i did not see one Negro in this film. When were Negro's invented?
loading replies
It is because there probably was none in the story.
Shout by John Attar
Is it me or I just feel sorry for Bruce Willis and John Travolta.
They used to be good actors but they are old now. They should retire and stop making those shitty movies.
Just avoid this movie at all don't look at the poster.loading replies
@johnattar Bruce Willis has retired by now due to health problems (aphasia.) This will be one of the last movies he stars in.
What's with the bad votes it didn't even come out yet-
Edit: Fair enough.
loading replies
@rubilior Plenty of films can be watched before their official release date, most notably on film festivals. Also, release dates are still often at different dates in different countries (and the us. date or country of origin date is also not always the most earliest date.)
The end of the movie was the very first time I agreed with one of Wanda's actions... Good thing it was her last action too.
- Christine living to the end was odd. I get WHY it happened, but really? She could at least have closed that last door to the Good!Book.
- Why dear Xavier had to bite the dust???? Again???? WHY????
- Stephen finally Let It Go. ("It" being the gorgeous Xtine, that totally deserved the hot husband she got to marry)
- Zombie!Dr.Strange was Dope.
- America Chavez is Badass AF.
Can't wait for the next movie!
loading replies
@abstractlegend With Stewart his age, i doubt we will be seeing that much of him in any Marvel universe. Just seeing him die a pathetic death (again) was tasteless and memorable of the trauma of The Last Stand. It was not needed anyway, we have seen him die 4 times now, including the DOFP retcon death. Hearing the epic 90s X-Men medley partly made up for it though.
Review by Paul Vincent
VIP5I felt like this was missing something and didn't live up to the full potential it could've. Maybe it was the title, "Multiverse of Madness", maybe it was all the trailers that did a great job misleading us while also spoiling all the best parts of the movie, or maybe I just didn't like how two dimensional they made Wanda after she spent an entire show already learning how her power can hurt people and exposing everyone to her grief. How many times did Wanda need to indirectly quote Thanos before we got the point? "I call that mercy", "They'll never know..." etc.
Overall this has kind of cut down my excitement for phase 4 a bit, and coming from someone who LOVED the infinity saga that hurts and worries me to say. I feel like the movie tries to over simplify things and these were characters that aren't simple. This needed to be deeper. I feel like we needed to see Kang here, even if just for a moment or two. I feel like we needed Loki too. The only trouble with opening the multiverse can of worms is now it REALLY doesn't matter when some of these heroes are getting killed, "Oh that's just Mr Fantastic from 818, this is 6 1 whatever".
It wasn't bad, it just wasn't really good either, and with how much hype they put on it I'm let down. This needed a real villain. It's not that Scarlet Witch didn't make a good villain, it's that I didn't want to see her be one after the journey we've gone on with her, and her doing the right thing in the end doesn't excuse her murdering like a hundred people no matter what universes they were in and her logic was flawed from the start.
And where the F is "real" Mordo?
loading replies
@paulvincent83 I have the exact same problem with Wanda in this. This might have been one of the marvel movies i most looked forward to bc of the high quality of WV, and especially to see how they would grow Wanda her character further. Instead we kind of got a repeat of the show but with some different variables.
You don’t really need to watch what if to understand this but it’ll help. You really do need to see Wanda vision though, you don’t have to but it would be incredibly confusing if you don’t understand wandas motivations as she is the main antagonist
loading replies
@kieranlittleuk I would say yes and no. It is an important backstory for the events in this movie, but at the same time it contradicts or cancels out the character development Wanda goes through in WV. (This was tbh quite the disappointment for me in the movie. I was not looking for a rehash of the same development.)
Shout by Dreadlock Unicorn
VIP3World Premiere Review: Sam Raimi, you legend. This was one of, if not the most, fun MCU movie yet. It's very Evil Dead inspired visually, particularly the camera work. The character arcs here are fantastic, the action is wonderfully violent (the multiverse gives so much opportunity to kill off characters without impacting the main timeline too much), and the pacing is great, just go see it.
loading replies
And just how many times can they kill off Stewart's Xavier xD Sad to see him die again.
A fantastic cyberpunk action/thriller with a decent mystery. Ralph Fiennes and Angela Bassett (particularly Angela Bassett) are amazing in it. Even Juliette Lewis, despite not being the best actress in the world, is perfect for her role.
