Review by Jordy
VIP8Damn, it must really suck to have been snapped while being on a plane.
Pros:
- First and foremost, props to its ambition.
- There are major goosebumps, as well as emotional, moments.
- The acting is top notch. And especially the people who need to be top notch, are really top notch.
- The action has fantastic ideas at play.
- The amount of cameos in this film is unbelievable. Spoiler: Loved the fact that Jarvis from Agent Carter got a cameo!
- It celebrates the MCU in a good, and sometimes also very clever, way.
- The right characters are highlighted.
- A good score, and finally some more musical continuity.
- The villain is still great.
- It wraps up in a very satisfying way. Characters whose story ends here, get a great wrap up.
Cons:
- The first hour is a little hard to get through. It's very dialogue heavy, which in itself isn't a problem, but the Russos aren't good at directing long sections with just dialogue, while keeping you interested. And when that's a problem, you also start to notice the slow pacing, as well as flavourless direction of those scenes.
- The time jump feels like a lazy way to force inorganic changes into the story (e.g. The Hulk & Banner issue, a big plot point in the previous film, has been solved off screen; or the Civil War conflict that has been sort of resolved now, neither one of those feel earned. )
- The choreography and editing of the action aren't good. Moreover, the action that involves a lot of CGI feels weightless.
- Not a fan of the direction they took with Thor. They made him a tragic, but badass hero in the last film. I get that he's sad in this film, but did they really need to turn him into a joke again, like Thor: Ragnarok so annoyingly did?
- The time travel mechanics in this film don’t make enough sense. As a result, the continuity of the MCU is fucked now, because of the huge plotholes in this film. If half of the population is now 5 years older, do we just have to assume that the entirety of Peter's school got snapped? Do we have to assume that all the important Wakandans that play a future role in Black Panther sequels got snapped? What about any of the tv shows that are loosely (although not as loose as once before) connected? Also, how come we can't bring back anyone who died? If a past Gamora, Nebula and Thanos can come to the future, then why can't we bring back Natascha, Gamora, Pietro, Vision, etcetera? Also, going forward, anything that goes wrong can now be fixed with time travel (as long as they don't place restrictions on the Pym particles). It's issues like these that make a lot of time travel movies fall apart, and Endgame is no different.
6/10
loading replies
@rexton In my review, I very carefully wrote that the plot doesn't make enough sense. Do I need it to make perfect sense? No, I'm not that guy, and case in point: I certainly wasn't expecting this to be The Godfather.
The whole point of science fiction/fantasy is that you as a writer can create your own set of rules. However, those rules have to make sense in the universe that you created, and more importantly, you shouldn't continuously break from them. Look at a similar film with a similar plot, that is in my opinion superior to this one: X-Men: Days of Future Past. Does its plot perfectly add up? Absolutely not.
Does its plot make enough sense in order for you as a viewer to not get distracted by it? Yes, it does.
And that's the whole point. Not even all of the lightheartedness in Endgame, or them taking the piss out of time travel shenanigans, doesn't give the film a pass for its own lack of sense. Frankly, I don't even think the writers cared that it didn't add up, they wanted to use it as a vehicle for interesting character interactions (Tony & his dad; Thor & his mom etc.), and like you said, it helped us with giving a satisfying ending. And that's all right, but it comes with a cost.
Review by Jordy
VIP8What do you call a movie in which fantastic beasts have 15 minutes of screentime, and a character named Grindelwald commits 1 or 2 crimes? Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald? That’d be weird, right?
Pros:
- JK’s imagination. Even when a movie messes up as much as this one does, it’s still one of the most charming and imaginative universes put to screen.
- Pretty well directed with great performances
- Newt (gets more development here) and Jacob
- Queenie’s storyline (if you pay close attention, I think it all adds up)
- The beasts, who are reduced to tools for Newt here, are a fun and creative addition
- The climax, Grindelwald’s speech and motivation
- Visuals, score and CGI (this was especially improved after the first film)
- Action scenes (opening scene and bookstairs chase)Cons:
- Incredibly incoherent (they really should’ve scrapped a lot of characters and their storylines, in my opinion: Leta, Nagini, the black wizard, and even Dumbledore, as they don’t contribute a lot to this particular story).
—> Also, a lot of scenes are pointless (like the underwater creature)
- Two characters are still incredibly annoying (in my opinion those are Credence and Tina), although I’m not sure it’s the writing or acting that makes me hate them so much
- The ending feels like bad fan fiction; good twists should have subtle hints, JK should know this above anyone else
- Too much exposition
- A few scenes are underlit, or too dark
- Some continuity errors (and no, I’m not just talking about the one that has already been reported everywhere)
- The CGI on those cat creatures wasn’t that great4/10
loading replies
@minjee_geek Maybe because the film is already incoherent enough as is? There's no need to introduce elements that have zero purpose to the story that they're telling in this film. Introduce them once they become necessary.
