I liked the film, even though logic was often sacrificed for effect. For example: G.H. reaches the beach and discovers a wristwatch sticking out of the sand. He uncovers the watch and discovers an arm. He looks up and sees the body of a pilot belonging to the arm. He continues to look around and sees that there are bodies and debris all over the beach, including huge pieces of debris from the plane. The effect was nice, but of course you would have seen the debris and the bodies immediately, and not discovered the watch first.
I never thought they could make a 2 hour movie with Emma Stone in multiple sex scene's this bad, but they did.
Oh look another show that has its natural flow interrupted by the same ol' industry standards plaguing everything else in the last few years. Hire hack writers who don't care about the source, hire every checkbox in the book, and then blame it on the fans for not liking it. Next.
Poor Things is very pretty, I’ll give it that much. Colors pop, and the watercolor, blurry sky and the scaling but condensed environments of Lisbon and Alexandria both convey the miasma of Bella’s mind quite well. How the background blurs in our young memories and how we remember all the buildings and places that looked large over us but so rarely the walks to them. Those work for me. So much of the rest of the film doesn’t.
I see what it’s going for- it’s hard not to. A journey of womanhood through the conceit of a child’s brain in a woman’s body, when women are treated as children and property to begin with. But it’s so fucking weird, with that conceit, to devote so much time to sex. Sex is an important part of being human for many people, I’m not denying that. But the attention it gets here throughout compared to brief, paltry scenes of Bella reading, seeking knowledge, having an interest in medical science and surgery is disproportional. Especially when the film wants to play her coming home and following in Godwin’s footstep as a culmination of her journey when it’s a facet of the film that barely gets any play in comparison. Angelica Jade Bastien, whose Variety review you should all read, brings up how in a film ostensibly about a cis woman and her relationship with her body menstruation does not come up once. It’s so telling where the film’s true focus lies.
And yes, sex can be beautiful, and conversely so can sex scenes. But the ones here are done dispassionately yet voyueristically. There’s no interiority, no sensuality, no sense of emotion and character felt through them. Compared to films like The Handmaiden they are sterile in heart if not content. It’s a big swing to go from black and white to color, and I can see sex being the impetus for it, sure, but when it’s done like this I don’t buy it. It’s interesting to me that her first time having sex is portrayed like this, with penetration until the man comes, thrice over, and yet her first time with cunnilingus is off screen. I feel like all the sex in this film is similarly narrow and lifeless.
None of what this film is trying to say is new, but much of it is muddled. It wants to rail against the entitlement of men, how they see women as property, how they want them to be exciting and adventurous but only in service of them. And yet it gives Max no grief at all for falling in love with. A child. Literal child, this is not a metaphor, it’s a child’s brain. And marrying her but refusing to have sex with her until marriage because that would be taking advantage, as if marriage would not be taking advantage and has not been used as the ultimate control. On some level the film condemns this, but only in the opposite direction, as part of Emily leaving Max is her frustration over not having sex. It’s baffling that the film seems to take the viewpoint that we ought to let children consent to sex with adults, that it is part of their development and journey to personhood. The film is similarly forgiving to Godwin, who used a woman’s body in a way she would very likely not have consented to all while the film extols a woman’s choice and ownership of her body.
Everything the film has to say about the nature of man and people, about women’s place in society, about sex work, etc, is rote. Nothing here is new, and nothing is heightened by the core conceit. It’s so surface level. And the cast is game enough. Dafoe is Dafoe and that’s always a good time, but I wouldn’t call this one of his greatest roles. Carmichael, much as I love his standup, just is not working here. Stone and Ruffalo are acting for the back seats, and while that has its moments of charm, it’s too much for most of the runtime. And Stone is just. She’s playing into ableist stereotypes for so much of this performance. The film drops the r slur and we’re just gonna pretend that Stone isn’t doing an insulting caricature at the same time? I don’t even want to delve into all the questions raised by the mental disability angle, others could do that better than me, but it’s another level of thoughtlessness and surface level depth.