Also, the best New Year's movie ever, and a fine chaser to Christmas's Die Hard marathon. Make a new tradition today!
loading replies
@ladysorka oh, that explains it haha. I feel you. I am having a (different) problem with Kodi myself and gave up on fixing it :')
A fantastic cyberpunk action/thriller with a decent mystery. Ralph Fiennes and Angela Bassett (particularly Angela Bassett) are amazing in it. Even Juliette Lewis, despite not being the best actress in the world, is perfect for her role.
Also, the best New Year's movie ever, and a fine chaser to Christmas's Die Hard marathon. Make a new tradition today!
loading replies
@ladysorka 216 plays, are you kidding me? :laughing:
I can't even put into words my distaste for this movie. Only Americans will ask you to feel bad for their war criminals. The quote by Frankie Boyle describes this film perfectly, “Not only will America go to your country and kill all your people, they’ll come back twenty years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.” The whole point of The Card Counter is to try to get you to sympathize with a war criminal who tortured, killed, terrorized people. Not only that but it's extremely unrealistic to ask the viewer to believe that anyone responsible for Abu Ghraib faced meaningful consequences. Like, come on, now!
This movie followed the most boring protagonists, who are as dull as they can get. Zero chemistry between any member of the cast. Oscar Isaac, Tiffany Haddish, and Tye Sheridan are basically in 3 different movies and each one of them is total garbage:
"Abu Ghraib torturer, but make him seeeexy" How? Oh, cast hot actor with beautiful eyes. Plus, he did his time, 8 years for the most vile crimes you can possibly imagine. But he is a good guy now. He fucks girls and support college kids. For someone I guess we're supposed to dislike (?), the movie spends a lot of time showing how cool he is.
Tiffany Haddish must’ve been the only actress to audition for the role of La Linda because she was radically miscast. She is not ready for dramatic acting. As for her character – she is independent and has connections with rich folks … that’s it. Wow, so interesting, right?! The 'chemistry' between her and Isaac was weird. It wasn’t seductive, it just felt like watching high schoolers flirt, but even more painful.
Cirk seemed like he is dumb as rocks. To expect us to care so much about a kid who we don't even know is irresponsible. I couldn't care less about his death or revenge killing.
Oh, and there is another character introduced like "USA!" guy with no point. But he was born in Ukraine, so he is not American. Oscar Isaac was born in Guatemala, grew up in USA and plays an American dude, while people born in Ukraine who grew up in USA are only Ukrainian. Even if you want to follow American rules, you just can’t because the Yanks are very inconsistent and hypocritical.
Most bad movies have some redeeming qualities. I can’t think of anything with this, everything just felt so bland to me:
Nothing is happening, and the movie is sooo repetitive . Oscar Isaac looking serious and walking in a casino,with suspenseful music - this is like 80% of the movie.
Almost every scene is an end in itself, nothing is explored, and doesn’t progress the story at all scene to scene.
The music. Oh, the music, which mainly featured vapid, brooding indie/electronic songs, is just all over the place here. I hated it!
There is basically no concept of tension or mystery, which is pretty important when you’re watching a fake game of poker.
The philosophy was so juvenile, and the movie lacks anything interesting to say. We are supposed to believe the main character is very mysterious and smart but he is one of the most boring, dull and flat characters I have ever seen.
The dialogue is godawful, no exaggeration here! "I have no goals", "Have you ever read a book", "What is your story" etc. It felt so awkward and as if the characters aren’t even talking to each other.
Why is it called The Card Counter when the main character counted cards once onscreen and then spends the entire movie playing poker?
Did I see a different movie than all of these people rating it high?
loading replies
@cutecruel I think the ending of the movie gives away that the torturer remains in his cycle of violence, and is not redeemed. I just thought it was all a rather pointless story.
Excellent movie. If you're one of the people saying it's boring because they show the same thing from three perspectives, you missed the whole point of the movie. Every perspective has a slightly different interpretation of what happened. The changes are very subtle, but are crucial to the overall story.
loading replies
@blazer380 I thought it was boring, but not because of that. The first act was actually the most boring part to me xD
Review by Jordy
VIP8Ever since the mid 90s, Roland Emmerich has attempted time and time again to repackage and recapture the ideas from Independence Day. After many failed attempts, I wonder why there’s still a theatrical market for films like this. Or rather, it’s odd that Hollywood thinks there’s still a market for it, given that all of Emmerich’s films since 2012 have flopped at the box office. And, he’s about to add another one to his resume. This should’ve gotten a streaming release at best, as it belongs in the same category as a film like The Tomorrow War. It’s background noise you throw on while you’re doing the dishes or folding the laundry. It's too disposable, phony, poorly acted and boring to pay any serious attention to, let alone pay money for. There's a sense of authenticity and fun to dumb action movies like Independence Day that you're never going to capture with the way these kind of films are made now. You have to applaud Emmerich for making a big, original studio film, but it’s still generic schlock that doesn’t have a single ounce of personality. Fuck whoever financed this.