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 oh I like the first one, but it’s been outdone by the last 3 (I’d even argue the last 4). It’s not as memorable as the recent ones, and some set pieces don’t hold up.
Review by Jordy
VIP8Barbenheimer: Part 1 of 2
This is the kind of film I really don’t want to criticize, because we don’t get nearly enough other stuff like it. However, mr. Nolan has been in need of an intervention for a while now, and unfortunately all of the issues that have been plaguing his films since The Dark Knight Rises show up to some degree here. Visually it might just be his best film, and there’s some tremendous acting in here, particularly by Murphy and RDJ. However, it makes the common biopic mistake of treating its subject matter like a Wikipedia entry, thereby not focussing enough on character and perspective. As a whole, the film feels more like a long extended montage, I don’t think there are many scenes that go on for longer than 60 seconds. There’s a strong ‘and then this happened, and then this happened’ feel to it, which definitely keeps up the pace, but it refuses to stop and let an emotion or idea simmer for a while. There are moments where you get a look into Oppenheimer’s mind, but because the film wants to cover too much ground, it’s (like everything else) reduced to quick snippets. It’s the kind of approach that’d work for a 6 hour long miniseries where you can spend more time with the characters, not for a 3 hour film. I can already tell that I won’t retain much from this, in fact a lot of it is starting to blur together in my mind. There are also issues with some of the dialogue and exposition, such as moments where characters who are experts in their field talk in a way that feels dumbed down for the audience, or just straight up inauthentic. Einstein is given a couple of cheesy lines, college professors and students interact in a way that would never happen, Oppenheimer gives a lecture in what’s (according to the movie) supposed to be Dutch when it’s really German; you have to be way more careful with that when you’re making a serious drama. Finally, there are once again major issues with the sound mixing. I actually really loved the score, but occasionally it’s blaring at such a volume where it drowns out important dialogue in the mix. I’m lucky enough to have subtitles, but Nolan desperately needs to get his ears checked, or maybe he should’ve asked some advice from Benny Safdie since he’s pretty great with experimental sound mixing. My overall feelings are almost identical to the ones I had regarding Tenet; Nolan needs to rethink his approach to writing, editing and mixing. This film as a whole doesn’t work, but there are still more than a few admirable qualities to it.
Edit: I rewatched this at home to see whether my feeling would change. I still stand by what I wrote in July, though the sound mix seems to have been improved for the home media release. It sounds more balanced and I didn’t miss one line of dialogue this time around. I’m slightly raising my score because of that, but besides that I still think it’s unfocused, overedited, awkwardly staged and scripted etc.
5.5/10
loading replies
@jonlevity Yeah, I wish he’d make a small comedy or something completely out of his wheelhouse. His films haven’t evolved for the better since Inception.
Wow, how the mighty have fallen. Was this season produced by the Hallmark channel? The schmaltzy music that plays in the background every other scene, the forced feel-good vibe, the corny jokes, the cringy musical interlude during this episode, that fucking Ed Sheeran montage…. it’s all so incredibly lame and cheap. Any of the sharp wit and quirk from the first two seasons has completely disappeared from the show. Instead this entire season felt like a bunch predictable, bland, sentimental nonsense made for the broadest of audiences.
loading replies
@the_argentinian I won’t argue it had ‘edge’, but the comedy used to be a lot sharper and intelligent. Yes, the show was corny, but it mostly tipped in the direction of being wholesome and heartwarming. There was less of an emphasis on melodrama and sentimentality, it was more of a straightforward comedy, almost like a sports sitcom. Trust me, I rewatched the first two seasons not too long ago, they’re very different from what this is.
This movie....made no sense to me. There is a mystery behind the pool itself, but doesn't get explained at all. That's is the most interesting part, but doesn't find it's way into the film at all. So it's just a bunch of nonsensical filler in my opinion, which tries so hard to be "artistic".
loading replies
@indigoviking It’s not a movie where looking at it strictly from A to B will make you understand it. He’s a writer looking for inspiration, that’s just character development to get you emotionally invested. They also establish that he’s a self-centered asshole early on, because he’s sexually attracted to Mia Goth and doesn’t mind getting jerked off by her. Then we get to the pool/cloning stuff, which is a little abstract, but basically the idea is that it takes away your personal responsibility; you no longer need to behave by the rules of society. When Skarsgard’s character realizes this, he smiles, his ego gets the better of him and it unlocks his inner psychopath as a result. He then gets wrapped up in those crazy adventures with the other rich assholes, which for Skarsgard’s brain becomes an addiction, so much so that he cannot leave the island by the end of the film. Furthermore, he needs to do increasingly crazier stuff in order to feel any mental stimulation, that’s where those psychedelic montages come in. That’s quite haunting and scary, right? If you think it’s far fetched, maybe look up some interviews with hotel managers who used to host celebrity parties.
