GrimFandango
-
Posts
174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by GrimFandango
-
-
7 hours ago, DMan7 said:
That title is going to break someone's heart in here.
Could somebody edit out the "Its rotten on rt"?
-
1 hour ago, Stutterng baumer Denbrough said:
I was kind of surprised with the movie. Overall it was better than I thought it would be. I found the first 30 minutes to be a bit off. Maybe it's because it took me a while to get into it. But the last hour was quite good and the last 20 minutes was terrific. I enjoyed Delevegne but wasn't thrilled with DeHaan. But he grew on me as well. It's pretty action packed and it moves pretty quickly. I'd definitely recommend it to be seen.
7/10
baumer, you might try seeing it even a second time--for me it was even better for some reason; I think maybe by the end I understood what the characters were supposed to be and that helped when I watched it again. I'd still like to see some lines and scenes cut a little bit though. The second time I REALLY dug the opening, and I thought the soundtrack fit so much better. It's not a good sign that it takes a second viewing to 'get' the characters; I haven't read the comics but I get the feeling that maybe subconsciously Besson made the assumption that people were more familiar with the comic book characters than we are, so as an audience we really feel that they're both kind of self-centered jerks right off the bat because Besson doesn't set them up properly.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, WrathOfHan said:
I've been pretty indifferent towards DM3's run, but now that it's having good holds, I want it to collapse. You can threadban me for being too negative, but DM3 is one of the most vile films I've seen this year. It's not interesting in the slightest, nor is it that cringeworthy. It feels like 2 hours despite being under 90 minutes. No movie this year, not even King Arthur (which I gave a worse rating than DM3 FWIW), left me as bored in the theater as DM3 did. It's unimaginative filmmaking that does not deserve nearly 1B WW. And don't use the "kids like it, so it's fine!" excuse on me. That promotes lazy filmmaking. Take an auteur like Wes Anderson or Charlie Kaufman. Both of these prestigious filmmakers have made animated films (the former's next one is stop motion as well) like Fantastic Mr Fox and Anomalisa to widespread acclaim. The box office returns weren't there because of weak marketing, but the former proves you can have stylized family films (the latter has puppet sex so let's not call it a family film
). Lazy filmmaking does not deserve high returns. Plain and simple.
in my opinion
I hope people take their kids to see Valerian instead, because that IS a much better movie for kids than DM3, and deserves the money over DM3 IMHO.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Macleod said:
Yeah, a friend sent me a text yesterday: "LOL at Valerian's Box Office."
For a Bay film, I'd laugh, as he's had plenty of chances, but for something like Luc Besson and what is fairly original material in the marketplace, it's really disappointing, and will probably be the end of Europacorp as an entity (and yes, Besson will go back to $30 mil movies for the time being...which isn't all bad, but still...).
Hundreds of people work on these things, it's never nice to see one flop so spectacularly...and for independent financing, it's not good news, either. Regardless of how it was paid for...someone paid for it, and someone's losing big. And ironically, a failure in this industrial capacity is more problematic for original movies than any major studio failure.
I feel the same way--Luc really, really tried to make a great movie, and you can tell. It is sooo close to being awesome, it's frustrating. It is way better than the last three Transformers movies, so it sucks that it is crashing so bad while those movies somehow get a pass. I'm hoping that the dialogue flaws that are killing it domestically aren't seen as being so bad to foreign audiences, particularly China, South America, etc. (essentially where English is not the first language). There is the possibility that it could do a lot better OS numbers.
I saw it for a fourth time today, because I've gotten to where I can overlook the poor dialogue because the rest of the movie is really, really good. The plot actually makes sense despite a deus ex piece, and I believe with a little bit of work it could be saved. The post-theater release can absolutely be fixed enough by some judicious editing, and turn it into a solid B movie.
Like I've mentioned before, as it is it works great as a kids/teen movie (much better than about 80% of the stuff that's been released this summer), but man, once the critic slam-pile starts, it's hard to escape its influence.
-
5 hours ago, dudalb said:
What puzzles me is how Besson made such bad casting decisions. He usually is very good at casting.but from all accounts he messed up with the leads here. Many critics who overall liked the film thought Valarian (the character) was badly miscast and the chemistry between the two leads was horrible.
