Is there anything new here? Just another run of the mill Marvel (Disney) TV series. I feel TV is turning into pop music! Popular today, quickly forgotten tomorrow. Based on the first episode, I doubt this will make it to a second season. Shame, I enjoyed much of Orphan Black. But this is a pass for me, thanks.
loading replies
@daniel-e-jones-me-com Well yeah, this is designed to be the equivalent of forgettable pop music. Plenty of quality stuff out there if you look for it.
Review by Jordy
VIP8A horrible piece of military propaganda primarily aimed at the type of ‘real’ men who like to consume too much beer and hang around in their own garage while listening to Alter Bridge.
It’s dumb, derivative, dull and devoid of interesting ideas or characters. You’re not going to find any fun here, everything is trying really hard to be dour and dramatic, but the writing is so generic and boring that it doesn’t work.
Chris Pratt's charisma is stripped away and instead he's playing a generic, brooding character that could easily be portrayed by any actor.
It just begs the question: why cast him in the first place? It requires little to no range, so why didn't they just cast a cheaper actor?
Any interesting cinematography is obscured by desaturated muddy grey tones, the color grading really makes the whole show looks like trash. It tries to be cinematic, but it ends up looking all the more cheaper for it.
I don’t get why people watch this, is it because of the patriotic undertones? Watch Top Gun Maverick. Is it because it’s a little more violent than most movies and shows? Watch Daredevil, the execution of the action is way better and it’s got plenty of Christianity as a bonus.3/10
loading replies
@rvansinger Alright, well then it’s a case of Pratt underestimating his own talent, I suppose
The train felt like a vehicle for social commentary, it didn't feel like a story with commentary woven into it in a natural way. Rated this lower because I can't help but compare this to Bong Joon-ho's other work, so the bar is crazy high. By no means a bad movie.
loading replies
@iaani It’s probably more of a taste thing. I like them both equally, but yes the set-up for this one is more out there and not as realistic as Parasite. Have you seen any of Jordan Peele’s work? His two films are also filled with social commentary, but they’re not trying to be realistic either.
The train felt like a vehicle for social commentary, it didn't feel like a story with commentary woven into it in a natural way. Rated this lower because I can't help but compare this to Bong Joon-ho's other work, so the bar is crazy high. By no means a bad movie.
loading replies
@iaani You do realize Parasite works the exact same way? The house is a vehicle for social commentary first, and a plot device second
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
@viii-xxviii-mcmxciv I don’t, but I just don’t feel like he’s a great filmmaker for bigger movies. He’s a creative guy, so I think his talents would be better served by making a quirky indie where his comedy can be more unrestrained, rather than a Star Wars film.
Black Panther is MCU attempt at saying something important but it ended up as a very superficial product tapping into the zeitgeist of black empowerment only at skin deep. MCU movies seem to touch the feelings of a many kind of people regardless of age and culture, and that's why their products trying to tackle difficult subject like colonialism and racism, such as Black Panther, fail as a movie. They're close to saying something yet they have to appeal to audience as broad as possible that they ended up not saying anything at all.
In this film they wanted to take a jab at colonialism, racism and all but they also have to play it safe so it ends up with the black guy winning because of good heart but didn't say anything at all about how Western development aid has turned Africa for the worse. "Colonialism" only ends up as a catchy buzzword for the characters to shout at the white dudes. The antagonist seemed to want to do "the right thing" but ended up as a power hungry lord because of "bad heart". The problem of colonialism/structural racism is simplified into "we have to make peace with the rest of the world" like in the ending scene when T'Challa "open borders". Really, structural violence can be ended with a good heart? Very safe liberal take about colonialism. They only wear this black empowerment stuff in surface level only, perhaps due to their limited liberal understanding of violence or perhaps in fear of hurting the ego of some fragile white manchildren which they have to cater to. Compared to The Mission or especially The Expanse, Black Panther fails to say anything about colonialism.