In the end what the movie’s saying is pretty clear: people need to be held accountable for their actions, and the rules need to apply to everyone. The movie illustrates why a well functioning juridical system is so important, it puts our ego in check.
This movie....made no sense to me. There is a mystery behind the pool itself, but doesn't get explained at all. That's is the most interesting part, but doesn't find it's way into the film at all. So it's just a bunch of nonsensical filler in my opinion, which tries so hard to be "artistic".
loading replies
@indigoviking You’re looking for stuff you’re never going to get out of it, because that’s not what the movie is interested in. It’s not about the technicalities or the mystery of the pool, that’s just something that exists in the world of this movie.
Shout by Gary Ellis
Woke film. The grand finale is a black woman destroying the most famous piece of art created by a white man.
Shame, it was a good film up to that point.
loading replies
@gazz1e So it wasn’t woke when Daniel Craig’s character was revealed to be gay? Good to know we’re making at least some progress
Not a fan of this. What saves some of it are the fresh ideas it brings to the table, it’s good at playing with your expectations. At the same time you can also really tell that this isn’t the most experienced filmmaker. The camerawork, lighting and music are mostly bland and only pop sporadically during key moments. The horror is ok, it makes the mistake of showing some of the supposed scary stuff in broad daylight, and it occasionally resorts to cheap techniques (hectic editing; annoying, unearned jump scares). Its logic gets very thin in places, and while the acting is passable, it can get kinda bad at times (the dialogue certainly doesn’t help either). You can excuse some of that for the fact that it’s aiming for shlock, but I think this gets kinda lame next to a movie like Malignant.
4.5/10
loading replies
@the_argentinian Only during some moments. Most scenes have boring shot/reverse shot editing, close ups with uninteresting framing and generic orange/teal colour grading. I expect a little more effort.
This is the kind of modern horror movie that dudes will hate because they can't stand the characters. I thought it was fun and well paced.
And the final reveal was hilarious. Definitely wasn't expecting it.loading replies
@the_argentinian She-Hulk gets hated on by fragile men because of the feminism. This is an entirely different beast, the hate I’ve seen is mostly directed at the characters being annoying (some of whom are men, by the way). I don’t see how that kind of hate is related to gender lol, I don’t think the people who hate Succession are exclusively men.
It continues to look awesome. It builds atmosphere not characters. The dwarf scenes are nice though. Can't really tell whether the main story is any good. Let's see. Episode two is innocuous family entertainment. Perhaps a bit dragged-out at times (w/o being rewarded by a slow character portray or something). Thus, I dare to say, a bit boring.
Like everything LotR, love stories are told extremely dull. The raft guy is obviously attracted to her. Who wouldn't? But why don't they show her body in that wet night gown (or whatever this is)? Why do they let this pass? They could have filmed this very classy and not cheap at all. Likewise the story between the other elf and the witch/maid is extremely implicit. I mean I get it, elves don't behave like savages but to me that seems all a bit too American: violence is okay, but cursing and t&a is prohibited. Not sure whether that sets the tone for the whole show but I would prefer a few more romantic (mature and sexy) stories. It probably shouldn't go full GoT but a somewhat more adult approach would be very much appreciated.
PS: I like the intro animation.
loading replies
@alexlimberg It’s not a taboo (just look at GoT), but being raunchy would lead to an R rating and limit the audience, not exactly what you want for the most expensive series ever made
Review by Jordy
VIP8Between this and Cherry, it’s becoming more and more clear that the MCU’s best director is called Kevin Feige.
Netflix clearly spent a lot of money on this, you can feel the price of your subscription going up with every new set piece that’s introduced, but the end results are still unforgivingly bland and generic nonetheless.
It’s their attempt to compete with Bond, Bourne or Mission Impossible, but if anything this feels like a poser imitation of those superior blockbuster franchises. The plot is in fact literally ripping off both Skyfall and The Bourne Identity at the same time, but forgets about any of their depth in regards to story and character.
The Russos are clearly trying to recapture that same tone and spark from their Captain America: The Winter Soldier days, but they end up making something that’s more akin to the quality of Red Notice.
In terms of directing they kinda got outdone by their own second unit director with his Netflix action flick, as I’d argue that Extraction is a marginally better film than this.
The action’s poorly done and cheaply put together, lots of annoying editing choices (heavy overuse of drone shots, quick cuts and can the Russos pick a normal font for once?), corny dialogue, distractingly bad CGI, boring visuals and music (why is everything so low contrast, foggy and muddy?); not a lot to recommend about this one.