Cara I can understand based on Luc's past obsessions with young, model waifs; and, Cara is one of the current 'IT' girls of the model world. She has a lot of personality off-camera, but if a director wants to use that to their advantage they're going to have to work it in the script and capture it on camera. Unfortunately, Cara doesn't have the acting skill (that we've seen yet anyways) to work with, and Luc doesn't have the writing skill by himself to make it happen. I suspect some ego is involved.
Dane kind of looks like the comic book character, but he is absolutely miscast. Don't know what happened there.
-
2 hours ago, Barnack said:
I think you would be surprised by how popular tv show like Roots or Mash were in the past.
Roots in 1977 for example:
The miniseries was watched by an estimated 130 million [14][15][16] and 140[17][18] million viewers total (more than half of the U.S. 1977 population of 221 million – the largest viewership ever attracted by any type of television series in US history as tallied by Nielsen Media Research) and averaged a 44.9 rating[17] and 66% to 80% viewer share[17] of the audience. The final episode was watched by 100 million viewers and an average of 80 million viewers watched each of the last seven episodes
In the past they were show watched by everyone, almost nothing is watched by 15% of the population now, it is really not close.
I remember when Roots came out, and even as young as I was I recall that it was HUGE. It was everywhere, and because of the subject matter and reflection on race relations in the US it had a huge impact culturally.
With M*A*S*H, it was one of my favorite shows to watch with my parents. It was a magic blend of tragedy and comedy, tackling such serious issues with a deft levity that was really unique. Blake's death and Hawkeye's heart-rending retelling of the "she killed her baby" experience still make me tear up.
And the thing to keep in mind is that back then, there was really only three stations to watch, and no DVRs or anything like that so the competition for viewers was way, way less.
-
3
-
-
Valerian
Sun July 23 7pm
85% full
Arrived too late for trailers.
Some laughs at appropriate moments. Exiting theater I heard a lot of compliments about it.
-
1 hour ago, aabattery said:
Films about WW2 generally have pretty good legs (crunched some numbers from this page and the average multi for the ones that opened above 1M was about 3.7), so I'm not sure it's as limiting as one would think. Of course almost all of those prior WW2 movies opened a lot lower so it's not the greatest comparison. Dunkirk will actually be the third highest opening on that list, and one was a Captain America movie. A 3x multi seems pretty dang reasonable to me though considering all this and the fact that Nolan movies do have a strong tendency to leg it out.
Dunkirk is quite a bit different than most WW2 films though:
Spoiler -
Ban's over:
While I think Dunkirk is a really good movie, I don't see a lot of repeat viewings outside of hardcore fans. I think a lot of fans will stay away despite the great reviews because of the subject matter, and it is not a "fun" nor feel-good* film. I still think it's over-rated, but will still get tons of Oscar noms.
I saw Valerian for a 2nd time because a neighbor offered to take me with his family--I didn't tell them I'd already seen it and that I thought it was an "A+/C-" movie because I didn't want to affect their enjoyment of it. That said, I actually liked it much better the 2nd time around! (My friends REALLY liked it, and this audience was way into it)
I see myself seeing Valerian maybe a third or fourth time with my spouse and friends. I don't see myself seeing Dunkirk again despite being as quality as it was--my spouse doesn't like that kind of movie so won't see it at all. This time viewing Valerian there were a lot of kids in the audience, and they freakin' loved it! I was surprised, but I'm thinking now that of the movies showing now, Valerian is a great option for kids. I've really changed my mind on this one.
I really hope Valerian does better despite it's critics and faults, because I do think it is a special movie in its own weird way, and there's no denying it is a powerhouse of SFX and concept-art, and the plot was actually fine for me on a second viewing (still wish it had different leads though).
*in a "I feel inspired!!" way.
-
5
-
-
Ok, so I was thinking about seeing this a 2nd time, but like I said in my review and prior comments, I didn't know if I could handle the acting and dialogue again.
However, my neighbor and his 15 year old stopped by and invited me to see it with them, so I said sure. I didn't want to influence their experience, so I didn't tell them I'd already seen it or anything at all...