Similarly, their portrayal of "good Africa" ends up with Wakanda having high tech, sleek white aesthetic just like in typical Western vision of tech, some cool kids tinkering with stuff so it appeals to startup geeks, and some pseudo-African tribal-esque motif that's familiar enough to be recognized by Africans but foreign enough to the rest of the world so that it doesn't convey the more indigenous parts of Africans, such as their kinship system (e.g. different familial structure, motifs). In the world of Wakanda, people just happen to be there, strolling, tribal but modern people doing their tribal but modern thing (like ritualistic battle to decide a leader). They're playing the classic orientalist trope people usually put on Japan: being "traditional" and "modern" at the same time, at the receiving ends of Western culture but still molding them into their own. There's nothing indigenous Africa in Wakanda - it's just how Western people imagine if they created Africa in their own image. The world-building is horrible. Compared to Altered Carbon, the world of Wakanda is the world of purely distilled sterile version of United States that just happen to be set somewhere not-in-the-USA with black folks doing some cool American but also tribal-ish stuff.
In short, MCU won't be able to be complex because of the exact reason many people like it. It has to appeal to audience as many as possible. It has to be "universal", not culturally specific, not having a certain strong message. They have to figure out the safest way of telling a story and keeping the childlike feeling alive.
Their only saving grace is some cool cinematic shots of Michael B. Jordan and Chadwick Boseman. Good performance also. But that's it.
loading replies
@xaliber No, the primary theme of this film is protectionism. The main question of the conflict is about whether we should share our resources with other countries if we have the means to do so. It does make a specific statement about that, one that you might think is safe, but I can guarantee that a lot of people don’t agree with (even if a lot of them probably don’t realize that). The racism and colonial angle is just there to flesh out the character of Killmonger, it’s not what the film is trying to make a statement about.
"I'm a slasher and I must be stopped."
With this film, being British is required, pretty much. Otherwise, it's barely going to be remotely funny, let alone hilarious. Based on how the majority of people seemed to have loved this film/think it was unfathomably funny, the powers that be, the powers of deduction, can be brought forth, concluding that most of the majority are British people. Then again, some people aren't: who still loved this film and think it's hilarious. As much as the difference of opinion is the apparent perpetrator here, I still don't get it.
I also don't get how I thought this film was super funny in the past when I watched it for the first time, whenever that was: I don't have it logged anywhere, so I'm clueless. Or so I seem to think I did. Maybe my present idea of how much I liked it is a bit more than it was back then, but I'm pretty sure the overall result was the same, in that I liked it and thought it was funny. That's mind-boggling to the 'me now.'
Unless I'm off the mark, most people found the comedy to be to the point where almost every instance got them laughing their asses off, and I'm left here baffled. Understanding that different opinions and tastes exist can only go so far, surely. Not to sound too crass, but I'm almost disgusted that I was somewhat looking forward to watching this because I seemed to recall having liked it before.
Aside from my more than personal feelings, the biggest thing that stood out to me regarding this film was the camerawork/editing. It was undoubtedly extremely efficient and well-done. That's Edgar Wright's film's for you. Of course, the actual editor(s) deserve some significant credit, too. In this film's case: Chris Dickens. Props to him.
But all of that grew repetitive quickly with the action sequences. It wasn't poorly done or anything like that. I think it was the complete opposite. You were able to tell what was happening and all that. Just like in The Bourne Identity. It's just that it can get annoying to watch.
The most entertaining aspect for me was by far Simon Skinner. Timothy Dalton's performance was stellar, and I took too long to remember where I know him from, and that's Doom Patrol. All of his lines were great and delivered great. At least this film had that going for it.
And as far as doing its job is concerned, this film only made me laugh once. I laughed when Danny groaned due to brain freeze. In the whole film, that's the only time I laughed. But everyone else seemed to have laughed at everything, pretty much. Weird. And I couldn't care less.
Overall, this film had some entertainment to it. But I don't think that was enough for me. And, of course, based on everything I've written thus far, most of the comedy was more miss than hit. So, yeah. I know most people will greatly disagree with that. But the majority-held opinion of a film doesn't mean I'll have that same opinion.
Other thoughts, or rather, 'thought':
- David Threlfall's performance, down to the way he delivered some of his lines; how he sounded, at times, was a lot like Roger Rees in Robin Hood: Men in Tights.
loading replies
@legendaryfang56 Well, whether you think it’s funny is up to you, but that’s definitely the intent and the reason why many people (including me) are laughing all the way throughout. But again, it’s a very different type of comedy compared to what you get in most American studio comedies, where there’s generally not a lot of attention paid to the visual stuff. Here’s a video that’s a lot more in depth, with also a few more examples about this film: https://youtu.be/3FOzD4Sfgag
"I'm a slasher and I must be stopped."