The acting’s fine, Evans is having a blast, but I have absolutely no idea why an extremely picky actor like Ryan Gosling chose this script in the first place. It seems like a paycheck movie for someone of his caliber. Just watch The Nice Guys instead of this if you want to see Goose in an action comedy, we don’t need these 200 million dollar direct to streaming action films.4/10
loading replies
@keldian Well, that’s because most people are too busy shutting their brains off when watching this
My god, I absolutely hate the films that end up killing up the main protagonist. Tell me whatever you want, but for me, movies are a fantasy, not a reality check. So, this movie is absolute garbage. Full stop.
loading replies
@thepantheist Bro you rated Fight Club a 9 and The Departed a 7
Review by Jordy
VIP8We've kinda come full circle with these superhero films when you think about it.
After the camp of the 90s, directors like Nolan and Singer reset the tone of superhero movies in the 2000's to something that was more grounded and serious, which in turn laid a lot of the groundwork for the MCU.
Here we have Taika Waititi providing a throwback to the Joel Schumacher days.
If that's your thing you'll probably dig it, but it's definitely not my brand of camp.I’m not exactly a Thor: Ragnarok fan (nor the other two Thor films). I don’t have a problem with its silly tone, because I’m not a manchild who needs to see his childhood validated, but a lot of its comedy didn’t click with me (even after a rewatch). Everything that didn’t work for me in that film is amped up to an eleven here.
There are some serious points in it where the acting choices, slapstick/childish/hokey comedy, overly bright colors, gay undertones, overdesigned costumes (no nipples yet, but give Taika another film and we'll see what happens) and godawful music choices started to give me genuine flashbacks to stuff like Batman Forever, not quite the thing you want to remind me of.
It's not a complete disaster; the performances by Natalie Portman, Tessa Thompson and especially Christian Bale are generally quite good. I'm also glad Marvel seems to have definitively found the saturation button back after Guardians 2, even if the framing/lighting with the visuals remains uninspired and maintains a general level of artifice that makes it look like shit. I believe they used the volume stages for most of the production, and like Obi Wan or The Book of Boba Fett, it’s very noticeable for most of the runtime.
The story's not all that interesting and makes no sense when you put any thought into it, but that's fine given that there is some progression with most of the main characters, even if Thor’s character arc throughout the MCU is all over the place at this point. As with most Marvel films lately, there is a lot of unnecessary exposition (e.g. the Korg narrated flashbacks are really clunky), but where it really drops the ball for me is with the balancing of tone and plot elements. I already thought that the darker stuff in Thor: Ragnarok didn't blend that well with the goofy scenes on the trash planet, but there's even more tonal whiplash here. Christian Bale is giving this excellent, terrifying performance, but he's not in the same movie as Chris Hemsworth, who's playing even more of a Thor parody than he was in Avengers: Endgame. One moment we're invested in this heavy, emotional story with Natalie Portman, and then we cut back to a goofy love triangle between Thor, his hammer and his axe. It's an unbalanced mess without a sense of stakes.
I also don't know what it is with Taika's comedy in these films, because I think What we do in the shadows, Jojo Rabbit and Hunt for the wilderpeople are all very comedic and smart, but for some reason he really likes his Thor movies excessive and dumb. Screaming goats aren't funny to me, they're a dated meme at best. Maybe it's because Taika can't go edgy and niche with the jokes here, but fuck I really hate his sensibilities for this character.In short, another major misfire from Marvel if you ask me. I pretty much disliked everything except for a few of the performances. Please go back to making indies Taika, and for the love of god: let James Gunn pick the soundtrack for your next film. Even a film this dumb doesn’t need a Guns ‘N Roses needle drop, let alone four of them.
3/10
loading replies
@morphinapg I agree in the sense that Ragnarok doesn’t have a cancer storyline, or a villain as dark as this one. The silly stuff in Love and Thunder is very campy though, I’d argue that that scene with Russell Crowe would even seem out of place in a movie like Ragnarok
Review by Jordy
VIP8The next chapter in Marvel’s struggle of bringing the MCU formula to television.
It sounds simple enough in concept, as they’ve built their brand around making simple, unpretentious, linear, streamlined stories with good characters and big spectacle.
I think they consistently check the character box, television shows included, and this thing is no different. It helps a lot that they got Oscar Isaac and Ethan Hawke, both of whom are phenomenal actors. They’re capable of adding so much life and colour to these characters, some of which probably isn’t even written on the page (could’ve done without the accent, though).
However, for as consistent as they are with nailing their characters, they’re becoming about as consistent with messing up in the story and spectacle department for these shows.
Marvel’s probably aware that they need to add some bells and whistles to their usual storytelling for a 6 hour miniseries, but so far the results have been mostly convoluted and messy (Falcon and the Winter Soldier, Hawkeye, Loki). Moon Knight is no different, because despite some serious attempts at experimentation, most of it doesn’t pan out due to the schlocky execution.
