⊃∪∩⪽ Part II | March 1, 2024 | Reactions drop February 15, reviews February 21 | Zendaya for our next C-3P0

[Warmaster506]

Oppenheimer is lucky this is in 2024. 

[keysersoze123]

18 minutes ago, Warmaster506 said:

Oppenheimer is lucky this is in 2024. 

Nah. Oppenheimer is the perfect storm. Huge BO from the most high profile director active (I will leave Cameron out of it) and the topic is so relevant today with Wars/Russia and also AI situation being parallel to Manhattan project. Even if Dune pulls in a Barbie, I cannot see it overtake Oppenheimer. 

 

That said I hope this is the movie to beat next year. Fingers crossed for sure. 

[Dragoncaine]

4 hours ago, lorddemaxus said:

Probably not likely they award it the same awards the last one did. Except for VFX. Pretty much what happened to The Two Towers and Avatar 2.

Could be, but Dune Part Two is substantially more acclaimed than its predecessor (97% RT vs. 83% RT, 80 MC vs. 74 MC) which Two Towers and Avatar 2 cannot claim.

4 hours ago, Cmasterclay said:

I liked the first Dune but didn't quite love it because of emotional inertness. Anyone who had the same feeling on Dune 1 see this last night? Seems like alot of big time Dune Heads giving reviews here, which is totally fine to be, but they also told me I should be cuming my pants over Part One too.

Yeah I think Dune 1 is a 7.5 or so, this is a 9 for me. Much more alive both visually with its vibrant colors, its sense of community, and in the narrative's sense of drive, purpose, and realization of its characters' arcs this time around.

[joselowe]

3 hours ago, MrPink said:

 

I think there is more emotional payoff here but I wouldn't say it's transformative. The important thing is that most characters are not being set up solely for a future arc, there is a genuine arc that our leads are going through with a promised payoff, and with it, emotional moments that result of that. Chani/Zendaya especially drive this. I still think there is a sterile-ness to it overall and I don't know, lack of a fully human touch that prevents it from being this 'all time great' that some declared, but it is a fair improvement.

 

I think this is why I don't consider it leagues over the first, fundamentally I think the two movies could stand to be a little weirder and a little less overly serious. Don't get me wrong, there is more humor in this film but the seriousness of its characters and tone feels oppressive in both films still. I guess it was never reasonable to expect they'd change much gears, but it's also why I can't consider one hugely better than the other.

Yass Friday cannot get here fast enough!

[mldardy]

37 minutes ago, Warmaster506 said:

Oppenheimer is lucky this is in 2024. 

LOL ok🙄

Edited February 26 by mldardy

[Daxtreme]

7 tickets purchased for Sunday. Hype!

 

Rewatched part 1, this is gonna be great. WoM is also great (a friend of mine has seen it already in early previews)

 

can't wait!

[vale9001]

1 hour ago, keysersoze123 said:

Nah. Oppenheimer is the perfect storm. Huge BO from the most high profile director active (I will leave Cameron out of it) and the topic is so relevant today with Wars/Russia and also AI situation being parallel to Manhattan project. Even if Dune pulls in a Barbie, I cannot see it overtake Oppenheimer. 

 

That said I hope this is the movie to beat next year. Fingers crossed for sure. 

 

 

Well this saga talks really a lot about the middle east situation. Especially this second One is called to have a real political subtext. A review here in Italy from a very reletable outlet even called It  "One of the best post 9/11 movies".

Edited February 26 by vale9001

[titanic2187]

 

Totally agree with him, I hate critics/cinephile that often bash against a well crafted and produced film due to their weaknesses in story, or known as style over substances, ignoring that movie is a audio-visual medium. We say “I’ve watched or seen a movie” for a reason. Eyes should be foremost, the sensory organ that a movie should please, whether through spectacle like avatar or mad max, or through unique aesthetic style like poor things or Roma.

 

[SpiderByte]

2 hours ago, vale9001 said:

 

 

Well this saga talks really a lot about the middle east situation. Especially this second One is called to have a real political subtext. A review here in Italy from a very reletable outlet even called It  "One of the best post 9/11 movies".

Yeah that....may not mean what you think it does.

[WorkingonaName]

The best post 9/11 movie is objectively Zoolander. 

[kayumanggi]

Tomorrow is the day for me! Too bad the IMAX or lieMAX screens are 2-3 hours away from where I am. 🙄

[vale9001]

5 hours ago, SpiderByte said:

Yeah that....may not mean what you think it does.

I don't know, what i mean It's certainly from the fanatism of religions, colonialism, holy wars and environment issues this saga is definitely very very linked to current events and current world issues exactly like Oppenheimer.

Then yeah of course that's 100% "explicit" cause It's about real events, this is more symbolic. 

[nguyenkhoi282]

4 more fresh reviews and it will be back to 98% on RT

[WorkingonaName]

The cam for this is up before the movie is out LMAO.

Edited February 27 by WorkingonaName

[eddyxx]

10 hours ago, titanic2187 said:

 

Totally agree with him, I hate critics/cinephile that often bash against a well crafted and produced film due to their weaknesses in story, or known as style over substances, ignoring that movie is a audio-visual medium. We say “I’ve watched or seen a movie” for a reason. Eyes should be foremost, the sensory organ that a movie should please, whether through spectacle like avatar or mad max, or through unique aesthetic style like poor things or Roma.

 

I guess neither of you like Tarantino movies then.

[kayumanggi]

 

[kayumanggi]

 

[TomThomas]

11 hours ago, titanic2187 said:

 

Totally agree with him, I hate critics/cinephile that often bash against a well crafted and produced film due to their weaknesses in story, or known as style over substances, ignoring that movie is a audio-visual medium. We say “I’ve watched or seen a movie” for a reason. Eyes should be foremost, the sensory organ that a movie should please, whether through spectacle like avatar or mad max, or through unique aesthetic style like poor things or Roma.

 

He's objectively wrong, why we even have this conversation in the first place. Words add meaning to images, even silent movies had tables with dialogues. if he actually made a 2+ hour movie without a single word, it would've been the biggest flop of his career, it doesn't work, it would look incredibly pretentious and gimmicky, gimmick driven movies very rarely hold up. John Woo just made a movie without dialogue and it got some of the worst reviews of his career. Images, sounds and words all matter in equal meassure.

Edited February 27 by TomThomas

[Valonqar]

Based. They know Butler is geenrating buzz as the villain to beat so they are hyping that. Also, I really like this expansion of Irulan character cause it sets up her arc in the next movie.

[Merkel]

Yeah, I really don't get what Villeneuve is getting at. Even a movie that probably had a bit of influence on this, like Lawrence of Arabia,  while visually absolutely spectacular,  still had, in my view, one of the greatest scripts ever written