The score is similarly cloying and overbearing. It insists on a scene rather than being a part of it. It doesn’t enhance it or complement it, it beats you over the head with how the scene is meant to make you feel. I could enjoy the sound of it in isolation, but as a score it’s distracting more than anything else. It’s a bit surprising to me how much this film has been praised as outside of the production design, I don’t see it. I just don’t. For me, this is as much a misfire as Barbie, if not more. Poor things.
Normally, I'd have a whole much of stuff to say... but this time, I just can't. The whole tone of the movie, especially after seeing the recent string of miniseries, felt kind of underwhelming. The plot had potential though. The plot wasn't the issue. Scarlett Johansson and Florence Pugh's chemistry fit pretty well together. I feel like other people didn't care for David Harbour, but I get what they were going for and I think they did reasonably well but definitely could have been better. I can't even blame him. The whole movie felt more like a Bourne film than a Marvel film.
The VFX were pretty bad.. like CW DC show bad. If you have even an amateur level of 3D rendering experience, you'll be able to spot every little thing that is CG. Every car, vehicle, or backdrop that isn't actually there stands out like a sore thumb. Incorrect lighting, overly reflective, just.. amateur AF..
On to the spoilery stuff...
First and foremost... I don't know who did it.. I don't know who approved it.. but this movie has committed an atrocity almost as egregious as Fox screwing up Deadpool in X-men Origins or Sony with Venom in the third Spiderman movie. They completely ruined what I assume was supposed to be Taskmaster. I don't even mind that they made Taskmaster a woman. If that was all they did, it'd have been perfectly fine, but they turned the character into a gimmick that got thrown aside and left to the unknown by the end instead of the badass higher level villain they could/should have been. Sure, they said they were taking her with them but.. that didn't get explained either.
I feel like they fell short on establishing a timeline. The movie starts out in the past, in.. 1995 I believe? and things jump forward and it took me a hot minute to figure out why the hell she was running.. Maybe I missed some text saying that it was post Civil War/pre Endgame. If I did, then that's my own fault but it honestly would have only been because I had such a difficult time focusing on the movie.
The entire movie feels more like an afterthought than an origin story. Loose ends galore. This movie was delay but still somehow felt rushed.
Mind f* and retro-modern techno wierd. Exactly how I like it
I can say straight up this will not be a movie for everyone, but it really clicked for me. I would also say a blind watch is preferable in movies like this, I went in knowing almost nothing and if possible I think that's the way to watch the movie if possible.
For me it was incredibly immersive once established, with incredible sound design and score. The slow build of tension, unease and dread as things unfold. I'll admit, I've always been a fan of mediums that give the viewer the same amount of knowledge of whats going on as the characters have, and this nails that.
The premise has a whole has been done many times before, including this years Knock at the Cabin, but I've not seen that or read the book it was based on. But in relation to the other similar films, this takes the top spot for me.
While the ending itself is probably the weakest part of the movie for me personally because it answers just slightly too many questions a little bit too easily, the journey to get there was still worth the time and I think the ending might still work for others.
“I hate the way you talk to me, and the way you cut your hair.
I hate the way you drive my car,
I hate it when you stare.
I hate your big dumb combat boots, and the way you read my mind.
I hate you so much it makes me sick, it even makes my rhyme.
I hate the way you’re always right, I hate it when you lie,
I hate it when you make me laugh, even worse when you make me cry.
I hate it when you’re not around and the fact that you didn’t call
but mostly I hate the way I don’t hate you, not even close, not even a little bit, not even at all.“
Twilight becomes both much more funny and much more bearable when you are familiar with the genre and take it as the film equivalent of a shōjo manga or otome game, including all the same tropes. Under these criteria, it's actually a pretty fun movie.