As for the spectacle, yeah it’s pretty bad. Scale has nothing to do with how impressive an action sequence is, as even evidenced by even the best moments in the MCU (for my money, the absolute highlight is still the highway shootout in The Winter Soldier ). So, you really don’t need to do a crazy car chase with CGI trucks, trees, George Michael and a plethora of green screen if your show can’t afford it. You don’t need to attempt fancy mirror visuals I’ve seen in countless horror films if they’re too expensive. Scale it down, focus on the choreography and make sure everything looks good. Again, taking a page out of the Marvel Netflix book would work a lot better for this character. Furthermore, the Moon Knight suit has the exact same problem as the MCU Spider-man suits. It looks like animation, not a man in a suit.
Add the usual uninspired filmmaking, flat lighting (as well as underlit scenes, I might add), boring shot/reverse shot framing and general lack of colour/style, and I’m seeing nothing but another boring, by the numbers show. Its only appeal are the two main actors, both of whom are way too good for this and deserve a lot better.loading replies
@kd6-3-7 I like a lot of what they’ve made in the past, but it’s abundantly clear to me that they’re running out of ideas at this point, and rushing from a production standpoint.
Review by Jordy
VIP8Look, I'm very much in favor of giving directors the creative freedom to put their own spin on whatever they're adapting.
In fact, I think it's quite shallow and close-minded to judge an adaptation against its source material, pretending as if that's meant to be some holy grail of perfection.
That being said: the whole appeal of the Uncharted games in the first place is that they feel like a mix of Indiana Jones and Mission Impossible, with this sassy, horny, shit-talking protagonist at the center of it.
This movie captures neither of those aspects, and replaces them with basic movie tropes.
It doesn't feel like the aforementioned franchises. Instead, it looks and feels like your generic, throwaway action movie that usually stars The Rock (e.g.Rampage, Red Notice, Skyscraper).
Tom Holland plays Spider-man with attitude. He's not playing (a younger version of) Nathan Drake.
Mark Wahlberg plays Mark Wahlberg.Like, why was this project treated like a tax write-off?
It has everything a Hollywood executive could want: the source material is cinematic, action packed, fun, and best of all: it has a built in audience.
This could've easily been the next big summer franchise if this was given a proper treatment. It should be much easier to get this right than other videogame based adaptations.
So why is Avi Arad producing this? Why is Ruben Fleischer directing this? Why is this script burning through four games of material? Why is the dialogue so clunky and unfunny? Why is the casting so lame? Why does it look like plastic, when the cinematographer of this thing shot Last Night in Soho and Oldboy?
Fuck.3.5/10
loading replies
@morphinapg Assassins Creed’s budget was only 5 million dollars higher than this. And yes, things can look cinematic without having a huge budget, but that requires a crew that really know what they’re doing. Not Ruben Fleischer and Avi Arad.
Is this any good? Or just political propoganda?
loading replies
@o0hero0o what the actual fuck
Review by Jordy
VIP8These new Disney+ series are developing into the the modern, overbudgeted equivalent of direct-to-video films from the ‘90s.
In an age where popular and accessible television is continuously pushed to new and exciting heights (Daredevil, Money Heist, Ted Lasso, Stranger Things, Arcane to name a few), these recent shows banking on the Star Wars and Marvel brands feel amateurish, schlocky, and often read like bad fan fiction.
Look, Boba Fett in the original trilogy is nothing more than a visual.
He’s not really a character, I think he has about 4 or 5 lines, but he became popular because of his look.
You can’t just throw me in a story where he’s the main character and expect me to care without putting in the work.
It’s a show that operates in Disney’s new business model of throwing references, ‘member berries and empty spectacle on the screen, while the important and engaging stuff (character, story, drama, emotion, filmmaking) are reduced to an afterthought.
Granted, that’s pretty much the same problem that I have with a lot of IP related content from the past couple of years, but this show in particular feels so calculated, focus tested and cynical, it’s gross.
Even the production kinda sucks this time around (compared to The Mandalorian), it looks really ugly and washed out, more like Marvel than Star Wars.
Where is the voice of Jon Favreau?
Where is the voice of the director of Iron Man, one of the most character driven and vibrant blockbusters of the past 20 years?
This show is not even close to being up to par in just about every sense.loading replies
@vaderfilms I didn’t, I said that this show looks bland and washed out compared to The Mandalorian and the other recent Disney Star Wars movies. Therefore, it reminds me more of the flat Marvel style than recent Star Wars.
Easily one of the best movies I've seen this year.
I found myself on the edge of my seat, nearly in tears because of how stressful the movie turned out to be. It made me care about an objectively awful character, and I knew where things were going, yet didn't want them to happen.
It's a shame it went up against Spider-Man. People have no idea what they missed out on. Having seen both, "Nightmare Alley" is the better movie, but fewer people are going to see it. That's probably a good thing in that I wouldn't recommend this to most of my friends. That being said, for those who are okay with graphic violence and dark material, there's a lot to sink into here.
loading replies
@dastenhero Sure, but you literally have Wandavision as your first recommendation on your profile.