Edit: after a little bit of digging I found out that the primary investor of this thing is a Chinese company called Tencent Pictures. They’re also responsible for financing other great films such as Terminator: Dark Fate, Warcraft, Kong: Skull Island, Men in Black: International, Monster Hunter and the 2 Venom movies. To put it mildly, it appears that it’s this company’s sole purpose to flood the market with trash, and not exactly the fun kind. Now I know what you’re thinking: maybe their involvement helps with receiving a Chinese release from the CCP? But here’s the problem: Venom 2 was banned in China. So, they’re clearly just a bunch of incompetent investors, given that all of their films (the Venom films excluded) have been massive financial and critical flops. The takeaway for Hollywood should be pretty simple: if Tencent wants to invest in your production, cancel all plans before you have another Moonfall on your hands.
2.5/10
Watch it if you’re a fan of Toto, or genuinly laugh at any point during the first scene.
loading replies
@jordyep Tencent is not just any company though. It is one of China's biggest companies, especially concerning consumer products, and a global fortune 500 ranked company. Even though I agree they don't have the best track record (concerning movies) but imho your conclusions are also a pinch exaggerated.
Not quite what I was expecting. The backdrop of World War I to do some The Matrix/Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon stunts was some serious juxtaposition. There was history but this was a lot of fluffed up action, which wasn't always done really well. Some of the scenes involving the goat laden mountain top area just didn't work, specifically the parachute jump. Absolutely ridiculous. The special effects used a little bit after that where characters were being suspended off the side of the mountain looked terrible on the big screen of the movie theatre. We are talking Darth Maul falling to his cut in half death in The Phantom Menace.
Last big problem was making Woodrow Wilson into a Great War era Bill Clinton getting caught in sexual misadventures in the White House. COME ON!
The easter egg in the closing credits with a smirking Adolph Hitler makes you think there is more of these to come. I hope they improve on them a little bit.
loading replies
@bob-frapples You forgot to use some spoiler tags.
Funny and also worrying. Idiocracy 2.0 in my opinion, much more grounded in what's actually happening in the world right now.
loading replies
@mynsc This was my exact thinking.
This movie would be way funnier if we weren't living it.
loading replies
@teogramm The Comedy version of this movie is the in 2006 released 'Idiocracy'
Review by Jordy
VIP8Denis Villeneuve is the man!
There’s only one word that came into my mind after watching it: finally.Finally, a blockbuster that isn’t afraid to be primarily driven by drama and tension, and doesn’t undercut its own tone by throwing in a joke every 30 seconds.
Finally, a blockbuster that puts actual effort in its cinematography, and doesn’t have a bland or calculated colour palette.
Finally, a blockbuster with a story that has actual substance and themes, and doesn’t rely on intertextual references or nostalgia to create a fake sheen of depth.
Finally, a blockbuster that doesn’t pander to China by having big, loud and overblown action sequences, but relies on practical and grounded spectacle instead (it has big sand worms, you really don’t need to throw anything at the screen besides that).
Finally, a blockbuster that actually feels big, because it isn’t primarily shot in close ups, or on a sound stage.
And of course: finally, a blockbuster that isn’t a fucking prequel, sequel, or connected to an already established IP somehow.(Yeah, I know Tenet did those things as well, but I couldn’t get into that because the characters were so flat and uninteresting).
This just checks all the boxes. An engaging story with subtext, very well set up characters, great acting (like James Gunn, Villeneuve's great at accentuating the strengths of limited actors like Dave Bautista and Jason Momoa), spectecular visuals and art design (desaturated but not in an ugly washed out way), pacing (slow but it never drags), directing, one of Hans Zimmer’s best scores: it’s all here.
I only have one real criticism: there’s too much exposition, especially in the first half.
It can occasionally hold your hand by referencing things that have already been established previously, and some scenes of characters explaining stuff to each other could’ve been conveyed more visually.
