I’ll go first. Mine is that I can’t stand the Deadpool movies. They are self aware and self referential to an obnoxious degree. It’s like being continually reminded that I am in a movie. I swear the success of that movie has directly lead to every blockbuster having to have a joke every 30 seconds
It LOOKS good, I’ll give you that. The salt planet with the red soil was inspired.
It’s too bad Rian Johnson didn’t get an average 5th grader to proof read the script.
For example:
Leia and Rey have this touching scene where Leia gives her this tracking gem that will let her come back to the fleet no matter where they go.
Then, in the VERY SAME SCENE, the New Order pops out of hyperspace and another character says, out loud, “they tracked us through hyperspace???!? THAT’S IMPOSSIBLE!!!”
First - you literally just explained how yes, it was possible 2 sentences ago.
Second - Tracking devices have been a thing since the first Star Wars.
“TARKIN You’re sure the homing beacon is secure aboard their ship? I’m taking an awful risk, Vader. This had better work.”
No, I stand by the fact that it is a good movie. Just because it has some flaws doesn’t make it universally bad. It’s not even close to the worst movie in the franchise either. Rise of the Skywalker grabs that without hesitation (That outright is a TERRIBLE movie) but the Prequels are all significantly worse in both writing and direction than The Last Jedi. Revenge comes a lot closer and I’d say personally is tied with TLJ on coherence. George Lucas was a moron. He never had a plan but people constantly think he did. Within all three of the OT movies alone he keeps changing everything from characters to lore. The Prequels got worse because he had no one to temper him. That being said, this is about TLJ.
That being said, there’s no issue with the writing there in my opinion. Leia and Rey do have a touching moment, sure, but that was in the Force Awakens not The Last Jedi. Leia also straight up never gives her that bracelet on screen because JJ Abraams is a complete and utter fuckwit. The scene in TLJ is between Finn and Leia where Leia reveals the beacon to Finn. He asks how Rey would find us and Leia and shows him. He says “A cloaked binary beacon.” She says “To light her way home.” You are right in that the scene does continue immediately into the First Order tracking them but how they tracked them was completely different. The beacon tells Rey (and only Rey) where Leia is when tracked. But Snokes vessel outright tracked them through lightspeed itself. They didn’t check the location of her and then jump to her. They actively followed the fleet through hyperspace itself without needing end coordinates. This was shown later in the movie and Leia directly says it by saying "They tracked us through lightspeed.* Something that hasn’t been shown to be possible on screen.
Yeah. They’re in the same scene but that wasn’t an accident. There wasn’t people behind the scenes who were that monumentally braindead. That scene was written that way with the purpose of making people think that the two would be related. Now I will give you that it’s not well written how they use that throughout the rest of the movie but it was put there on purpose. It was to make people doubt Leia (supporting him through the Poe arc, which worked way too well despite the fact that he did not have a singular leg to stand on with his entire argument despite everyone and their mother thinking he was right) and seem like the clear and obvious fix. They completely dropped the ball there, I admit. But overall I didn’t have a problem with that scene specifically. Just how they used that scene. Especially considering that tracking device was never actually used. Seriously. They added in and then never really used it. I don’t know if it ended up on the cutting room floor or what. The intention was clearly to fuck with the audience because Rey doesn’t ever find the Resistance using that bracelet. She meets up with Kylo on Snokes ship and Kylo is the one who gives her the coordinates.
The logical writing progress would have been to have Finn doing his thing (that arc, I grant you, is fundamentally worthless. The whole casino segment is a waste of screentime and only manages to produce a couple of light gags which all focus on BB-8) and Poe advancing on Leias position during his mutiny. He gets to Leia and gets the bracelet, destroys it and they jump to lightspeed. Everyone breathes a sigh of relief and then the First Order shows back up anyway, having tracked them. Holdo has a scene of “I told you so”, probably just by staring at him without saying anything, and then everyone freaks out on what to do. Leia is still out and Holdo is in command so she decides to try and ram them with the last lightspeed jump of the cruiser that they somehow manage to movie magic in the last second from all the X-wings, life support, yadda yadda. Forcing the rest to evacuate to Crait. Movie continues on as normal.