Once you embrace the cynicism and ignore your neverending anger about Hollywood's zombie-like state, which is dead, but not quite, which nowadays cannot produce anything but unworthy remakes of classic films, the film is quite enjoyable. If you're a fan of the series of course.
But, I don't understand what did the commentators expect; not a single sequel of 70s/80s/90s classic is comparable to an original, they as a standalone pieces can't be even considered good, that's why you have to evaluate things in context, and the context is that this film, and many others like it, were not made for art's sake, for glory of the creation, were not made out of ingeniousness of an author, out of a unique idea - they were made rutinely, industrially, on a Ford's assembly line, without a pretence of anything else but for (more or less mindless) entertainment that makes your minutes and hours go by, and most importantly, because big heads concluded this model of filmmaking is the most profitable.
You know it, filmmakers know it.Still, I feel that there's enough good philosophical and social ideas displayed, (some obvious, but some hidden, like the dialectics, evolution of Smith and Morpheus, evolved and more complex class struggle when it comes to humans and robots, capitalist incorporation of its critique, like the reality becoming just another simulation, and most importantly, true belief in positive social change), and that Lana Wachowski has more, but is restrained by powers that be for exactly described reasons.
Visually I wasn't impressed, also I was expecting a bit more from the "sci" part of sci-fi, first part of the film is too slow, and the second part is too fast, but it's hardly embarrassing like some make it
Face it people, Hollywood is finito. Nowadays, there is hardly a new film truly worth watching that isn't an art film. Your self-righteous wrath won't get you anywhere, you should've learned this by now (I did with the X-Files remake), and it certainly won't make you a better person if you bitch about it more than the next guy. If you look for deeper meanings of this world, then leave entertainment media, and go read some books (preferably not belletristica or poetry, those are for suckers).
loading replies
@an-unearthly-child Well, you explained it yourself. Giving mediocrity a pass means giving a 7 to something you had little to no expectations for, because well, the industry is dead/isn’t what it used to be. I think that kind of logic is nihilistic and unfair to the films that have set the bar for action movies like this. And yes, we do have influence on what gets made. The studios are of course primarily interested in the box office (it bombed), but believe it or not, they do also care a little bit about the audience response. Anyone can be tricked into watching a bad film because of the marketing, but that doesn’t mean everyone will fall for it again with a sequel. Just look at Suicide Squad. WB knew that people wouldn’t show up again if they followed the blueprint of the first film for the sequel, because the audience reception was so poor. So yes, there is a point in bitching and moaning about every shitty, mainstream film that’s put out. I’m perfectly aware that my own individual review won’t make a single difference, but anything that contributes to a lower IMDB score, Trakt score, Letterboxd score, Cinemascore etc. is a win.
I can't even put into words my distaste for this movie. Only Americans will ask you to feel bad for their war criminals. The quote by Frankie Boyle describes this film perfectly, “Not only will America go to your country and kill all your people, they’ll come back twenty years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.” The whole point of The Card Counter is to try to get you to sympathize with a war criminal who tortured, killed, terrorized people. Not only that but it's extremely unrealistic to ask the viewer to believe that anyone responsible for Abu Ghraib faced meaningful consequences. Like, come on, now!
This movie followed the most boring protagonists, who are as dull as they can get. Zero chemistry between any member of the cast. Oscar Isaac, Tiffany Haddish, and Tye Sheridan are basically in 3 different movies and each one of them is total garbage:
"Abu Ghraib torturer, but make him seeeexy" How? Oh, cast hot actor with beautiful eyes. Plus, he did his time, 8 years for the most vile crimes you can possibly imagine. But he is a good guy now. He fucks girls and support college kids. For someone I guess we're supposed to dislike (?), the movie spends a lot of time showing how cool he is.
Tiffany Haddish must’ve been the only actress to audition for the role of La Linda because she was radically miscast. She is not ready for dramatic acting. As for her character – she is independent and has connections with rich folks … that’s it. Wow, so interesting, right?! The 'chemistry' between her and Isaac was weird. It wasn’t seductive, it just felt like watching high schoolers flirt, but even more painful.
Cirk seemed like he is dumb as rocks. To expect us to care so much about a kid who we don't even know is irresponsible. I couldn't care less about his death or revenge killing.
Oh, and there is another character introduced like "USA!" guy with no point. But he was born in Ukraine, so he is not American. Oscar Isaac was born in Guatemala, grew up in USA and plays an American dude, while people born in Ukraine who grew up in USA are only Ukrainian. Even if you want to follow American rules, you just can’t because the Yanks are very inconsistent and hypocritical.