Other than that, it’s easily one of the best films of the year.
I’ve seen some people critiquing it for being incomplete, which is true, but this isn’t just a set up for a future film.
It feels like a whole meal, there are pay offs in this, and the characters progress (even if, yes, their arcs are still incomplete).8.5/10
loading replies
@jordyep Fair point. I tried to get through Lynch's movie a few times, but I have never been able to finish it. And it is true there have not been main stream Dune related projects in a long time.
I see what you mean, I think my nitpick about the first act is more about lack of showing character instead of telling. At the end of the movie I not felt like I know who he is and even less who he was, even though he is the main character. And from that 'lack of understanding' i tried to trace back what could have caused that.
Of course that could just be a me-issue, and not the movie. But I think it is not so much his passiveness, and more because I didn't get to see enough of his original character by actions (or choices.) Some of it is shown or told, although perhaps not that clear (or just not to me.) I thought the most defining scene for who he is in the beginning is when he is meeting the old Gesserit leader. He seems rather pubescent in his breakfast conversation with his mom, disliking ceremony, uninterested in his tasks, and unmotivated or even lazy about developing his 'Jedi mind trick' skills. He doesn't look excited to be a king (or anything others want for him), but (or maybe because of earlier said point) he feels attracted to Arrakis. And ofc the dream as extra motivation works fine. So I don't mean he is a blank slate, his character is there, but I think it might have been preferable to have more visual conveying of his character instead of others saying he is rebellious like his father (I expected him to do something rash in that scene because of that for example) or explaining how the shields work, which is also shown in the literal same scene anyway.
ps. Your review is very on point though.
Review by Jordy
VIP8Denis Villeneuve is the man!
There’s only one word that came into my mind after watching it: finally.Finally, a blockbuster that isn’t afraid to be primarily driven by drama and tension, and doesn’t undercut its own tone by throwing in a joke every 30 seconds.
Finally, a blockbuster that puts actual effort in its cinematography, and doesn’t have a bland or calculated colour palette.
Finally, a blockbuster with a story that has actual substance and themes, and doesn’t rely on intertextual references or nostalgia to create a fake sheen of depth.
Finally, a blockbuster that doesn’t pander to China by having big, loud and overblown action sequences, but relies on practical and grounded spectacle instead (it has big sand worms, you really don’t need to throw anything at the screen besides that).
Finally, a blockbuster that actually feels big, because it isn’t primarily shot in close ups, or on a sound stage.
And of course: finally, a blockbuster that isn’t a fucking prequel, sequel, or connected to an already established IP somehow.(Yeah, I know Tenet did those things as well, but I couldn’t get into that because the characters were so flat and uninteresting).
This just checks all the boxes. An engaging story with subtext, very well set up characters, great acting (like James Gunn, Villeneuve's great at accentuating the strengths of limited actors like Dave Bautista and Jason Momoa), spectecular visuals and art design (desaturated but not in an ugly washed out way), pacing (slow but it never drags), directing, one of Hans Zimmer’s best scores: it’s all here.
I only have one real criticism: there’s too much exposition, especially in the first half.
It can occasionally hold your hand by referencing things that have already been established previously, and some scenes of characters explaining stuff to each other could’ve been conveyed more visually.
Other than that, it’s easily one of the best films of the year.
I’ve seen some people critiquing it for being incomplete, which is true, but this isn’t just a set up for a future film.
It feels like a whole meal, there are pay offs in this, and the characters progress (even if, yes, their arcs are still incomplete).8.5/10
loading replies
@jordyep "And of course: finally, a blockbuster that isn’t a fucking prequel, sequel, or connected to an already established IP somehow." Hate to point this out, but Dune is very much an already established IP. As you mention at the end of your review, it is an adaptation of a novel (with a rather large following), and it has several earlier adaptations in several media including a not so small movie in the 80's.
"I only have one real criticism: there’s too much exposition, especially in the first half." + "... conveyed more visually."
Totally agree, my main issue with this movie is the same. Even the impressive big shots do not manage to distract from the pacing issues of all the exposition that had to be discussed. Also, I found the main character somewhat lacked to show some character in the first act. It was mostly others describing/planning for him.
(Edited for some nuance)
Such a different type of Batman story that we're used to these days. So much thought has been put into the story and characters rather than just the action. While I personally quickly figured out in part 2 who Holiday was, their reasons for doing it were something I never expected.