The issue to me isn’t that the writing didn’t make sense. It did. My issue was that they expected the audience to connect too many dots on their own. Ended up with people making different connections than were intended. Too many things were left on the cutting room floor while stuff like that Casino segment was allowed to go on for way too long. Or the kiss between Finn and Rose which was just fucking bizarre. So much so that even Finn in that scene has a look on his face like “What the fuck are you doing?” But with all the issues that TLJ has? I still find it to be a way more coherent story and more interesting one than either of the first two Prequels. And Rise of Skywalker because that movie is idiotic. Like a good script doctor could have fixed it and made it a decent movie but they made so many weird fucking decisions and bizarre writing choices that literally nothing about it makes sense. What pisses me off is people then blame Rian Johnson for the problems of Rise too when half of that was on the studio for not being able to make up their mind on directors/writers (that movie has way too many writers) and the other half falls squarely on the fanbase for reacting as strongly and negatively as they did to the first two sequels.
Best film from the 9. Has a very good story and leaves you wondering what is going on. It was exactly what it needed to be and did it in some new ways with older call backs. Seriously such a good flick.
Okay. Rise of Skywalker is a walking pile of dog shit that has a wildly inconsistent take on everything. However. I have never had a single problem with that line and I am stunned so many people did. That was a rebel talking to other rebels. Why, exactly, would they know anything about how Palpatine returned? Dude was on a planet out in the middle of uncharted space. I literally cannot think of another way for them to tell each other that Palpatine returned without evoking vague imagery like that. They literally do not know what happened.
I can only speak for myself, but it wasn’t so much the line as the hand-waving that came with it. It was more that I found the line relatable, but you’re right about it being appropriate for the scene.
It’s not about the line itself, but more the sentiment behind it. The fact that the Emperor is just suddenly back without any buildup or hinting in the previous two movies is the problem.
First time I have ever seen that sentiment shared when people are talking about the line. Everytime it’s always people whining saying the line doesn’t make sense.
It makes sense that the rebels didn't know about it. It doesn't make sense that the first the audience hears about it is that line. It feels lazy. They could have mentioned, in an offhand way, that the remnants of the Empire is pursuing cloning tech. Not only would this tie the final trilogy to the second trilogy. (First? Episodes 1-3, anyway) But it would also make that line make way more sense.
As as much as the Thrawn trilogy feels like bad fanfic, it does tie the whole clone wars/rebellion thing together, and features someone who comes back as a clone. I think it would have made a way better trilogy than what we got.
“The dead speak! The galaxy has heard a mysterious broadcast, a threat of REVENGE in the sinister voice of the late EMPEROR PALPATINE.
Because it makes zero sense. What possible reason would Palpatine reveal himself. It’s not just against logic, it’s against character. Yes, that particular line was a rebel talking to a rebel, but it shouldn’t have happened at all.
Against character? No. It wasn’t. You can make a lot of fair criticisms but to say that the galaxies biggest narcissist wouldn’t narcissist himself up further and be like GUESS WHAT BITCHES IM BACK? That’s just silly
Darth Sidious spent the first two movies cosplaying a senator. He is the titular Phantom Menace, as in “hidden”. Palplatine would absolutely stay hidden if everyone thought he was dead.
He stayed hidden during that period because it served him. He showed his true colors (literally) in the fight with Windu and dropped all pretense. He didn’t even try anymore in the Senate. Just went full authoritarian and made it all about himself. The next 20 years were no different. Fuck sakes, he was still cosplaying as a senator but openly running around being a Sith and taunting Jedi as seen in the clone wars show.
While he does keep a low profile when needed for his plans, he will kick open the doors and announce his presence when he is confident his plans have gotten to a certain point where he’s sure he cannot be stopped. Saying he would absolutely stay hidden 100% is to ignore a massive amount about the character.
The problem is the movie didn’t show him returning. Instead they’re just like hey Palps is back! With absolutely no lead up or anything. They should have actually shown the message or whatever it was he sent out to get everyone all worked up in the first place. Then that line wouldn’t have sounded so cheap.
I think this is more popular than you think. Most serious SW fans appreciate Rian Johnson’s attempt to take the franchise somewhere it had never been before, storytelling-wise, and the shitty retcon-fest that was ROS seems to have made it better by comparison. I’ve seen plenty of people online say it’s the best aged film out of the sequel films.