Most bad movies have some redeeming qualities. I can’t think of anything with this, everything just felt so bland to me:
Nothing is happening, and the movie is sooo repetitive . Oscar Isaac looking serious and walking in a casino,with suspenseful music - this is like 80% of the movie.
Almost every scene is an end in itself, nothing is explored, and doesn’t progress the story at all scene to scene.
The music. Oh, the music, which mainly featured vapid, brooding indie/electronic songs, is just all over the place here. I hated it!
There is basically no concept of tension or mystery, which is pretty important when you’re watching a fake game of poker.
The philosophy was so juvenile, and the movie lacks anything interesting to say. We are supposed to believe the main character is very mysterious and smart but he is one of the most boring, dull and flat characters I have ever seen.
The dialogue is godawful, no exaggeration here! "I have no goals", "Have you ever read a book", "What is your story" etc. It felt so awkward and as if the characters aren’t even talking to each other.
Why is it called The Card Counter when the main character counted cards once onscreen and then spends the entire movie playing poker?
Did I see a different movie than all of these people rating it high?
loading replies
@cutecruel I’m not American, but a lot of American men are tricked into signing up for the military, whether that’s through societal standards such as patriotism, propaganda or just bravado. So it’s not really fair to say that we’re not allowed to sympathize with a man who was just asked to do his job. I’d argue he’s a victim, or a product, of a really fucked up societal system himself.
I'll open by saying I am not a fan of Villeneuve. In fact, I think he's a hack whose only genuine talent is making stupid people falsely think they are actually quite smart. I am also a HUGE Dune fan. They have been my favourite series of books since I first discovered them as a teenager. So although I hoped for the best with this, I was expecting the worst. What I got was somewhere in the middle. It's an OK movie, not great, thankfully not terrible, but OK
It got some things right the 1984 Lynch version got wrong, but still somehow managed to get other stuff wrong (including stuff Lynch got right). It was also a surprise how much Villeneuve just lifted directly from the Lynch film, both visually and auditorily.
The wardrobe choices were a huge disappointment. If you didn't know the time setting, going just on the clothes in the new Dune you'd be forgiven for thinking it was set a mere forty or fifty years (if that) in the future rather than the twenty thousand years in the future when it's really set. The Lynch stillsuits look futuristic, unworldly, and something that really would keep you alive in the deep desert. The new desert wear looks like they are just going to go dirt biking for an hour or two in our present-day world.
The casting (completely ignoring the pointless gender swap) was good, However, with the exception of Paul, Chani, and Rabban the original casting was all better. But the original (apart from the odd decision to use the totally unsuited Kyle MacLachlan) was a masterclass in how to cast the perfect people for the role.
Anyway, enough of the comparisons, This film is about the first two-thirds of the first novel. I always thought the story would be better told via a big-budget TV series (or even mini-series) rather than a standalone movie. I still think what they tried to cover here was too much for a single movie, but it was a step in the right direction.
The film mainly sticks to the book story but does make some needless changes, the most obvious of which being the changes made to both the gender and story of Liet Kynes, which in turn impacts the story of Chani. Most other changes are small and mainly insignificant though.
The film being filmed in Norway, Jordan, and Abu Dhabi it looks fantastic and very well suited to the large screen. And it's clear a great deal of time, effort, and money was put into the sets that looked equally good as the places they were meant to be.
The acting was of a suitably high standard, but unfortunately, many of the Dune names and terms were horribly mispronounced. That and the Hans Zimmer fart that is played constantly throughout the soundtrack is likely to pull people out of their immersion in the movie.
I was also somewhat surprised by what was left out, OK the source material is VERY dense and obviously some needed to be cut, but I don't really think it's made clear just how crucial melange is to the functioning of the empire and society as a whole. Also what (and why) mentats are is largely ignored, you may think that isn't overly important, but it is at the core of how many things are done in the Dune universe.
Over all, it's not a bad movie. Despite its flaws, I still think the 1984 Lynch version is better though.
loading replies
@mex5150 Alright, so because you have an underdeveloped taste in film, people who get him and his films are suddenly pretentious? How about you try to detach your own fanboy expectations from what Villeneuve’s vision for the material is? You’re critiquing things that don’t matter whatsoever.
I long for the days where cgi was only used when it was really needed. Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh
loading replies
@keldian How about you just use the budget for something else if you cannot pull it off?
Review by Jordy
VIP8In Captain Marvel, I didn’t like the main character, but I thought the movie around her was quite solid.
Black Widow is the exact opposite: I quite liked the two leads, but the movie surrounding them doesn’t really work.Pros:
- Scarlett Johansson and Florence Pugh are easily the most entertaining part of the film.
- I liked the first act. It feels like Cate Shortland is trying to do an impression of a Jason Bourne movie. It’s fairly humourless, the cinematography is bleak, and the score is intense. It has a tone that no other MCU film has.