The new animation style DC has been going with recently has had very mixed response from people, but personally I love it and feel it's adds a lot to the direction of the movie.
loading replies
@woffingshire I am not a big fan of the new animation style I guess, since I have been mostly disappointing with the movies for a few years(?) now. This was a very welcome and positive exception for me though. The quality felt much higher, and it also reminded me more of the 90's Batman The Animated series. (And story wise this is fantastic compared to the average.)
The movie is ok, a guess. A lot of good action scenes, capitalizing the fact tha Maggie Q use to be Nikita in another life.
I get that Michael Keaton is a household name and all of that... but that was a little bit cringy for me. I'm all about diferent type of couples, and i don't wanna sound prudish or anything but he's too old for Maggie Q to make any sense. I din't like that paring at all, and it took me away from the movie big time. Maybe with an actor not 28 years older than the female lead it would have made more sense to me. Or maybe I don't find Michael Keaton with that kind of appeal ...loading replies
@marguis Although I like Keaton, I have to agree on the age gap being a slight problem here.
legitimately such a visually stunning and fun entry into the action genre. the number of times bullets run out is one of my favorite aspects of the action sequences, but also there's a scene later on that, combined with mary elizabeth winstead's increasingly horrifying deterioration, puts this on my body horror list. it's not a horror, but it's pretty and there's bodies being horrific, so it works. i'm really digging the recent action films that use just enough stylistic choices borrowed from video games to bump up the immersion.
when i was checking on who the stunt coordinators were i saw some Highly Bitter articles calling this a john wick clone but honestly every action movie follows a formula because the formula works and being poisoned with radiation is a great reason for revenge even if it didn't involve a dog.
also, i don't even fucking care i loved that ridiculous car chase scene
loading replies
@birdcages Because John Wick being an influential movie in recent years for this type of flick, in a sense you can compare most of them to Wick. But imho doing that only makes sense for a few of them. This is not one of them, so let them be bitter. I mean, this movie certainly has its flaws and contradictions (mysteriously recovering from the most severe injuries in moments is one of them) but it does not takes itself too seriously and goes way over the top, and it is intended that way. It also gives for some interesting styling and directing choices.
So I definitely agree the car chase was a lot of fun.
Not a movie for everyone.
If you want lasers, explosions and monsters in your sci-fi this is not for you.
If you want creepy atmosphere, dialogs and good acting it's a perfect fit.
The movie is not perfect still.
The premise of a local radio getting strange reports from callers around the town is reduced very quickly to only two main calls.
I would have preferred to listen to more callers and have the tension and realization of what was happening building up a little slower than it was.
Also the black and white TV show thing didn't resonate well with me. If they limited that to the introduction it would have been better.
Still a solid 7 for me.loading replies
@canardu I had the same feelings about the TV visuals. And I did not really understand the point of it either, which made it kind of a questionable decision to me.
Bloodsport: “Nobody likes a showoff.”
Peacemaker: “Unless what they showing off is dope as fuck.”
James Gunn recently said in an interview that he finds superhero movies “mostly boring” right now. Anything ranging from safe and boring or technically well-made but disposable, at best. Gunn received at bit of heat from fans for those remarks, but in some sense, he’s not wrong. Because sometimes following the same formula will eventually wear fin and more risk taking needs to happen.
And here we have ‘The Suicide Squad’, the soft reboot to the 2016 film, but this time directed by Gunn himself, where he delivers a highly entertaining movie that is bursting with creativity and ultra-violence. James Gunn once again shakes up the superhero formula with a slick style. I’m just glad DC is finally letting directors have a voice and a vision, and I hope it stays like that.
The first 10-15 minutes tells you exactly what the movie is going to be.
I just can't believe we got something like this. It's 2 hours and 12 minutes long, but it's always on the move. It’s bonkers from start till finish, and I enjoyed every minute of it. This is probably one of the best shot movies in the DCU. The soundtrack is great as well and used effectively. The action scenes were insane and made the overall experience one of the most fun I had at the cinema in a long time.
A massive improvement over the 2016 film, AKA ‘the studio cut’, is that the movie doesn’t look ugly and isn’t chopped together by trailer editors. The movie is vibrant in colours that made it look pleasing to the eye. The structure at times is messy, and yet strangely well-paced, as there’s a lot going on.
