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_ No, they can’t predict that. They know what triggers people mentally, and they can try to build their systems accordingly (e.g. engagement algorithms). But that’s still a long step away from addiction, which is why I find labelling it as such wrong. They’re not ‘Clockwork Oranging’ us, they’re not drugging us. They’re trying to maximize consumption, yes, but they do so in playing by the rules.
Do you like Ben and Jerry’s? I do too. I know people who are addicted to it. So is it Ben and Jerry’s fault for selling as much ice cream as they do? No, they just make addictively good ice cream. And even if you want to blame them, for the sake of the argument, then you still have to admit that you yourself were the one who made the choice to start and continue to eat their ice cream. You were willing to take the risk of addicting yourself by starting to consume it.
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_ Drug addiction and technology addiction are different in that sense. You most often choose to take drugs, and you know a biological result of it can be that you’ll get addicted to it. With technology, you can’t really predict what we’ll get addicted to. Nobody could’ve predicted we’d get addicted to Facebook. Nobody could’ve predicted in 2016 we’d get addicted to Pokemon Go. Businesses aren’t into what will get us addicted, they’re into what makes them money. If we’ll get addicted to it, then that’s good for them because it’ll make them even more money. But they’re not in the business of making us addicted in itself, because, well, they can’t predict what we’ll get addicted to. Unless you can explain to me why social media triggers us so much biologically, of course. In both cases, however, the addiction is your problem, because you decided to use it in the first place. Nobody forced you to do it.
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 Well, you can comment on stuff here, you can like posts, you can get in touch with people, that kinda makes it a social platform by definition. But you’re right in saying that thankfully it’s far less political here. As for what you said about social media in general, I’m all for real journalists controlling propaganda and fake news. And yeah, I studied Media and Business for a few years, so I can instantly spot the bullshit, which is why I have no problem with being on those platforms myself. But not to give myself too much credit, I think most Europeans, like us, are capable of that. They held a poll once here in the Netherlands, and I think they found that the vast, vast majority of people would never vote for Trump or the republican party. Not to say that we don’t have any Trump supporting politicians (we have 2), but they don’t represent the majority of people.
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
@hildebread What’s the other side?
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
@gprivi Wouldn't you to save someone who died, if you had the possibility? I could list several characters that would do that in a heartbeat. Wanda would go back instantly if she could save Vision with it. Same with Hawkeye/Nat and Starlord/Gamora.
Also, is it really that dangerous? At the end you have a stable timeline in 2014 with no Thanos, so you can take anything from there without time 'messing back' too much.
Look, I really don't feel like getting into the details of this. In the end, I think you can conclude that the writers constructed time travel in such a convoluted way that it is really easy to find the inconsistencies and holes in it. I think it would've been smarter if they'd kept it more simple, which is usually what the MCU does best anyway.
When you’re rooting for the dinosaurs to eat most of the characters (especially Franklin) during the movie, something’s not quite right.
loading replies
@oceanstwelve ha ha, fair enough
This is one of Marvel Studios’ riskier projects, the hyperlink structure combined with the villain being the main character immediately makes it stand out in the genre. It’s because of those two aspects that the film works as well as it does. Thanos is a great character with an interesting motivation. The animation is so detailed and lifelike that it never fails to bring out the emotion, in fact I’d argue that the scenes between him and Gamora have the most emotional punch (courtesy of Zoe Saldana and Josh Brolin, who both put in a really solid performance). The balancing of all the different plot lines is also quite well done as there’s a relevancy to each one, nor does the tone feel too disjointed at any point. Some transitions or the sudden pop culture riffing during serious scenes can be awkward, but it’s handled about as well as it could. The exposition is handled tastefully and kept to a minimum, it instead chooses to focus on unexpected interactions between characters from different branches of the Marvel universe, which is the more exciting part. I’m less into the action and filmmaking, however. Not a lot about the camerawork or score jumps out to me, I feel like what little vision the Russos brought to their previous MCU projects is completely lost here. The washed out colour palette (which for some reason is slightly more vibrant during scenes in space) and obvious music embellishments don’t evoke all that much. The staging and editing of the action is a little too quick for my liking, the moments that are meant to be memorable don’t leave much of an impression because the editing doesn’t take its time to punctuate the stunts properly. Some of the CGI also feels a little weightless, for example Stark’s suit looks and feels like its made from paper. The resulting scenes, such as the final battle on Titan, feel more like small scale, digital mush than the big epic scenes they’re aiming for. Once the film decides to slow down for the dramatic conclusion, I find its intent to be manipulative and disingenuous. I felt that way after watching it the first time in the cinema, and after every ‘death’ in this movie having been retconned in one way or another, it turns out I was right. Even in its riskier films, Marvel will find ways to take most of the edges off. Overall, it’s still decent but it’s lost a lot of its flavour for me over the years.