- The action (minus the final battle) is fairly well done. As per usual, less editing would’ve made it better, but at least it feels weighty.Cons:
- The story itself isn’t that interesting. The themes and main mcguffin are oddly similar to Captain Marvel, though it’s not executed as well. The villains also fail to make an impression.
- This movie really loses its identity as it goes along, to the point where it turns more into a generic Marvel movie as it goes on, and eventually a generic action blockbuster by the third act. Everything gets way too big and bloated for its own good.
- Not a fan of the Russian accents, they sound very tacky. Just let everyone speak with a normal American accent, I can look past the fact they’re Russians. Besides, they even had a story based reason to ditch the Russian accents entirely.
- I found David Harbour quite cringeworthy in this.
- The main characters are protected by strong plot armour. Most characters should’ve been killed 3-4 times based on the things that happen during the action scenes. This isn’t even a ‘suspend your disbelief, it’s an action movie’ situation, it gets really ridiculous, to the point where it’s almost Fast and Furious level.
- The pacing is a bit inconsistent, you really feel it slowing down during the second act.Finally, I want to address that I already find the use of Nirvana songs in movies like these quite distasteful, but the cover that's used during the credits literally sucked all the life out of the song.
4.5/10
loading replies
@mattdeezly1996 They were commercial, but they got succesful without dumbing down their sound or content. Their fame was more of an accident, as it’s not the type of music you’ll typically find in the charts. It’s pretty well documented how the band and Kurt in particular struggled with their fame. They even made In Utero a less commercial album because of the success of Nevermind, so no, they definitely weren’t just commercial sell outs. If you think that Kurt Cobain would approve the use of their music on this shiny and calculated product of a film, you’re mistaken.
Let me get this straight: Sam and Bucky just got upset about John Walker killing a terrorist.
Didn’t this entire show start with Sam throwing terrorists out of planes left and right?
The writing in this show is just laughable.
Everything happens because the writers want it to happen.
Like literally nothing, and I mean nothing, feels earned or logical.loading replies
@thoroughmas No I completely agree, Walker didn’t do the right thing. I just think it’s extremely hypocritical to have Sam and Bucky confront him about what he did. Let’s also not forget that Sam and Bucky let a criminal mastermind on the loose in return for .... information. I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with these things if the show was just completely bonkers, but it takes itself way too seriously by adding all of the socio-political commentary. That’s what annoys me so much. The show thinks it’s Black Panther, but it plays out more like a Fast and Furious plot.
@superrob1500 you’re right, good catch.
I really want to like this show, but when you create an actual interesting character for once, and then sideline him by the end of the episode, you’re not doing yourself any favours.
loading replies
@allendar I hope so. Right now the only consistent thing between episodes are Mando and Baby Yoda. One barely has a character, the other one is an excuse for memes.
A really cool idea for an allegory, but it could’ve, and should’ve, gone a lot deeper with its social commentary.
A lot of it feels half baked and not all that sharp.
Also, the characters are flat, and it leaves you with a lot of questions that needed to be cleared up (Why do people go to this place? Who’s behind it? Etc.)loading replies
@jmant Don't take this personal but saying those things doesn't mean anything if you don't care to explain as to why.
After the 2014 Godzilla film, people demanded a dumb monster movie.
The result is something that joins the ranks of Jurassic World 2, Pacific Rim 2 or Rampage.
Happy now?Pro's:
- Creature design/VFX.
- The set up for the 3 main human characters (the idea that drives them).Con's:
- Massively overblown (especially at the end).
- Too much exposition and way too plot driven. Emphasizing the plot is never a good idea when you make a film like this.
- The dialogue in this is awful, and does the actors no favours.
- The characters are hollow shells, and constantly act in unnatural ways. Especially what they did with Vera Farmiga's character felt lazy and not earned.
- It overuses the orange and teal look to a degree where Zack Snyder would be jealous of it.
- If you thought the final season of GoT had a lot of deus ex machina and 'plot armour' moments, just know that you've seen nothing yet.
- The action scenes in this are incoherent and underlit, and therefore hard to follow.I find it funny that whenever we get one of these, the take away for most always seems to be: too much focus on the humans, not enough on the monsters!
Well, here's the thing: you can't really develop characters like Godzilla or King Kong, so watching them for 2 hours walk through buildings and punching things is going to get dull very fast.
Therefore, you need the human focus.
You know which director knows this? Steven Spielberg.
You know which movie knows this? Jurassic Park.
So instead of demanding more shallow elements for the next one, let's maybe ask for the filmmakers to develop the characters for once, and stop focussing on a plot we've seen hundreds of times at this point.2.5/10
loading replies
@keldian you’re right, but don’t forget that this movie is also based on source material. Maybe source material that isn’t as good as the Jurassic Park book (I wouldn’t know as I haven’t read either), but we can at least give credit to Spielberg for not dumbing everything down like this movie does.