Did I mention the movie is very gory? It’s cartoonish violence, or what people call "adult superhero movie", so it's not for kiddies or for the faint of heart. You would probably guess that not everybody on the team is going to make it to the end credits, so deaths are to be expected, but how certain characters “bite the dust” are so unexpectedly gruesome and brutal, it took me by surprise each time. The marketing for the movie was right, don’t get too attached. As I said before, James Gunn had complete creative control over the movie, and he doesn’t hold back on what he wrote and show on screen. But then again, it's a movie, it's not real, the actors who die on screen are fine in real life...I think.
All the cast members have equal amount of time to shine, and you like these super villains this time around, as each character had wonderful chemistry with each other. John Cena plays Peacemaker, who can be best described as a “douchebag version of Captain America”. An extreme patriot who will do the most horrific things for liberty. John Cena excels in the deadpan line delivery for comedic effect, but surprisingly enough, worked well in the serious moments. Looking forward to the spin-off show ‘Peacemaker’.
Margot Robbie once again nails the role of the chaotic but gleeful Harley Quinn. While the character isn’t front and centre this time around, more of a side character, but whenever the character is on screen, it’s instantly memorable.
Idris Elba plays Bloodsport, a contract killer who’s doing time in prison after failing to kill Superman with a kryptonite bullet, while also dealing with family issues, especially with his daughter. While the character may sound like Will Smith’s Deadshot from the 2016 film, but trust me, the execution here is much stronger. This is by far Elba’s best work in a while. Charismatic and a strong leading presence.
Polka Dot Man, played by character actor David Dastmalchian, a socially awkward, weird, and lame sounding character that has some serious mummy issues, which has a funny running visual gag throughout. However, because of Gunn’s writing and Dastmalchian's performance, the character is more than a joke, but a unique character to watch.
Ratcatcher 2, played wonderfully by Daniela Melchior, who brought so much warmth and heart to the film. I loved how they tied in her tragic backstory into the finale, as it honestly made me cry. And let’s not forget the king himself, King Shark, voiced by Sylvester Stallone. He stole every scene he’s in, because he’s so adorable and has such kind eyes, but when he’s hungry, he can be a killing machine.
The rest of the supporting cast, even in the smaller roles, still manage to stand out amidst all the chaos. I liked Joel Kinnaman as Rick Flag a lot more this time around, because the actor was given more to work with in terms of good material. Viola Davis is brilliant as the cold and ruthless Amanda Waller. And Peter Capaldi is always a pleasure to see. Also, I like the character of Weasel, who I can describe as a unholy offspring of Shin Godzilla and Rocket Racoon. He may not be beautiful to look at, but he's beautiful to me.
Like ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’, the movie has a lot of heart and I like how they took certain characters, who on page sound stupid and ridiculous but are handled with such love and depth, while also being self-aware of its own characterization.
You can literally watch this as a standalone movie and you won’t be lost or confused, as you don’t need to watch 22 other movies to understand it. This is by far the strongest entry in this jumbled mess of a cinematic universe.
Overall rating: Nom-nom!
loading replies
@bradym03 I agree mostly with your review, however my main complaint is that I found the editing horrendous at times. Some scenes are too chaotic, camerawork is sometimes questionable and there are utmost unsettling cuts. It is definitely nice to see the artistic freedom the director is given, although it not always succeeds in this case.
Some smaller complaints; The finale was a bit weird, especially in the coloring, making it feel somewhere between serious or some kind of Legends of Tomorrow's Beeboo level joke. Some characters were a bit underused and flat, but for this type of movie I would not expect too much in that area anyway. Overall it is way better than its predecessor, which makes this a success in my book.
To be blunt its just a bit of a waste of Emily's talent
loading replies
@t-cash-a2091e7f-4305-4361-a7c5-4e33a6aebf91 Nice movie related joke
This is an amazing piece of work. Nothing but facts here. I found the timeline of how some of the bulletpoints of the 2020 pandemic happened very interesting.
It is so sad to watch how so many people (even friends and family) are blinded to the facts and are so ready to accept the insane propaganda that Trump and his administration throws at us every day.
I assume there will be a part 2 as this ended roughly mid-year information. And so very much more has happened since.
