despite it being the crux of the whole film.
Also, showing CGI ghosts in a horror movie using well lit close ups is never the best idea, it kinda killed a lot of the horror and suspense.
I kinda liked that I thought that I was ahead of the film at one point, only to find out that it was a big misdirect to make you think you were ahead.5.5/10
loading replies
@xaliber I get why they’re in there, and what they do for the story. I’d let it pass if it was just that, a vision or an imagined thing. But it’s not, because as we find out, what she’s seeing is actually all true, so it’s not just a normal vision. At that point I feel like the film has to explain itself, especially given that it becomes such a major plot point in the third act.
Where was this group of "diverse" heroes when Thanos attacked in Infinity War and Endgame? One of the many plot holes that this film has, added to the boring general plot. Without a doubt a waste of time, and this confirms that Marvel is no longer in its best days.
loading replies
@nicknightingale @crxssed I wouldn’t expect any sign of intelligence guys, given how his opinion is phrased
This is bound to be divisive, and I can see it getting a cult following in the future.
It plays out a lot like an Edgar Wright movie, starting as one movie and slowly morphing into another.
I personally liked it a lot, I found it very inspired and creative from a story perspective.
It has a great character at the center, some really unpredictable twists, it delivers the scares and gore you want, terrific visuals (Wan’s trademark camerawork is here) and good music (there is a subtle song reference that’s actually kinda brilliant).
It’s not perfect though: the acting can sometimes be a little wonky, there’s too much unneeded exposition, and the tone can occasionally get a little campy, which doesn’t always work.
Still, you have to respect James Wan for bringing creative and fresh ideas into a genre that has continued to give us the same shit over and over again.6/10
loading replies
@erebos Not entirely, that's 1 of the 3/4 genres that you can find in this film. Do those horror movies end with Matrix-esque fight sequences? That's where the creativity comes from. It takes tropes from different genres, puts them in a blender, and makes something fresh out of it.
Review by Jordy
VIP8Well, I'll never listen to That's Life by Frank Sinatra in the same way again, that's for sure.
Before I start, there are two groups of people who need to be addressed:
- Regarding the people who are saying that it's too violent, and a movie based on comics shouldn't be like that: please, go back to watching Dora: The Explorer.
- Regarding the people who are calling it a Taxi Driver or King of Comedy rip-off: Is Mr. Robot a Fight Club rip-off? You have to see the difference between ripping something off and taking inspiration + adding your own ideas to it. Also, Taxi Driver is a vigilante story, something which this isn't.So, most of the praise you heard about this movie I can absolutely get behind. The cinematography and score are without a doubt Oscar worthy. Joaquin Phoenix is front and center, and he absolutely shines. It is a full on character study, and the movie shows everything from the Joker's point of view. It keeps the movie focussed, but it has to be said that there are no other interesting characters to get invested into, something that other character studies don't forget. The pacing is also very well done. It doesn't feel like a slow movie, and the final 20 minutes are something special. To me, however, the first 90 minutes are a lot more interesting. I love the fact that we get to see an in-depth exploration of the causes of social exclusion and what leads to Arthur's downward spiral. Phillips very wisely points to a variety of causes at very different levels of society (elites, government, punks), while not forgetting that some blame also falls into the hands of Arthur himself (e.g. his megalomania). This is a very strong and nuanced message.
And then there's the film's other message. When it comes to a film like this (a protagonist with a downwards spiral), the movie often starts with making you feel sympathetic towards the character. The Wolf of Wallstreet does that. Breaking Bad does that. And Joker also does that. But then there's a point where the character crosses the line, a moment which you can almost pinpoint in this movie, namely the scene where he kills his mom . From that point on, a movie should clearly condemn what he's doing in order to not give out an immoral or wrong message. In The Wolf of Wallstreet, Di Caprio starts to lose everything. In Breaking Bad, Walter White starts to lose everything. Phillips, however, goes out of his way of condemning what his character does. Instead, he plays swelling and upbeat music during the film's darkest moments. Moreover, Joker gets a happy ending , and no other characters have a sincere conversation about the atrocities of what he's doing. In other words, the movie gives off the impression of still being on his side, thereby presenting violence as the answer to this man's problems, and I can totally agree with some of the critics who have a moral problem with that. I understand that they wanted to stay with Arthur's perspective through the end, but this comes at the cost of one of the biggest mistakes a film like this can make. At the same time, one major flaw doesn't make a film bad. I mean, Gone With The Wind is immoral in the sense that it is racist, but is it a bad film? Absolutely not.
7.5/10
loading replies
@danzoc I can see where you’re coming from, but even the first season adds its own ideas to the familiar story beats (like all the stuff with Tyrell and his wife, for example. Or making the imaginary character related to the protagonist), so I’d call it heavy inspiration. A rip-off, to me, is something like The Secret Life of Pets, which is a blatant copy of Toy Story.
This one doesn’t sit well with me.
So we should blame big tech companies for making us addicted to their products, and the nasty consequences that come of it?
I very much question that morality.
Addiction is a problem of the individual, something you have to fix by yourself (with the help of others).