Hot Take: If you can tolerate James Bond movies but this one somehow makes you feel weird, perhaps it's because you're more used to or more comfortable with male fantasies of sexual desirability. Either way, I used to hate Twilight because I felt superior to all the stupid girls who liked it. Now I just accept it for what it is: wish-fulfilment. Sure, Edward would be a creepy stalker and borderline abusive if not for story mechanics that tell us he can be trusted because he's a good guy, but that's the beauty of fiction: in real life there's no such thing as "good guys" and "bad guys," but in stories, there is. Similarly, James Bond would be a serial sexual harasser if not for the fact that all the women he encounters are super into him, but again, that's the beauty of fiction: they always are, and we know it's okay for him to be a dick sometimes because he is, you guessed it, a good guy. And yes, there's some weird puritan ideology here about the dangers of male sexuality, but that's still a hundred times better than for instance the subtext of Bram Stoker's Dracula (which, funnily enough, is about the dangers of female sexuality).
So, once more for the people in the back: Twilight is silly, implausible, and often ridiculous. And that's absolutely okay.
That being said, things I like about this film: the great way in which it captures teenage awkwardness (which I find hilarious and at this point have to believe is intentional); the fact that Bella just accepts he's a vampire because it's the most logical conclusion, and there's no drawn out "I can't believe this guy stopped a car with his bare hands, I'm going to tell everyone about it - oh no, no one believes me!"; the quotability of so much of the dialogue (coming close to the SW prequel trilogy in that department); the absolute dead-pan way in which everyone delivers their lines ("It's like diamonds. You're beautiful." - "Beautiful. This is the skin of a killer, Bella."); The way literally no one looks like they want to be there; the fact that Bella does not seem to be able to fully close her mouth; the implication that vegetarians are "never fully satisfied"; Seemingly endless scenes of piggyback rides (now I finally know why they never actually show how The Flash carries people - it just looks so fucking weird); the shot of Bella's father rolling his friend in the wheelchair right in front of the stairs leading up to his house, followed by a cut so that it's never explained how he actually got inside; the fact that Bella just seems absolutely chill with everything ("I don't sleep." - "Never?" - "No, never." - "Okay.").
Things I don't like about this film: how everyone takes it so goddamned seriously. Oh, and that there is absolutely no instance of "What are you?" - "A waitress."
"The more you know who you are, and what you want, the less you let things upset you."
Wow, just Wow, what a visual effect. Great story, Great play.
Ok...so I kinda loved the first one and was very much looking forward to this one. Did it live up to my expectations??? Not really...
Pacific Rim: Uprising is by no means a dud, but for some reason, it lacks a certain "grandness" that the first one had. The story is less interesting ( and to be honest, way more cheesy than the first one), the acting leaves a little to be desired, and the effects seem somewhat subdued. The "anime" feeling of the first one is also kind of missing.
Does that mean that this is an unwatchable mess? No...If you liked the first one, you should get some enjoyment out of this one as well. It just isn't in any way as entertaining as the first one. It's a bit more "family friendly " as well, but that never hurts when it comes to these kinds of movies.
These are one of those movies you just have to watch and make up your own mind. In my book, it's passable as an evenings entertainment.
Everyone keeps suggesting there is a paradox concerning the 5D future humans and their ability to save humanity in the past. It's really not a paradox at all. Everyone assumes humanity survived to ascend to the 5th dimension but how could humanity exist in the future if not for the actions of Cooper.. who was guided by future humans (begin endless loop).
Did anyone ever consider the other important character in the movie? Amelia Brand carried on with the rest of her mission (thanks to Cooper). I postulate that Brand used the human seeds as intended and set up a colony. A colony that would thrive and eventually evolve beyond human. Thus Earth is of little importance, and may have indeed died. These colonists, and the generations that followed, would have been told the story of a great man (Cooper) who saved them from extinction. With the ability to manipulate space-time, they would pay homage to their hero "God" by helping him in the past so he may fulfill the mission most important to him, to once again see his daughter. Plan B worked beautifully. But the 5d humans, having the power to bend space-time, decided there's no reason why Plan A had to fail.
Funniest movie I have seen in years. There is no way Dr Strange In the Multiverse of Madness is going to do multiverse better.