You know what? I liked it A LOT better the second time around. The theater was nearly full, and some people were REALLY digging the movie. There was a lot of laughter at all the right parts, and outright guffaws and woots, especially from kids. It occurred to me then: this is a great kids movie. If you're faced with taking kids to see DM3, Cars3, Transformers, or whatever, take them to this movie--really.
My neighbor is not nearly as critical of movies as I am, and he frickin' loved it. His 15 year old really liked it too (huge X box gamer kid), and he kept saying during the movie "Those sentry droids are so cool!"
I'm going to update my initial review, because it actually does hold up well to a second viewing. I've decided I'll take my spouse later this week, so that will be my third time. I may see it once more after that--it's grown on me that much despite my initial criticisms.
I"m convinced this will be a cult film, 100%. It may even approach the stature of The 5th Element--granted the acting is not as good, but conceptually, graphically and inventiveness-wise, this is several times the 5th element in those areas (I rewatched The 5th Element last night, so I'm comparing directly instead of a purely nostalgic perspective).
Anyways, I hope beyond hope that despite its flaws and the critical pounding that it's taken, that there are enough people that will see it, enjoy it and spread the word. And again, encourage the kids to watch it because this movie is a perfect extension of the video-game/sfx world kids are exposed to so much, and this film is inspirational in it's own weird way.
-
3
-
-
Valerian
July 22, 7pm, 80% full
Colorado
Trailers
The Dark Tower
Daddy's Home 2 (This looks like it could be real funny--lots of laughs, especially when John Lithgow showed)
anna kendrick movie 3
some others I forget
I saw Valerian on opening day, first showing--there wasn't many people. This one had a lot of people.
Seemed like a really positive reaction from the crowd. Pretty good laughter at some scenes, some outright guffawing at some of the really funny scenes.
I actually enjoyed it a lot more the 2nd time around. Will update my review.
-
1
-
-
53 minutes ago, straggler said:
The thing that makes this film so questionable in hindsight is the budget. Even if the budget gets fudged down to $150 million that is an awful lot of money to spend on a project like this. What made them think this would work? Was the comic book series that popular? This was actually set up by Lucy. For some reason, timing as much as anything, Lucy became a hit, but it was just a bad film. Yet from that deceptive hit (audiences saw it but did not like it) it spawned this and GITS. Still Lucy had a budget of only $40 million. Even if the studio thought they were on to something with Besson, giving him that type of budget does not make much sense for an essentially original project.
Also can anyone explain Cara Delevingne's career? She is a successfuil model and all the sudden she is in one high profile project after another. She is not horrible, but she has a weird career arc.
I don't think it's that questionable--Besson's had some very popular, well-regarded movies and he is a well-respected director. I imagine between his enthusiasm for the project, and if he showed off a 5-minute concept reel that looked like the trailer (or the first five minutes of the alien planet from the trailer) it would certainly convince investors he has a good project on his hands. Everyone has admitted to being blown away by that, even if they disliked the movie.
And this movie came really close to being a breakout hit. I like to contrast this against the last few Transformers movies: Valerian is a project of love for Besson, while Transformers kept coming off like a cash-grab by Bay. Both sport amazing SFX, although I would argue that Valerian's is better. Plus Valerian is much, much more inventive and intriguing. I personally feel Besson thought he had a really good script on his hands. Bay seemed to say "that last film made money, I'm just gonna copy and paste the main pieces, throw a script together in 30 days and good enough." Bay really didn't seem to give a shit if his script was actually any good. And the box office results seem to support it until that bottom finally fell out.
But imagine as an investor having something that blows Transformers away in sfx, concept and story with a script that a so-far pretty successful directory really believes in? It would almost seem dumb to turn it down. And as Tele mentions, the risk was really spread out among a lot of investors.
If Besson can put together a sequel and fix the dialoge and casting issues, I'll be there buying my ticket on opening night.
-
10 minutes ago, a2knet said:
Nolan's name has become so huge. And so has RT. Else WB's marketing was sub-par imo and didn't seem proportional to this giant OW.