6/10
loading replies
@bsrbara alright, cool, that’s your opinion. I just think the toned down, Joss Whedon version of the character works a hell of a lot better.
Shout by Jordy
VIP8I’m pretty sure that this movie served as an inspiration for many of the GTA games, especially when you look at the yellow and orange soaked hues of everything that takes place during the day.
That’s pretty much the biggest compliment I can give this film, because the directing and editing are shit, the comedy is godawful, the music is obnoxious, the acting sucks, the racial stereotyping is annoying and unfunny, and everything is really predictable and cliche. In short: it’s full of Michael Bay’s lowbrow, overly commercial and at times pornographic sensibilities.3/10
loading replies
@adelin-hogea I didn’t know that! Thank you for letting me know!
Garbage. Some of the dumbest, misinformed satire I’ve ever seen. Even if you ignore its fascist argumentation and pretend it’s just meant to be stupid nonsense, it still reeks of that typical unfunny early 2000s comedy. Just because you’re making a movie about stupid people, doesn’t mean your movie needs to be equally as stupid. This has no real vision, annoying performances, cheap use of music, bland cinematography, no attempt at writing proper jokes; it’s awful. It’s kinda sad because you could probably make a really great satire about the complete dominance of stupidity in society, democracy or whatever, in fact this is coming from someone who can easily get annoyed at all of that. However, this film only has one trick up its sleeve, which is to portray the stupid masses through as many different caricatures as possible. It’s like watching Adam McKay if he somehow became even more middlebrow after making Don’t Look Up. Please skip this, the joke’s really on the people here who think it’s good because ‘wELl ThIs Is a DoCUmenTarY nOw’.
2/10
loading replies
@astranora You don't need to tell me to grow up when you're the 34 year old with an Ash Ketchum avatar
I'm kinda sick of arthouse films copying the Nicolas Winding Refn aesthetic, but if you're gonna do it this well, I can't complain. Love the synth score and neon aesthetic, it's easily its strongest asset. Unfortunately, the script and overall direction are junk. I feel like it's trying to give you the Brian de Palma/John Carpenter version of something like Bound or Thelma & Louise, and if that sounds like an awkward mix of tones, you'd be right. I really didn't care for the romance that's set-up during the first act due to the awkward dialogue, flat characterization and lack of chemistry between the two leads. Once the crime plot develops, it has a hard time justifying the motivations of characters in a way that doesn't feel contrived or stupid. It gradually becomes more camp as it goes along, but not in a way that I found particularly rewarding. By the time it reaches its conclusion I was laughing at how unapologetically trashy the film gets, leaving any real attempt at substance in the rear view mirror in favour of something more groteseque, which falls completely flat. Leading up to those moments, it kinda feels like the film wants to have it both ways, because it integrates these poorly executed surrealist moments and an underdeveloped theme of female body language that doesn't quite jell with the rest of the plot. It's one of those films that would've benefitted from less pretension and instead focussing on making sure that you care about the central relationship, because the end result here is quite a mess.
4/10
loading replies
@somnomania I’m not, but I really liked All of us Strangers from last year and Moonlight is one of my favourite films. I don’t think I have trouble relating to a perspective that’s different from my own, but I don’t know, it just didn’t work for me here.
Shout by Jordy
VIP8Quite a frustrating watch. It has this great concept of showing mundane, everyday life juxtaposed with horrifying imagery and sound hanging in the background, many reviewers have referred to it as the banality of evil. It's an inventive way of doing a Holocaust movie, but there's not much else to this. Glazer spreads the concept really thin over the 105 minute runtime, and I started to check out around the halfway mark. It's lacking in structure (no character arcs or big plot developments), every time it threatens to go somewhere it turns out to be an excuse to use the same bag of tricks. The acting and stilted cinematography are both pretty decent, but because they're both meant to serve the understated tone and nothing else, it can't fall back on those aspects. Again, if the tone is enough to carry this experimental film for you, your experience might be different. However, I became increasingly numb towards the repetitive nature, eventually feeling rather indifferent towards the experience (which is the last thing I want with a movie like this).
4.5/10
loading replies
@etdj I’m not saying they needed to show the holocaust, I acknowledge that not showing it is one of its strengths. But to me hitting the indifference emotion for 90 minutes isn’t that interesting, especially when it isn’t super heady or conceptual besides that. Sure, it brings the ‘there’s still tragedy hidden all around us’ point home effectively, but it isn’t much of a climax or arc. It’s too thin to build your whole movie around that, it doesn’t leave much of an impression. With the way it’s constructed now I feel like this should’ve been a 20-30 minute short.