Yeah, there's plot holes. But the movie is so damned funny you just don't care. When they first explained how the multiverse thing worked my reaction was "Really? Is that all?". But it just got better and better and better.
There's periods of the movie you're struggling to breathe you're laughing so hard, and others that are just slow, deep, and sad. It's heartbreaking and hilarious. Slow and a thousand miles per hour. Nothing happening and more happening than you can possibly keep track of at once.
This movie is, without a doubt, brilliant.
i'm so emotional over a dragon
An unnecessary and well made epilogue for one of the best characters from Breaking Bad. Aaron Paul is great and I loved getting more time with Jesse Pinkman and some of the other characters.
10/10 I cried manly tears
Despite being a really well-acted and a moving story, it was actually kinda hard to watch; I had to take breaks every so often while watching it, in part because of the cringe-inducing awkwardness of it all, in a good way. It's really well-made though and I'm impressed that it was actually directed by the author of the novel, everything goes together nicely. Great coming-of-age story, I'd thoroughly recommend it.
Nice movie! Don’t mind the negative comments. Can’t wait for the second one!
I seem to be one of the few that actually really enjoyed it. Some people are saying that it's too vague and messy with different SFF tropes being mashed together, but for me, it gave the exact kind of vibe that I get from the 40k Universe, which is wildly popular. I don't really get the hate, but maybe it's from a wider crowd that isn't a fan of 40k. shrugs
They pulled a Star Wars on Tolkien and took the most expensive dump on a well established universe and lore for the sake of equality and virtue signaling. Congratulations, Amazon. You've just closed off Tolkien estate from allowing future iterations of one of the most beautiful and rich universes ever created.
I grew up with Tolkien's work, I loved the Lord of the rings trilogy and the hobbit was still very enjoyable. And to add, I am from the middle east. I don't really care about diversity, i just want likable characters.
This show..... I despise, the first half of the episode made me feel uncomfortable (Because it is not even close to the source materials.) and disappointed, I would have loved a series talking about the first and second age of middle earth but they aren't even close to telling the proper story.
I stopped watching because I was just THAT uninterested in it. That is a very hard feet to do as i generally watch through episodes before I make my opinion. In this case? It just made me unable to finish the episode and I doubt ill even finish the series.
I highly recommend anyone to actually read the books or just watch the 2 trilogies, as they are far better than the show both in story telling and visuals.
[8.8/10] There’s a funny thing about these updated, transmogrified Shakespeare adaptations like 10 Things I Hate About You. If you didn’t know better, you could call the plots convoluted. There is a complicated web of relationships and deceptions, to the point that you practically need a diagram to explain it properly.
In short, Michael helps his friend Cameron woo Bianca by convincing Joey to pay Patrick to date Kat, because Bianca, per her father Mr. Stratford, cannot date until Kat does. With me? Well then, it turns out that Kat dated Joey, and after Bianca picks Cameron over Joey, Joey picks Bianca’s friend Chastity, while Michael pursues Kat’s friend Mandella, as Kat and Patrick’s tempestuous relationship takes root.
It’s a little dizzying, and yet the complex string of friends and enemies and relationships that tow the line between put-ons and genuine affection track nigh-perfectly into the high school setting. Despite the dense qualities of that big ball of string’s worth of plot threads, the complicated social structures and intersecting circles of high school make for the perfect way to realizes The Bard’s comedies in the modern day.
But 10 things is more than just a transmogrified version of The Taming of the Shrew. It also a charming tale that captures the heart and hazards of adolescence at the same time it exaggerates them for comic effect. What’s most impressive about the film is how it has its cake and eats it too on that front. There are goofy beats and subplots that only happen in teen movies, like unexpected party scenes and famous bands showing up to play contemporary (hopefully) chart-topping hits for the soundtrack.