After watching the previews, I was NOT excited for this movie other than Nolan's name was on it, plus the crazy-high critic reviews.
I thought the trailers were kind of lame, but now that I've seen the movie, I understand why:
there's not much variation through the whole movie, and that leaves you little to show in the trailers that's distinctive. Seriously, a lot of the shots from the trailers were repeated in a similar way over and over again: planes dive-bombing a beach; soldiers on the beach and docks ducking; ships and people sinking in the water; and dogfights. Over and over. That was 90% of the movie right there.
I don't know how the trailers could have been done any better off the top of my head.
-
1
-
-
Firstly, when I left I really wanted to hug a WWII vet, because if you were a guy in one of those situations, jeezus.....
I think what impacted me the most was simply how awful, disgusting and horrible war is. Every politician should be forced to watch movies like these (although I imagine a lot wouldn't care anyways). I really appreciated the realism, although it just occurred to me that this is not a gory film, a la Saving Private Ryan. For all the bombing, shooting, etc, I don't recall seeing any sprays of blood, guts, or anything (outside of the boy's cerebral fluid). Strange, because my initial impression was that it was very reminiscent of that movie, but it handles deaths and such completely differently.
The air battles were very impressive, as were the ship sinkings. Everything was top notch, but outside of hoping people survived, I wasn't really invested in any character. If they died, I was just "That sucks.", and that's it. I wish there had been more exposition from the characters. The other big problem for me is the pacing--there almost wasn't any. It's just full on the gas until the end. I really liked the score initially, but after it while it got on my nerves because it wouldn't let up. If I were to listen to it without viewing the movie, I wouldn't be able to tell you what was going on at that point. I think Inception is a much better film than this one, and I'm reminded of it because the Inception score fit it so well; but in Dunkirk it's almost like listening to someone continuously up-shifting a racing car with an infinite number of gears.
My quick run-down:
- It's going to get all kinds of Oscar noms
- It was relentless
- It was soberingly impacting
- It is over-rated
- It will not have the legs of Interstellar
I agree very much with Jeremy John's review, so I won't say much other than the fact that by the end I couldn't name a single character's name in this movie, and for me that means I wasn't seriously invested in it. It's a very well executed film, absolutely. I'm glad I saw it but I have no interest in seeing it again. The tension ratcheted up to 10 right from the get-go, and really didn't let off the gas for the rest of the movie, and I personally find that tiring.
I'm predicting most viewers will not want to see it more than once, and that's going to hurt it's legs. This is a better executed movie than Interstellar, but it's hard to empathize with characters outside of hoping that they survive. I found the timeline more confusing than it needed to be, particularly going back between night and day moments. At some point I wondered if Nolan was playing with some sort of time loop a la Inception or Interstellar, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't, but it felt that way to me.
I give it a B.
-
3
-
11 hours ago, rukaio101 said:
Pleasantly surprised to see I'm not the only one who felt fairly 'eh' on this movie. Don't get me wrong, I didn't dislike it and it certainly wasn't the self-indulgent snoozefest that was Interstellar, but a lot of Nolan's weaknesses as a director are still rather on display here, possibly even more so than Interstellar or TDKR. And the relative lack of dialogue only serves to highlight them further.
See the thing is, I think Nolan's style was kinda wrong for what this movie was trying to achieve. The movie is attempting to be a constantly tense survival thriller, akin to Gravity or Train to Busan, with constant danger after constant danger piling on and on as the protagonists desperately try to struggle past it all to get home to safety. The problem is that this doesn't really suit Nolan because his style of building tension is waaaaaaay too meandering to work for such a movie. Nolan's directing works best when he's able to milk a tense moment for all that it's worth, like the shuttle docking in Interstellar (one of the few scenes I unambiguously liked in that movie). However, Dunkirk is almost nothing but tense moment after tense moment, all of which Nolan ends up drawing out, until eventually it feels less tense and more just boring. Especially when the gimmicky framing device means some stuff ends up getting repeated. (Did we really need to see the same minesweeper boat get sunk three times from vaguely different angles?). The land portion in particular got the worst of it (since the air portions were relatively short and the boat portions had some actual characters to give a damn about).