Love TFA. Love TLJ. Love parts of ROTS but it’s… rough. Not a movie I’ll choose to rewatch without a really strong reason. Most of it is so disjointed. You can tell there were so many ideas that were cut from the movie and things that were put together in ways that weren’t. Then there’s that fucking dagger…
If you rip out everyone involved in the casino planet, you have a really cool dark and surprising twist on the franchise. The only really interesting things in the whole trilogy happened in The Last Jedi
Remember when they snuck off on some escape ship to go get help for their crew in imminent danger and then decided to dick around on some horse racing casino planet? It’s like they completely forgot why they were there. I thought TLJ had some neat ideas but I don’t know how anyone can overlook that weird loss of urgency in the middle of the film. It’s like your house is on fire and your family is trapped upstairs, so you run over to a neighbor’s house to call the fire department, but you discover that they got some dog fighting thing going on in the backyard so you decide to go deal with that first, then you call the fire department but it turns out the dispatcher was in cahoots with the arsonist who started it in the first place, and then you return home with your tail between your legs and your mom didn’t even know you had left. The whole second act could have been a dream sequence and it wouldn’t have changed a thing.
Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, etc are corney as fuck, but in a fun way. You can throw shit at the wall as long as you do it in an entertaining way.
Horror films are where art flourishes and it has a huge culture of being outside of Hollywood which is just a plus. Also the acting is usually way better
Evil Dead 1&2, Army of Darkness are some of my favorite movies growing up. Just rewatched The Howling and it was good but not as good a American Werewolf in London. Friday the 13th and the Hellrazor series were awesome. Lost boys etc. The Gate. Pet Cemetery, Sometimes They Come Back and Cats Eye I thought were great Stephen King adaptations. I really enjoyed The Cube for its creativity and small set.
Still its the SciFi horrors get me the most. Alien series was awesome and Event Horizon were awesome. Something about having nowhere to escape to I think.
I think you’re right and maybe that’s why I prefer horror movies so much over literally all else. And to your point about being outside of Hollywood, I really appreciate it when I don’t recognize any of the actors. It makes it much more immersive for me. Usually much better camera work and lighting too. And Less CGI - atleast the better ones. I hate it when the whole screen is just really good animation :(
Ouiji was the worst offender of this. The first half of the movie, it’s got some of my favorite subtle directing in it, keeping you on your toes, then BAM. Halfway through they’re showing the creature in full view and it’s some generic black goo. Not scary at all. Would have been way better if the horror never showed its face.
Pixar, DreamWorks, and Illumination are the largest studios that make animated movies these days and they all have such generic character designs now. Very soft, very round, large eyes, large mouths, and overall visually boring.
And they often have the same cliche actions and expressions.
I think it’s weird to put illumination with the other two because while it’s technically a financially successful studio, everything they put out is borderline bootleg quality compared to the other two.
Okay, so not every movie, just some recent popular movies from the same year from two of the largest studios with personnel and historical ties, and I guess illumination is also 3d animation if a different character style.
I understand the gripe, but that’s a very small section of animation.
Can you elaborate on what specifically you didn’t like about LOTR? Peter Jackson has always had a penchant for using cutting-edge CG tech in his films, to the point that some people call them tech demos. I think WETA’s effects stand out as the best parts of the series, but the cinematography, sets, and acting are about as good as it gets in my opinion
For the CG, I was at Paris GDC (game developers conference) where naughy dog(black dog, ??? I don’t remember) explained all the fuckups they did with LOTR, like when Aragorn magic-jumps on to his horse(idea was cool, execution horrible), the dragon flying through everything …
But for me that wasn’t the bad things (I love Star Trek and Dr Who!) but the blandness, “American style”.
What would you have changed from the movies as they were?
I mean, I can’t think of that many deviations from the books off-the-top-of-my-head. Tom Bombadil got cut, but he had a very different flavor from most of the rest of the series. Legolas “shield surfing” was an addition to the movies and was kind of obnoxious, IMHO, but it wasn’t that much of an ongoing thing. There were some changes around Aragorn going through the Paths of the Dead, but nothing there really bugged me.