I cant even imagine what a pro-Trump documentary about the pandemic would even look like. I am however pretty sure it would only be about 1 or 2 minutes long.1-3 :heart: = seriously! don't waste your time
4-6 :heart: = you may or may not enjoy this
7-8 :heart: = I expect you will like this too (if you're pro-Trump you're gonna hate this documentary)
9-10 :heart: = movies and TV shows I really love!loading replies
@schmoogie Does this documentary also focus on the behavior of common people/society and global response, or is it mainly the (american) political decision side of things?
ps. A pro-Trump doc would probably look like a compilation of Trump rallies merged with conspiracy youtube channel video's. :P
You lose your memories, you lose yourself.
Devastating movie.
Watch this in the afternoon. A night watch would be tough.
Hopkins is magnificent as usual.
loading replies
@boolalanga Watched it in the depth of night, can confirm xD
I must say, the movie has a really good idea that's worth exploring. Sadly it never comes close to exploring said idea. It ends up being a generic Hollywood action movie and nothing more.
It's interesting to see how a society would function if part of the population's(The men's) thoughts were visible to everyone. There are interesting aspects to explore here about privacy. But the movie throws this concept under the bus and uses it just as a cheap gimmick.
Before the events in the movie, it's said that men and women lived together in Tom Holland's settlement. And then men became more and more suspicious of the women because they could not see their thoughts. This gradually drove the men to kill all the women. This is the movie I wanted to see. How did this happen? What were the internal struggles in the settlement? How did reading each other's thoughts affect the people? Instead, we are put after all of this and we follow the standard bad guy wants to kill girl, hero who has confidence issues saves girl from the bad guy and becomes self-realized in the process.
The thought-reading phenomenon was mostly used as a comic relief instead of being the center of a thought-provoking story. I'm kind of bummed out that this was the case. It would have been interesting to see how a society functions when everyone's thoughts are in the open. For instance, how courts work, how is trade done, etc.loading replies
@curtwagner1984 I think this review covers it well. I too thought it was interesting concept, so i felt disappointed when the only original part in the movie was not explored. Same with the native aliens. I was highly interested to see how their society functioned, but except for that one encounter they are never seen or heard of. Besides this, the whole movie is fairly bland and straightforward (although still decent enough to watch once.)
Great Miyazaki film with a lovely fairy tale storyline. If only the kids voices weren't so screamish. This made my overal enjoyment of the movie drop :(
loading replies
@beedelljulianlockhartroke Japanese (I always watch original dub if possible.)
I'm surprised that this film has a relatively low rating on Trakt. I really enjoyed the futurism, the themes of disillusionment and identity and the philosophical themes explored.
loading replies
@halane 100% agree with your comment, except for a small footnote:
Replace the word Asian for independent. This is an American film, all of the main characters are also (Asian) American. However this is not a Hollywood (or directly related) production. Independent films tend to be slower, plenty of fast paced Asian films too.
And to add, it is a soul crushing film so I can understand where the relatively low rating might come from.
I only saw the trailer to see if i will watch it or skip it,and wanted to comment and add STOP SHOVING Ruby Rose down our throat,she can't act, in John wick they made her character mute, otherwise she would have ruined the movie..and i saw she have another lead coming with Morgan Freeman ,come on who she's sleeping with to got that lead too... there's a thousand more talented actresses out there ,whom deserve a shot instead of her.
loading replies
@tdassa Perhaps her agency is promoting her when studios try to hire other actors. You want insert A list actor then you also have to take Ruby.... Or what you said xD
Shout by Matt D
VIP4This movie offers a unique experience. It gives you one of the most genuine and undoctored glimpses into the soulless eyes of corporate Hollywood
There is no love for making movies
There is no love for the source material
The only interest is making something with the specific goal of being a "Blockbuster".
There is nothing to it but the intent of making money.There's legit nothing to this movie.
Every shot you see is made just for cool trailer moments....
The Characters have no life or personality to them, They don't make any emotional connection with the viewer.
The acting........ no
There's no real plot or pacing
The effects can be good at times but its far and few in-between
The fighting and action scenes are rendered useless with the unprecedented amount of jump cuts done in editing....I enjoy movies that might have glaring flaws, or even be considered bad, I'm not a heartless critic... But there are no redeemable qualities about this movie.
You can't even spin it as a "So Bad It's Good" movie, its just that incompetent on every imaginable level.0/10 - Genuinely
loading replies
@mattdeezly1996 Corporate anywood is more accurate, since it is a collaboration between studios from USA, Germany, Japan and China. The monsters also look quite okay, so i have to disagree with there being no redeemable qualities. Other than that.... yeah looks like you covered it all hahaha