Speaking of, considering the all-star cast he had available, Nolan really needed to rely on his actors a lot lot more here, because they felt very underutilized and certainly not to the film's benefit. Don't get me wrong, I get what he was trying to do here, tell a story through mainly through visuals and directing rather than dialogue. And I've seen that work really well in a lot of movies and comics. But it really is not a good fit for Nolan, who's kind of a 'one tone director' (that is to say all of his movies more-or-less have the same consistent tone throughout.) Of course, being a 'one tone director' isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I'd place a large amount of Nolan's success on his ability to (usually) pick his projects sensibly to best play off that tone. However, it also makes him a poor fit for the sort of visual storytelling I think he was trying to achieve here. It's impressive when you can go from a happy tone to a sad tone through visuals only (see the opening of Up). It's less impressive when you go from Nolan's usual tone to... Nolan's usual tone. And without much in the way of character established neither through visuals nor dialogue, we're left wondering why we should really be all that invested. Again, it's the land portion which gets the worst of this. Shame too because when the characters are allowed to actually talk to each other, the movie gets a lot more interesting.
There's a lot of other stuff I could say about this movie, both positive and negative, and again I don't think it's necessarily bad, despite how much I've complained about it. Some of the tense moments do work, most of the actors are great when given a chance to be and I liked a fair amount of the stuff on the boats and in the air. But there are still a lot of glaring problems with it, some of which are down to problems with Nolan as a director. Hopefully he can reign himself in and pick a more suiting project next time.
(Also, I've already prepared myself for this to inevitably top BOF's Best Films of 2017 list.)
Very good points--I felt the same way about the tension: it's like a roller coaster with no valleys...it keeps climbing...and climbing...and climbing...
After a while the music started getting on my nerves--I'm tense already, goddammit! Give me a chance to exhale, man.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I'm super tempted to see this again this weekend, but my god the acting and dialogue are so bad I don't know if I can handle it enough for the good stuff.
-
9 minutes ago, Fielding said:
I think that with Dunkirk we have this year's first truly legit Best Picture nominee.
Wonder Woman is getting nominated.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Just got out of Dunkirk:
- It's going to get all kinds of Oscar noms
- It was relentless
- It was soberingly impacting
- It is over-rated
- It will not have the legs of Interstellar
I agree very much with Jeremy Jahn's review, so I won't say much other than the fact that by the end I couldn't name a single character's name in this movie, and for me that means I wasn't seriously invested in it. It's a very well executed film, absolutely. I'm glad I saw it but I have no interest in seeing it again. The tension ratcheted up to 10 right from the get-go, and really didn't let off the gas for the rest of the movie, and I personally find that tiring.
I'm predicting most viewers will not want to see it more than once, and that's going to hurt it's legs. This is a better executed movie than Interstellar, but it's hard to empathize with characters outside of hoping that they survive. I found the timeline more confusing than it needed to be, particularly going back between night and day moments. At some point I wondered if Nolan was playing with some sort of time loop a la Inception or Interstellar, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't, but it felt that way to me.
I give it a B.
-
3
-
1
-
2 hours ago, grey ghost said:
So Valerian is a "love it or hate it" kind of film.
Cause I've been seeing lots of raves but the ratings are usually middle of the road.
For me it was a "Love it AND hate it" film, which I think a lot of people are feeling too.
-
This was a very frustrating movie to watch, because there are so, so many cool things happening, so many awesome concepts, amazing creature-design--but if this movie was called Valium it would totally make sense because almost every, single actor seems like they were lightly drugged: their performances just lacked energy and were so wooden. Especially Cara and DeHaan, who had absolutely no chemistry. I didn't buy that relationship at all and the script and dialogue for those two made it worse. Man, that marriage/romance story line was handled so clumsily and was just awful. So much of the dialogue seemed like it was written by high schoolers and was so heavy in unnecessary exposition. Even the computer announcements were cringey exposition.
The first part of the movie up until Valerian and Cara come in was really amazing, and well done.