With this film, being British is required, pretty much. Otherwise, it's barely going to be remotely funny, let alone hilarious. Based on how the majority of people seemed to have loved this film/think it was unfathomably funny, the powers that be, the powers of deduction, can be brought forth, concluding that most of the majority are British people. Then again, some people aren't: who still loved this film and think it's hilarious. As much as the difference of opinion is the apparent perpetrator here, I still don't get it.
I also don't get how I thought this film was super funny in the past when I watched it for the first time, whenever that was: I don't have it logged anywhere, so I'm clueless. Or so I seem to think I did. Maybe my present idea of how much I liked it is a bit more than it was back then, but I'm pretty sure the overall result was the same, in that I liked it and thought it was funny. That's mind-boggling to the 'me now.'
Unless I'm off the mark, most people found the comedy to be to the point where almost every instance got them laughing their asses off, and I'm left here baffled. Understanding that different opinions and tastes exist can only go so far, surely. Not to sound too crass, but I'm almost disgusted that I was somewhat looking forward to watching this because I seemed to recall having liked it before.
Aside from my more than personal feelings, the biggest thing that stood out to me regarding this film was the camerawork/editing. It was undoubtedly extremely efficient and well-done. That's Edgar Wright's film's for you. Of course, the actual editor(s) deserve some significant credit, too. In this film's case: Chris Dickens. Props to him.
But all of that grew repetitive quickly with the action sequences. It wasn't poorly done or anything like that. I think it was the complete opposite. You were able to tell what was happening and all that. Just like in The Bourne Identity. It's just that it can get annoying to watch.
The most entertaining aspect for me was by far Simon Skinner. Timothy Dalton's performance was stellar, and I took too long to remember where I know him from, and that's Doom Patrol. All of his lines were great and delivered great. At least this film had that going for it.
And as far as doing its job is concerned, this film only made me laugh once. I laughed when Danny groaned due to brain freeze. In the whole film, that's the only time I laughed. But everyone else seemed to have laughed at everything, pretty much. Weird. And I couldn't care less.
Overall, this film had some entertainment to it. But I don't think that was enough for me. And, of course, based on everything I've written thus far, most of the comedy was more miss than hit. So, yeah. I know most people will greatly disagree with that. But the majority-held opinion of a film doesn't mean I'll have that same opinion.
Other thoughts, or rather, 'thought':
- David Threlfall's performance, down to the way he delivered some of his lines; how he sounded, at times, was a lot like Roger Rees in Robin Hood: Men in Tights.
loading replies
@legendaryfang56 Yes, for example the scene where Danny and Nicholas’ movie night is intercut with the killing of the rich guy, and how both those scenes in a very odd way complement each other. Or take that shot from Bad Boys 2 which you see in this film where you have the camera spinning around the characters in a very dramatic way, which is later mimicked in the final act.
"I'm a slasher and I must be stopped."
With this film, being British is required, pretty much. Otherwise, it's barely going to be remotely funny, let alone hilarious. Based on how the majority of people seemed to have loved this film/think it was unfathomably funny, the powers that be, the powers of deduction, can be brought forth, concluding that most of the majority are British people. Then again, some people aren't: who still loved this film and think it's hilarious. As much as the difference of opinion is the apparent perpetrator here, I still don't get it.
I also don't get how I thought this film was super funny in the past when I watched it for the first time, whenever that was: I don't have it logged anywhere, so I'm clueless. Or so I seem to think I did. Maybe my present idea of how much I liked it is a bit more than it was back then, but I'm pretty sure the overall result was the same, in that I liked it and thought it was funny. That's mind-boggling to the 'me now.'
Unless I'm off the mark, most people found the comedy to be to the point where almost every instance got them laughing their asses off, and I'm left here baffled. Understanding that different opinions and tastes exist can only go so far, surely. Not to sound too crass, but I'm almost disgusted that I was somewhat looking forward to watching this because I seemed to recall having liked it before.
Aside from my more than personal feelings, the biggest thing that stood out to me regarding this film was the camerawork/editing. It was undoubtedly extremely efficient and well-done. That's Edgar Wright's film's for you. Of course, the actual editor(s) deserve some significant credit, too. In this film's case: Chris Dickens. Props to him.
But all of that grew repetitive quickly with the action sequences. It wasn't poorly done or anything like that. I think it was the complete opposite. You were able to tell what was happening and all that. Just like in The Bourne Identity. It's just that it can get annoying to watch.