Review by Jordy
VIP8This is a movie for people who are into Woody Allen type stuff, it reminded me of Marriage Story in particular. The dialogue and acting are definitely the main driving force here, and Sandra Hüller delivers a pretty great performance. The core ideas that the movie gets at about relationships, guilt and justice are compelling, but it’s not always told in the most efficient way. The pieces ultimately click into place in an unexpected way, but it takes a clunky, elaborate set-up to get there. Tightening up the beginning and very end would’ve improved the experience a lot for me, mostly because I wouldn’t have to hear that stupid 50 Cent song 80 times. Moreover, due to the story structure and constraints of a legal drama, the movie suffers from an overabundance of exposition. There are so many scenes where I wish they’d just cut to whatever the characters are talking about, instead of a boring close-up with someone reminiscing over a memory. I’m also not the biggest fan of how the courtroom scenes were staged, some elements are on the cheesy side. The prosecutor in particular felt like a Suits character, he doesn’t work for me in this more realistic context. Finally, the technical aspects of this movie are just fine. As is often the case with movies like this, the cinematography is competent but lacking in style or vision, nor is the score very noteworthy. All in all, it’s adequate but the accolades are completely overblown.
6/10
loading replies
@axx_axx His more famous work falls into that category, yes. I was referring more to how it’s about the complexities of relationships and driven by the performances and dialogue.
Shout by Jordy
VIP8It’s pretty amazing how despite often working in the same genre Scorsese continuously finds ways to keep it fresh. It’s one of his longer films but flows effortlessly because of Thelma Schoonmaker’s editing. Combined with a script examining the hypercapitalism of Las Vegas and solid performances (which to be fair has everyone play the exact part that’s expected in a Scorsese film), this is another win.
8/10
loading replies
@dulneth-p Same, so I wouldn’t say it’s as good. But if you’re generally into Scorsese mob films I can’t imagine disliking this
Barbenheimer: Part 2 of 2
This was never going to be a your average summer blockbuster given the incredibly overqualified cast and crew involved. However, having just finished it, I am still blown away by how far they pushed it. Is it too highbrow and intellectual for its own good? Maybe, I don't see this gaining universal praise from the general audience, but I'd say that's a good thing. I have yet to come across an accurate read of this film by the online outrage economy (or middle aged nerdy Youtube critics, for that matter), so perhaps it's not as preachy or on the nose as thought by some. This thing is directed with such vision and precision, for my money it's the boldest blockbuster I've seen in a long time. Gerwig and her team truly knock it out of the park here: the set design for Barbieland is amazing and colorful (the shitty lighting and lack of liquids are great touches), the campy-yet-sincere humor feels very fresh, there are interesting references to filmmakers like Jacques Tati and Wes Anderson, it has razor sharp commentary and so many memorable scenes. The script feels well read and clever, taking its obvious influences (The Truman Show, The Lego Movie, Toy Story and Elf, to name a few) in a different direction than what's expected. It proves that you can still use meta and self-referential tropes as long as they're executed tastefully. It's also brewing with themes and subtext, trusting the viewer to read between the lines and find the detailed nuances in the script (well, for the most part). Will Ferrell doesn't even serve a real narrative purpose, but conceptually he makes the film a lot more interesting. During the third act it occasionally starts to spell things out a little too much through clunky monologues, which I'd argue is its only real flaw. Besides that, I thought this was a blast. Robbie, Gosling and Ferrera all deliver nuanced, funny and at times emotional performances, there's not a single dull moment and it's one of the rare blockbusters where the production value actually shows up on the screen. Major props to Robbie and Gerwig as producers for getting it made, I almost can't believe some of this stuff survived Mattel’s pr division as well as the Hollywood system.
8.5/10
loading replies
@the_argentinian My four favourite movies of the year are currently Barbie, Spiderverse, Nimona and MI7 (all of which I’ve reviewed, btw). Come again?
Man, they don't make smart science fiction movies like this anymore.
loading replies
@the_argentinian Ex Machina? Annihilation? After Yang? Blade Runner 2049? Arrival?