The originality of some of the scenes and ideas were just so damn clever:
- The alternate dimension market, and Valerian being partly in both dimensions and all that
- Remote-controlling the guard in the tower
- The three "pigeons" of information, and how the information is spread between them
- All the alien designs--just so amazing and amazingly rendered; jaw-dropping really
- The ship designs were really good
- The gloopy-cacoon guns
- Lauraline turning out to be a meal for the king--that was brilliant! When he squeezes the lemon-juice on her head I was like "WHAT??!!! She's the entree?!" The expression of the "cook" was dang funny too.
The blue alien race was stunning. Just stunning. The design, graphics and performance plus their paradise world were so deliciously good. I would have loved to have seen those characters as the main characters in the movie, I think.
A couple of secondary actors, especially that obese shopping husband were almost infomercial bad--he literally made me cringe how bad he was. What this movie lacked were actors as good as those in the fifth element. To me there were a lot of parallels in the character types. If the Fifth Element didn't exist and you plucked those actors out of time and put them in this movie, they could have propelled it to A+ amazing: imagine Bruce Willis and Milla Jovovich in place of Dane and Cara--Valerian seems like a Corban-like character. Milla had the talent back then to do Cara's part much better, and they had a better chemistry. Gary Oldman and some of the rest of that cast were just a higher-caliber than what we got here--I can only imagine if they had been in this movie.
I have to think some reviewers are giving this a worse rating than it deserves because you come out of the theater angry in a way: it is obviously made with love, and Luc cares so very much about it, you can tell. But the stupendously amazing stuff is just pulled down by the negatives--you want to give this film both an A+ and a C-. Unfortunately that doesn't "average out" to a B in this case. I'd recommend it to my friends, but I would not be surprised if some just hate it. I have the feeling this movie will probably get crushed at the box office, but it really deserves better.
Thinking about it, I have to reiterate just how beautiful the main alien race/world are, and their little pets are just unbelievably cute. The Rhianna part and character were very cool and looked amazing--her voice acting was pretty meh, but it fit with pretty much every other actor. Bubble was done really well.
The soundtrack (not just the score) was so uneven--some was quite good, but in most parts just seemed weak and poorly done. I couldn't put my finger exactly why, but virtually the whole time I was bothered by it and it felt like it was "TV movie" quality.
There was also something really off about the energy of the whole movie--I'm not sure if it was the pacing, dialogue, script, soundtrack or combination that just made it feel like I was watching a made-for-tv movie that had an astronomical graphics/idea budget and nothing left over for everything else. The audience I was with seemed to be in a weird state between high-interest and boredom.
I watched it in Real3D, but my god this thing is made for IMAX. I bet it broke Luc's heart to lose the IMAX theaters for this project.
This is one strange movie, because on the one hand I really want to see it again for the clever world ideas and graphics, but I just can't stand how disappointing the rest is, and it just makes the movie seem long and dull.
Not everyone felt about it like I did though--one dad walked out and said to his son that it was the best sci-fi-fantasy movie he'd ever seen in his life.
-
1
-
[Ok, I've seen it five times now--that must tell you something about how I feel. My neighbor offered to take me the second time, and I actually enjoyed it more, and that's why I'm changing my initial review]
Loved the aliens and the world building. Awesome graphics, a few funny bits. The plot was pretty good, but the dialogue was god-awful.
Very frustrating movie to watch, because there are so, so many cool things happening, so many awesome concepts, amazing creature-design--but if this movie was called Valium it would totally make sense because almost every, single actor seems like they were lightly drugged because their performances just lacked energy and were so wooden. Especially Cara and DeHaan, who had absolutely no chemistry. I didn't buy that relationship at all and the script and dialogue for those two made it worse. The originality of some of the scenes and ideas were just so damn clever though!
A couple secondary actors, and one in particular were almost infomercial bad.
I have to think some reviewers are giving this a worse rating than it deserves because you come out of the theater angry in a way: it is obviously made with love, and Luc cares so very much about it, you can tell. But the stupendously amazing stuff is just pulled down by the negatives--you want to give this film both an A+ and a B-. Unfortunately that doesn't "average out" to a B in this case. I'd recommend it to my friends, but I would not be surprised if some just hate it.