The most entertaining aspect for me was by far Simon Skinner. Timothy Dalton's performance was stellar, and I took too long to remember where I know him from, and that's Doom Patrol. All of his lines were great and delivered great. At least this film had that going for it.
And as far as doing its job is concerned, this film only made me laugh once. I laughed when Danny groaned due to brain freeze. In the whole film, that's the only time I laughed. But everyone else seemed to have laughed at everything, pretty much. Weird. And I couldn't care less.
Overall, this film had some entertainment to it. But I don't think that was enough for me. And, of course, based on everything I've written thus far, most of the comedy was more miss than hit. So, yeah. I know most people will greatly disagree with that. But the majority-held opinion of a film doesn't mean I'll have that same opinion.
Other thoughts, or rather, 'thought':
- David Threlfall's performance, down to the way he delivered some of his lines; how he sounded, at times, was a lot like Roger Rees in Robin Hood: Men in Tights.
loading replies
@legendaryfang56 I can guarantee that you don’t need to be British in order to like the comedy in this. But it’s a very different type of comedy compared to most American action comedies, lots of the gags come from the camerawork and editing, not the dialogue.
Review by Jordy
VIP8I believe that RLM in their review of the last one compared these movies to Taco Bell.
Everything has the same 5 ingredients, just placed in a different order.
It’s hard to argue with that after seeing this film.
It’s plagued by the exact same problem as the Terminator franchise; the creatives behind it are clueless on how to expand the franchise beyond the lore of the classics.
As a result, you get these rinse and repeat movies that are high on the nostalgia bait and devoid of anything interesting.
This somehow manages to be the worst one of the trilogy, I’d say it’s about on par with something like Jurassic Park III.
It’s somehow the dumbest Jurassic film (no, I haven’t forgotten about the military subplots in the previous 2, but this one literally introduces a new dinosaur nicknamed the ‘Giga’ and an evil company called ‘Biosyn’) with some of the cringiest dialogue and acting I’ve seen in a long time, none of which is embraced by the filmmakers. I think it’d play much better if this material was treated like a spoof, or at the very least more tongue in cheek (could’ve used more hallucinations of a dinosaur screaming “ALAN!”). It’s trying so hard to be sincere and Spielbergian, but it doesn’t work.
Moreover, the new characters are still either boring clichés or annoying, it looks too glossy, it’s way too long given how little’s going on, action’s alright but nothing that’s truly impressive or visceral; it’s just a bland mush of forgettable nothingness, and Jeff Goldblum’s charisma can’t save any of it.3/10
loading replies
@nintenzura But are they also referred to as Giga by real paleontologists?
Shout by Logia
VIP2I've been holding back my comments until i'd seen at least 3 episodes of this. To begin with, so far, the shows only been good enough for a 7/10 from me. Good, not great or amazing, just good. It's clear that Disney has chosen to bring in a new face to replace another main character that a lot of us know from the Rebels animated series and cater more to the woke audience. While I don't have anything against the character there does seem to be an empty choir screaming out for some form of purpose from them. What that is, i have no idea. Will they get better at acting? that also remains unclear. Obi-Wan's character has mentally and physically regressed so much as to assume that he's completely neglected his principles and training resulting in a husk of his former self. Not worthy of the title of Master any longer, I wonder if this show will ever build into anything compelling enough to warrant giving an 8/10 - Which is where it should be aiming for from all parties to be honest.
loading replies
@logia You were doing so well for the first 3 sentences.
It’s like Marvel just stopped giving a shit, it’s hilarious to watch.
I feel like this is their attempt at being experimental, but it’s really just turning into schlock, which is only amplified by the really awful green screen, ridiculous character designs and poor lighting choices.
It looks, feels and acts like a cheap Bollywood knock-off of what could be a good Marvel movie/show.loading replies
@funger92 Oh yeah, I definitely get enjoyment out of it, but I’m not sure if it’s in the intended way
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
@birdofprey What was the explanation?
Would be a ten but im taking away a point for Imagine Dragons.
loading replies
@jokismalokis Yeah it’s very strange that for a show this bold and different they decided to put such normie music over the intro
Shout by LeNodos
VIPThis movie is entertaining but I can't quite shake the feeling that this is just a culmination of Netflix analytics. It includes so many different genres - all incredibly well liked - and overall so many things like being selfaware and selfreferencing, having a twist or two at the end and more.