This is essentially Spielberg's Almost Famous. It's way too sentimental and white, which is a complaint that's often thrown at Spielberg's work (one I don't always agree with myself), but this is undeniably him at his schmaltziest. Every genuine emotion is buried under such a deep layer of cheese that the entire picture ends up feeling phony and disingenuous to me. There's an unironic record scratch sound effect in here at some point, and it's just so corny. Michelle Williams is also a major victim of the direction, her performance and the dialogue she's given are awful. The other performances are passable at best, with Gabriel LaBelle and Paul Dano being the clear standouts. Visually I did not find the movie to be that compelling, it's overly reliant on a generic orange/teal color grade, but there are some strong moments that illustrate the power of visual filmmaking very well. John Williams' score is probably one of his most forgettable ones, it sounded like a composer who's trying to do an imitation of Alexandre Desplat. I just don't really see the overall appeal. Emotionally it clearly doesn't work for me, but I also find it to be lacking in substance. We don't learn that much about Spielberg as a filmmaker or artistic force, it's mostly focussed on him as a person, which doesn't interest me as much. He probably poured his soul into this project, but to me it's a perfect example that artists should not be in charge of their own memoir, because it doesn't focus on the interesting stuff.
4/10
loading replies
@jidar My problem wasn’t the amount of white people in this movie. If that’s true to his memory, I really don’t care. My problem is that the material is approached in the whitest way possible (sentimental, schmaltzy, corny, dramatically over the top, etc.).
Shout by The_Argentinian
I thought it was one of those manipulative movies about a disable person that everyone treats like crap. Of course the audience will feel bad for him. How could you not?
That's why the emotional pay off didn't work for me but I see how it could make people cry.loading replies
@the_argentinian Yes, this is true … but, wouldn’t it be a lot easier to write this character like the nicest human being who’s simply down on his luck? It’d literally be the most predictable way to get at you emotionally. I agree that this movie is manipulative and that the main character is too unlikeable for the movie to work, but at least it didn’t take the easiest route
If you’d ask me what the highlights of the previous 2 Ant-Man movies are, I’d probably answer: I don’t remember much about them, but I liked those quirky scenes narrated by Michael Peña and the creative use of shrinking powers during the set pieces. For as forgettable as both movies are, at least I still remember the set piece with the train in the first movie, or the kitchen fight from the second movie. With this movie, I'm already having trouble remembering any specifics, because all of those typical Edgar Wright touches have been erased in favor of being a big CGI extravaganza. So, allow me to do a general breakdown of the three acts instead.
1st act: We get a set-up that's similar to Spiderman: No Way Home, which means it’s in a hurry to get to the main dish, making every main character look like an irresponsible dumbass in the process. Once we get to the quantum realm, we're met with a lot of cringe comedy. The design of the world is fine, it feels like a mashup of prequel era Star Wars, Avatar, The Fifth Element and Spy Kids, not like an original creation. A stronger, visionary director probably would've made a big difference here, or at least one who knows how to use the volume stages, because that might’ve avoided the Spy Kids comparisons.
2nd act: Jonathan Majors arrives to do some actual acting, and he somehow pulls it off despite the hammy, pseudo-intellectual lines given to him by the script. Michelle Pfeiffer also gets some time to shine, when she's on the screen with Majors it feels like the movie actually comes to life for a brief second. Still, the scenes with Kang feel tonally inconsistent with the rest of the movie, and I’m not sold on the idea of him being the Avengers level threat we’ve been waiting for. When it comes to the other actors, most of them are given nothing interesting to do, the supposed co-lead of this movie (according to the title) included. I don't like picking on younger actors, but it needs to be said that Emma Fuhrmann expressed more emotion during her 10 second appearance as Cassie Lang in Avengers: Endgame than Kathryn Newton did here. In terms of story, this portion of the movie is all about set-up and clunky exposition as delivered through monologues. One of the characters even gets introduced with his own 'previously on Ant-Man' recap, which I find insulting and shows what little faith this studio has in its audience. Besides, it probably would’ve been better to cut this character, because his inclusion is easily one of Marvel's worst creative decisions (the design and visual effects are laughable). Generally I'd say this act is pretty boring, and occasionally embarrassing.
3rd act: The movie decides it wants to be Aquaman instead, so we're getting an extended battle sequence of stuff fighting other stuff, with plenty of flashes, lasers and more stuff. It's big, it's loud, and I check out. Every cheesy crowdpleaser deserves its fair share of deus ex machina moments, but this movie spams the action movie trope of 'our main character is in peril only to get saved at the very last moment' to death at this point. Furthermore, the cringe comedy makes a big return, with Corey Stoll delivering a line so bad that it will become a meme (you'll know once you see the movie). More punchy stuff, more pew pew, more 'comedy', and thankfully the movie finally decides it has wasted enough of my time. We get a final montage that includes the first good joke of the movie, and the credits roll. Nothing is achieved, absolutely nothing. This is a cynically conceived advertisement that does not deserve your time.