It’s not something that a company, seeking to make profit, should be held resposible for.loading replies
@fly_ I absolutely think addiction in any sense is a problem, whether that’s technology or cigarettes, gambling etc. But I don’t think it’s the problem of engineers and producers, they’re just responding to supply and demand. Like I said, it’s a problem of the individual, not the company who just supplies. And if a lot of people are addicted, it’s a societal issue, which is when a government (again, that’s us, not the market) taxes or limits the production of addictive stuff in order to discourage you from using it. When it comes to using your phone while driving, I think pretty much every country at this point has a law that says you can’t use your phone while driving. If you still do that, and something goes horribly wrong, you have no one to blame but yourself.
This one doesn’t sit well with me.
So we should blame big tech companies for making us addicted to their products, and the nasty consequences that come of it?
I very much question that morality.
Addiction is a problem of the individual, something you have to fix by yourself (with the help of others).
It’s not something that a company, seeking to make profit, should be held resposible for.loading replies
@riotaero My interpretation of it is different. First of all, what Billy thinks about what his company has become isn't very relevant to the story. It's not like if his company were run differently it would result in a less addictive platform, and if it did, then the entire point of the episode is lost. Secondly, I actually thought they emphasized Billy's guilt a lot during their phone conversation, and combined with Chris' story and emotional response (which is an attempt to make his cause more sympathetic), I got to the conclusion that the writers are on Chris' side.
Review by Jordy
VIP8Nothing to say really besides: that’s how you do it!
This has without a doubt the most impressive stunts of the franchise, and it really knows how to use its characters and challenge them. There’s a lot of propulsive energy, lush cinematography and great editing. Lorne Balfe does a great Hans Zimmer impression, and Chris McQuarrie does a great Chris Nolan impression. Alright maybe I’m oversimplifying there, because I have to commend McQuarrie for doing another stylistic reinvention of the franchise, the cinematography and general feel aren’t just that of Rogue Nation 2.0. I’m not even sure if the constant evolution of this franchise comes from a place of creative ambition or commercial opportunity, but at least it keeps the films fresh. Some of its core elements will always remain the same, however. For example, the plot’s once again just a vehicle for all the juicy stuff. You could call it out for being generic or basic, but they find so much creativity and fun in these tropes that it becomes very entertaining (intrigue, the mask sequences, the craziness and constantly rising intensity). Sure, there’s a very predictable twist at the end of the second act, but more often than not, it managed to surprise me. Henry Cavill is a great new addition, bringing back Rebecca Ferguson was the best choice they could’ve made, and Pegg & Rhames remain the reliable anchors that add some heart & humour. It’s all exceptional stuff, it could very well go down as the best action franchise in history if the next films stick the landing.
9/10
loading replies
@misnomer Speaking as someone from a younger generation, I can tell you that my favourite movies have quite a bit of plot in them, but I think that's besides the point that you're trying to make. Yes, the latest MI movies have been lighter on plot, but that's fine, simply because McQuarrie and Bird understand what to give the audience in order to keep them interested (set pieces that are extremely well done, character dynamics & fun). Just look at one of the other best action movies of recent years, Mad Max: Fury Road. That one also has a minimized plot, but it's filled with set pieces, interesting characters and socio-political commentary. Just because an action film has more plot in it, that doesn't automatically make it better. In fact, I'd argue that that's where the first one falters, simply because its storytelling is too convoluted, which is a result of them shooting without a finished script. It might be closer to the original show that way (which I, in all fairness, haven't seen), but who's to say that a film cannot improve on its source material? I mean, do I have to bring up The Shining, or more recently, Ready Player One?
Shout by Elliot
VIP6Jeez, the snowflaky reactions of straight white men because not every single episode and narrative centres them - anything deviating from that priority is apparently "woke". Get over yourselves, you egomaniacal bigots.
Anyway, another great episode that nicely expanded Ellie's backstory - bonus points for the Mortal Kombat II appreciation, too :nerd:
loading replies
@dw11 You might want to do some more research if you think that the 80s were the true age of liberalism for all social groups. As I already pointed out, people being complacent with their social position isn’t the same as true freedom or acceptance.
And you’re right, we are on different evolutionary paths, because people like you are likely to go extinct sooner rather than later. Young, educated and/or culturally intelligent people will typically accept and embrace inclusion, so you’re fighting for a cause which is increasingly becoming a non-issue year by year. In fact, most people already don’t care, so maybe ask yourself who’s creating the ‘new age of division’ here. I pray you’ve come to your senses in a few decades when nobody’s even bothered to bring this up anymore.
This episode just exist to spoiled you about The Sopranos, so with you never watched and want to watch Sopranos, be warned.
loading replies
@rodrigoma Thanks for the heads up. I literally just started watching it
I see the Jurassic world added some token black people lol
loading replies
@mediacenterkodi I hate to break it to your lizard brain, but this franchise already had ‘token’ black people from the get-go. Ever heard of this actor called Samuel L. Jackson? Or Omar Sy, who’s featured in the first Jurassic World?
Trash movie about trash people with a trash ending.
loading replies
@adansantos Many great movies are about trashy people.