This on the one hand leaves kind of a bitter aftertaste, on the other hand the movie dances on so many parties that it only ever scratches the surface.The chase at the very beginning and camera overall are awesome however.
loading replies
@player8472 Thor: Ragnarok? Fast 8? Kingsman: The Golden Circle? Cersei Lannister in Game of Thrones? Not saying all of these are great characters but this idea that a male protagonist cannot hit a female antagonist is nonsense.
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 I didn't jump out at you because of your score. You can criticize it for all you want, bash it, I don't give a single fuck. However, I will call you out for writing a shallow review, which has nothing to do with adhering to my own personal standards, but the standards of criticism in general. Like I said, you don't seem to have a grasp of that, which is why you're falling back on things that really don't matter, objectively.
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 I like this movie, I like him, but that doesn't make me a fanboy. What makes you a fanboy is critiquing inconsequential, shallow shit that nobody besides people who are way too into the source material care about. You have to give creators the artistic freedom to present their vision of the material. It's shallow to critique something like the costuming simply because it isn't close to how you envisioned it. The same goes for the gender swapping and pronunciation. It doesn't matter, it's inconsequential to the story. You don't have a grasp of what makes a movie good or bad, just sayin'
I’ve seen two episodes now and I’ve got to ask: what’s the point of watching this?
There’s nothing inherently satisfying about the show itself.
Just putting a twist on existing lore and calling it a day isn’t enough to hold my attention for 30 mimutes, nor any sane person, I imagine.
Are people only watching this because it sets up future stuff?
Why would anyone watch something that’s just set-up?
Projects are always supposed to function as an isolated piece of art, and not just as a piece of a larger machine.
This show is so empty, it’s the kind of format that lends itself for short 4 minute videos on Youtube.
But a feature series? Come on.Edit: alright so there is an attempt to tie the loose ends together in the final episode, but still, it kinda fails to justify its existence.
loading replies
@adonael Thanks, I’ll take that as a compliment.
I’ve seen two episodes now and I’ve got to ask: what’s the point of watching this?
There’s nothing inherently satisfying about the show itself.
Just putting a twist on existing lore and calling it a day isn’t enough to hold my attention for 30 mimutes, nor any sane person, I imagine.
Are people only watching this because it sets up future stuff?
Why would anyone watch something that’s just set-up?
Projects are always supposed to function as an isolated piece of art, and not just as a piece of a larger machine.
This show is so empty, it’s the kind of format that lends itself for short 4 minute videos on Youtube.
But a feature series? Come on.Edit: alright so there is an attempt to tie the loose ends together in the final episode, but still, it kinda fails to justify its existence.
loading replies
@ekiza You can set up future projects in a film or series, that's fine, but you need to get something out of the project itself as well. That isn't a 'personal expectation', that's how art works. Imagine being in a museum and watching a painting that only says: the next painting will blow your mind. Do you stop by and watch that painting, or do you walk to the next one? Even projects that are heavy on set up (first Harry Potter film, the new Dune, even a lot of Marvel movies like Black Panther) all have a progression that makes them work as pieces of art by themselves.
I have no problem with how the other Disney + Marvel shows are conceived, that's how you're supposed to do it. The point is that when the characters from this show are introduced in a movie, the context of this show doesn't matter, because it doesn't do much besides riffing on the lore. Same character from a different universe where a few minor uninteresting alterations happened? Got it, everyone is capable of understanding that concept, we don't need 9 30-minute episodes for that. So yes, it is in fact a Russian doll project. It's probably cool for Marvel fans who are really into it, but it's bad art.
Dear Loki writers. When creating an infinite multiverse that shows us infinite possibilities thus making everything pointless, then it's time to talk to Rick and Morty writers.
At least they make fun of themselves and the irony of presenting an interesting storyline in a multiverse where nothing really has any point.
If Rick Sanchez showed up with a nine-gauge plasma pistol and started killing everyone I would literally rate it a 10.
loading replies
@perisdr The main writer on this actually worked on Rick and Morty ;)
I long for the days where cgi was only used when it was really needed. Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh
loading replies
@mediacenterkodi We all do. The CGI tiger in this is kinda inexcusable in a post Planet of the Apes trilogy world.