3/10
loading replies
@skinnyfilmbuff Thank you! I think this one took about 15 minutes to write, which is mostly because I had organized my thoughts already in my head when I walked out of the screening. Some movies take a bit longer, especially the ones with like deeper themes and layers. It all depends on the movie, if it’s a generic action movie I usually don’t put in that much effort
Simple, effective, but a little too straightforward and predictable to really blow my mind.
Still, I like what it's saying about migrants, marginalization, postcolonialism, etc.
The cinematography still looks excellent, but the score hasn't aged as well.7/10
loading replies
@the_argentinian nah I just think the composition sounds clunky, and the heavy clipping at points doesn’t sound great. Sure, that’s a byproduct of its time, but there are a lot of 60s movies where this isn’t an issue
A fantastic short film that’s bound to become the major highlight of this season for most, while also likely to trigger some mentally deficient adults.
One of its best qualities is that you could in theory tell this story with a straight couple , and it wouldn’t lessen any of its emotional impact.
It’s such an original, creative angle for a zombie apocalypse show, and Nick Offerman/Murray Bartlett both deliver career best performances here. If their section was a bit more fleshed out, I genuinely think you could make a great indie/arthouse film out of it.
I also love how it portrays a hardcore Republican character without making him some incapable buffoon, we don’t get enough of that in movies and tv.Ps: I’m pretty sure they used an existing piece of music during the marriage montage , I’ve heard it before but can’t quite place where it’s from
loading replies
@j0k3r2g0 Yes that must be it, thanks!
This movie predicted moder toxic fans.
Anyway, I don't know how can anyone not like it. The most accessible SK adaptation.loading replies
@the_argentinian Indeed, and it even predicted they would act like mentally deficient manchildren. Feels far ahead of its time doesn’t it? It probably seemed like an absurd, far fetched story back then.
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 You think women won’t hate on a movie because you can’t empathize with the characters? It’s not a gender thing, it’s a dumb people thing.
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
@balazs955 Friends? I’m not huge on that lol. With challenging content I’m also referring to arthouse stuff (which incidentally includes Drive, maybe try some of NWR’s other films like Bronson if you were into that one), because right now you’re only watching the most normie, mainstream stuff that’s out there, which in turn leads to your takes being basic and poorly thought out. Not that you can’t also watch dumb action films, you can of course (I’ve actually given positive ratings to some Fast and Furious films, many Marvel films before Endgame, 300, lots of 80s classics, just to name a few), but there are still standards, even for that kind of movie. I hate this mentality of ‘just shut your brain off/don’t take anything seriously’, I think that’s really dumb and just an excuse to justify that you’re watching crap.
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
@balazs955 Don’t mistake this for me for being a smug, pedantic asshole, I honestly say this with the best of intentions: you should improve your film literacy. Read some reviews by professional critics and watch some more challenging content. You’re being quite idiotic at the moment.
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
@balazs955 The only thing that’s stupid is to try and invalidate other people’s opinion. Maybe just say nothing if you don’t have anything useful to add? Besides, it’s not like I wrote a massive hot take, it was generally poorly received by critics and audiences.
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
@balazs955 I don’t know what gave you the impression that I’m some elitist piece of shit, but you certainly made me laugh. Also, don’t use the whole ‘you do it if you know so well’ argument, that’s just stupid and contrived at this point
I think the title could have been shortened to "Queen"? Copyright perhaps.
loading replies
@fatalmuzza There’s also that Helen Mirren movie titled The Queen. Maybe they wanted to avoid the confusion?
Too polished, overacted crap. It has no heart, its like a soap opera with a gazillion dollar cgi budget.
loading replies
@niikolas Fair enough, I hate that as well, but even on its own merits I think it fall short so far. Maybe it’ll get there by the end though.
Irreversible is a 'fascism porn' tweet in ALL CAPS.
Because, like pornography, it thrusts a series of images on you to force you to feel what it insists you feel and you have no choice in the matter.
Good directors are master story tellers that seduce you with scenes that lure you into their universe. Gaspard Noé, on the other hand, has all the subtility and finesse of a vomit filled condom thrown at your eyes.
Of all the terrible films I see, though, Noé's continue to be the ones I enjoy watching the most.
loading replies
@saint-pauly I agree with that to an extent, but wouldn’t you want a film this extreme to be loud and in your face? Like, would punk music be half as fun if the lyrics were subtle? I think the problem lies more with the execution, not so much with it being in your face.
I do love how this show shits on millennials/zoomers for being too much without earning anything.
loading replies
@pd_review It shits on boomers just as much, if you’re paying attention