Thinking about it, I have to reiterate just how beautiful the main alien race/world are, and their little pets are just unbelievably cute. The information trio were very well done, and that was again another fantastic new concept. The Rhianna part and character were very cool and looked amazing--her voice acting was pretty meh, but it fit with pretty much every other actor.
The soundtrack (not just the score) was horrible. Actually, I've grown to like the score. Some places were a bit weak. I couldn't put my finger exactly why, but virtually the whole time I was bothered by it and it felt like it was "TV movie" quality. [after repeated viewing, it seems to matter a lot where you sit in the theater which makes me think maybe there's a mixing issue? Close to the screen seems to sound best.] I really like the musical piece during Rihanna's dance. I like Bowie's song at the beginning because it fits so well. The score during the first Planet Mul part was perfect. I also like the music that played when we first see Valerian and Lauraline. And there is a piece right before the wearing of the jellyfish that works well.There was also something really off about the energy of the whole movie--I'm not sure if it was the pacing, dialogue, script, soundtrack or combination that just made it feel like I was watching a made-for-tv movie that had an astronomical graphics/idea budget and nothing left over for everything else. The audience I was with seemed to be in a weird state of high-interest and boredom. [I've seen this five times now--some audiences REALLY get into it, some don't] [The movie works better for me the second viewing and after, and I think the reason might be that I understand the characters a bit more and am more sympathetic to them, so when I saw them again they didn't grate against me so much. I think a big problem is that out of the box they come off as self-centered jerks, more or less. Cara becomes more likable later on. Some editing could really change the tone of this movie, and in particular remove the negative vibe from the characters: cut out the scene right after they enter the ship from the holo-deck so that we miss the awkward exposition, and pick up where Lauraline is putting the energy-capsule in the ship. This would fundamentally shift their relationship into a better light by allowing us to believe a closer and longer relationship exists between the two, which allows Valerian's proposal to carry a sentimental vibe instead of the playboy vibe. Cut the little bit about Cara's dress getting ripped--it's one second that makes them seem to not care that their team had just gotten wiped out, and also cut their jokey-banter with the Hancock character for the same reason. Remove a lot of the ship's banter from the voice over, because it is often annoying and overdoes the exposition.
I watched it in Real3D, but my god this thing is made for IMAX. I bet it broke Luc's heart to lose the IMAX theaters for this project.
This is one strange movie, because on the one hand I really want to see it again for the clever world ideas and graphics, but I just can't stand how disappointing the rest is, and it just makes the movie seem long and dull.
Not everyone felt about it like I did though--one dad walked out and said to his son that it was the best sci-fi-fantasy movie he'd ever seen in his life.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Cochofles said:
Wow.
I still cannot believe that Wondy not only weathered hurricane Spidey, she took it like a champion and then some.
My girl's a beast.
You just reminded me that I bought this issue--where did I put it? I haven't read it yet!
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, grim22 said:
Theater counts. Despite big competition opening, Wonder Woman only drops 28% of theaters, TF5 and The House drop the most theaters, Cars 3 drops 37%
Boy, The House didn't last long...-1,1080 down to 453.
-
1
-
-
Got my ticket for tonight in 3D!
Just got to make it through work today, and then I'm on my way. Reserved seating, recliners and beer. Most good seats already taken, but I got a decent one. About 50% full according to chart.
-
1
-
). Lazy filmmaking does not deserve high returns. Plain and simple.
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
in Review That Movie! (Spoilers Allowed)
Posted
Thought it was really well done--I was concerned they were going to jack it up (a la Alien Covenant), but it appears it really benefited from Villanueve's reverence to the source material, I think.
I really liked the story, and I felt really bad for Kay when he goes from such a high of believing himself to be very special, to realizing that he is "less-than-human", although I wonder if his sacrifice was realizing that the act itself made him greater and special in another way?
My only nitpicks were the length (could have been 30 minutes shorter), and the music was overbearing. The original score had a lot of deftness and delicateness to it in parts, whereas in 2049 it's like a speaker power test--just way, way too loud and overbearing.
I'm tempted to see it again, but the length is making me wait till it comes out on bluray, as even in the theater I was checking my watch in parts.
Overall, quiet good and I give it a B++.