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
@majormercyflush Slowing a song down and throwing moany, emotionless vocals over it doesn't make it automatically dreary.
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 Nirvana were (and still are) symbols of alternative music, their songs often focused on themes like authenticity and anti commercialism. Using their music in a plasticy Disney/Marvel movie therefore feels wrong in every sense, as it’s quite the opposite of what the band stood for.
It’s not a movie.
It’s just another bland, soulless mass product that’s primarily aimed at the Chinese market.
Now that WB is the only real studio releasing big movies, it really shows what a joke of a studio they’ve become during the last 5 years.
Not that they didn’t release crap before that, but at least there was something like a good Mad Max, Harry Potter, Matrix or Lord of the Rings film somewhere to be found in their slate.
It would seem Villeneuve and Nolan are the only real talents that are left at the studio.
For nearly every other film they make, they seem to think that appealing to the lowest common denominator will give them the biggest return on their investment.
I.e. the action scenes are more important than the story or the characters, and the scale needs to be huge, even if it looks tacky and fake.3/10
loading replies
@helmheim You're right, they chose to make a product, not a movie.
It’s not a movie.
It’s just another bland, soulless mass product that’s primarily aimed at the Chinese market.
Now that WB is the only real studio releasing big movies, it really shows what a joke of a studio they’ve become during the last 5 years.
Not that they didn’t release crap before that, but at least there was something like a good Mad Max, Harry Potter, Matrix or Lord of the Rings film somewhere to be found in their slate.
It would seem Villeneuve and Nolan are the only real talents that are left at the studio.
For nearly every other film they make, they seem to think that appealing to the lowest common denominator will give them the biggest return on their investment.
I.e. the action scenes are more important than the story or the characters, and the scale needs to be huge, even if it looks tacky and fake.3/10
loading replies
@schmenky What’s skyscraper got to do with it? Just so you know, I also think that film is trash
It’s not a movie.
It’s just another bland, soulless mass product that’s primarily aimed at the Chinese market.
Now that WB is the only real studio releasing big movies, it really shows what a joke of a studio they’ve become during the last 5 years.
Not that they didn’t release crap before that, but at least there was something like a good Mad Max, Harry Potter, Matrix or Lord of the Rings film somewhere to be found in their slate.
It would seem Villeneuve and Nolan are the only real talents that are left at the studio.
For nearly every other film they make, they seem to think that appealing to the lowest common denominator will give them the biggest return on their investment.
I.e. the action scenes are more important than the story or the characters, and the scale needs to be huge, even if it looks tacky and fake.3/10
loading replies
@iken it’s not even necessarily about casting Asian actors, though I will say they should’ve gone with Asian actors that were a lot better than the ones they ended up with. What I said about the Chinese market mostly has to do with the last sentence, i.e. the fact that everything is dumbed down and soulless.
It’s almost like the Russo brothers saw what people’s main critique of their Marvel films was, and thought: well fuck you, we can be stylish if we want to.
So instead of doing another Marvel film, they opted to make something that will remind you more of a Michael Bay or a bad Danny Boyle film.
Like, the directing is really annoying and excessive.
Also, I think there’s a bit of a disconnect between how dumb this character acts versus how overintelligent Holland and the Russos are trying to portray him through the (unnecessary) narration and dialogue.
A shame really, because I think the script checks a lot of boxes, and the cinematography is certainly better than any of their Marvel films.
The score isn’t half bad either.
The most positive thing I can say is this: I like that the film is at least trying something different.
It’s just a shame that the horrendous directing constantly takes you out of the story.5/10
loading replies
@htpcmac I see. However, given some of your own ratings and comments on films/series, I wouldn’t say I’m the pleb here.
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
@the_argentinian That wasn’t Boba Fett
All i have to say is critics never understood Michael Bay.
loading replies
@2111anixt or the critics have taste, unlike his audience.
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
@leonardoamx You're right, most of it is from his perspective (not all of it though, there are also scenes in the kitchen), but I don't think that matters. If they wanted, they could've dropped some exposition through the other characters we meet throughout his journey (it certainly would fit with the lady who did his interview). If you're going to intrigue me with so many questions, there has to be some pay off to it. Not every detail needs to be answered, but I felt like this took a very lazy approach. On the other hand, we've seen films recently where explaining the mechanics of it all broke the film, such as Escape Room. So maybe they took the smart route by being lazy.