But amid that broader material, there is a real examination of what it is to play up or down to expectation, a theme present in the work that inspired 10 Things, but which is given new life in the guise of the teenagers who are at that point in the fraught process of growing up where they’re deciding who and what they want to be, in love and in life. The gross wager that turns into real love is a hoary trope (see also: fellow 1990s borrower She’s All That) but by rooting the romance at the core of the film in two people who embrace a thorny image and find the hidden depths behind the prickers in one another, the film does justice to its source material and resonates with a target audience trying to figure out which parts of who they are malleable, which parts are non-negotiable, and which parts are fit to be broadcast to the rest of the world (or at least, the relevant social circles)>
It is also just damn charming. The film is full of quotable lines and crackerjack exchanges between characters. The cutting aside is wielded well and often, and side characters like teachers (including the great Allison Janney) and parents (Larry Miller, who nails both comedy and emotion as Mr. Stratford) provide a backdrop of colorful characters for the main story to flourish in. The writing stands out in 10 Things not just for the amusing lines which liven some otherwise familiar teen material, but for the way it allows the film to, in true Shakespeare form, shift tones into more serious material when it needs to.
The same goes for the characters. Kat shoots off the best zingers in the movie, and with her rebellious attitude and literary bent, it would be easy to turn her into a one-dimensional avatar rather than a character. Instead, the film roots her perspective and demeanor in an experience with Joey that gives form to her concerns of Bianca following in her footsteps, and gives just enough context to her mom leaving to make the crisis of conscience and turning point understandable.
By the same token, Bianca could easily be a generic popular girl, and in fairness, at certain points of the film, she is. But she too has a simple but meaningful arc of playing to expectations only to realize that she doesn’t necessarily like what that gets her, and it allows the two sisters to grow in their understanding of one another in strong scenes that deepen their relationship.
The objects of their affection receive a bit of shading as well. The reveal that Patrick, who puts on a gruff exterior and bears the reputation derived from many humorous urban legends about him, is not as wild as he seems is, perhaps, a predictable one. But he gains strength from the way that he and Kat see bits of themselves in one another, Cameron is a bit flatter, learning a trite if endearingly-put lesson about not accepting the notion that he doesn’t deserve what he wants, but there’s enough there to give ballast to the enjoyable-if-disposable teen romp elements.
Even Mr. Stratford, who is arguably the most outsized major character in the film, gets a bit of shading. While he spits out awkward-sounding nineties slang and is comically overprotective and paranoid of his daughters getting pregnant, the film balances that with a subtext to his insecurities about Kat leaving for Sarah Lawrence. There is a Daria-like quality to the film’s ability to poke fun at the parent-child relationship, but also find the sweetness and sincerity in it.
That’s what makes 10 Things more than the sum of its byzantine bets and love triangles. Some twists are convenient, some gestures a little too big to work anywhere but on the silver screen, and some bits of forgiveness come a little too easy. Still, the film keeps its plot, humor, and drama working in sync, where one scene can make you chuckle, the next will let you get to know a character a little better, and the one after will tug at your heartstrings, just a little bit.
The oh-so-nineties soundtrack immediately places in the film at a specific moment in time, but it speaks to the relatable qualities of that quest to figure out both who you are, and who’ll accept you for who you are, that feel like life and death for all seventeen-year-olds. 10 Things is a touchstone for those who grew up with it, both for the quips and clever asides that let the film crackle, and for the notion of young men and women, cutting through pretension and presentation, and finding something true beneath it, in themselves and in the people they love.
If you're looking for a cure for horniness then you've found it with this stunningly boring nonsense. Not even Emma Stone can save it.
I watched episode 7 of the Mandalorian today, so "The Rise of Skywalker" isn't even the best Star Wars I've watched in the last 24 hours.
If you are a Nicolas Cage fan you won't be disappointed. Having him and Director Richard Stanley work together on a Lovecraft Story is definitely a must see. I mean come on, Nicolas Cage milking an alpaca! This film will easily qualify to be one of those top Horror Cult Classic down the road.
This movie really got to me. I was really cheering for them to be together. I thought Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson were perfect. Great soundtrack.