EDIT: I’m pretty sure that nothing in the books said that the charge of the reinforcements at Helm’s Deep was down that steep of a slope – that’s probably just not practical.
Just the beginning with the party, with dwarves in a sort of dance-cleaning party was absurd IMO.
They’re there to fight or die, only Gandalf (IIRC) managed them to even consider taking a hobbit with them. It should have been grim, but with a take making it possible, not a song and dance performance.
In all it’s too “American” (IMO) ; simplistic plot with easy to understand graphic battles. Then Win!
I also hated the painful play of Frodon and Sam, like some sort of painful master/slave idiocy. Not naming a totally overplayed Gollum.
Well well, I remember the end of the Hobbit was plaisant, and it was a long time ago I saw them so maybe I should rewatch them :-)
You seem to be confusing the two trilogies, I don’t think many LOTR fans will defend The Hobbit movies for anything but the performances. Also with regards to “it’s all too American,” the LOTR films were written and directed by a New Zealander based on a story by a Brit
For American audiences though, that’s where the money is. And who produced it too. Not saying you’re wrong, just to anyone outside the US it has the feel of it.
I didn’t say it was an American movie, just that it is “too American”. Too dumbed down. Too “bad person bad, because ugly”, “good person good looking and will win”, graphic battles etc.
I mean, if there was a single internationally-popular movie or series that you could choose to take issue with as being “too American”, this doesn’t seem like it’d be the one I’d choose.
The Frodo/Sam dynamic comes from Tolkien’s experiences in WW1. A fair example of this dynamic would be the Blackadder/Baldrick dynamic in Blackadder Goes Forth.
Apparently it was a thing where higher class soldiers had a bloke supporting him. Not sure if it was solely based on rank or social status
If you like fantasy movies now is the time. Or anytime really, they are very well done and the vast majority of people who like that kind of thing enjoy the Lord of the Rings movies.
The Shining isn’t good. There are certainly parts that are good, and its an interesting movie, but theres way too much reliance on corny cliches, and cheap shock for the sake of it.
I mean, The Shining came after Halloween, The Exorcist, Texas Chainsaw, Alien, and a lot of the classic horror movies that I do like. The problem isn’t that its a haunted hotel or anything like that, its things like the racist ghosts (this one admittedly probably wasn’t so shocking in the 80s), the nude woman, the overuse of sound effects for things that don’t deserve it (such as Tuesdays), and the murder written backwards thing. It just felt like it was trying way too hard while not achieving anything 90% of the time. Most of the peaks were good - all the famous scenes - but all the rest of the movie drags it back down.
By “corny cliche”, I’m not talking about things like the creepy twins, the isolated hotel, or the typewritter scene. Those were all high-points. I’m talking about things like the overuse of dramatic sound effects, and “murder” written backwards. Stuff that was cliche and corny even at the time.
Mine is that I can’t stand the Deadpool movies. They are self aware and self referential to an obnoxious degree.
I haven’t read the comic books that they’re based on for a long time, but as I recall, they also break the fourth wall. I don’t think that that was introduced specifically for the movie.
Marvel’s Deadpool is known for his over-the-top violence and crude and crass humor, but perhaps his best-known character trait is his penchant for repeatedly breaking the fourth wall. Deadpool talks to the audience in comics, films and videogames - but he didn’t always have this power. In fact, early Deadpool was known for being quite serious and firmly rooted in the fictional realm…so when did the Merc with a Mouth first break the fourth wall - and how did he insult editors everywhere by doing so?
Deadpool and the assassin with superhuman accuracy Bullseye teamed up in previous issues, and in Deadpool #28, the two are reunited after a long absence. “How long has it been!?” Bullseye exclaims. Deadpool simply states “Issue sixteen.” It’s the smallest of fourth-wall breaks (he hadn’t even began speaking to the readers yet), but it shows that Deadpool is doing more than acting out - he’s acting as his own editor. Considering convoluted comics continuity, it’s normal for editors to occasionally place footnotes in certain panels, specifically when characters reference past events. Perhaps Kelly and Woods considered the old method, but wanted to try a new technique. Whatever their reasoning, Deadpool’s fourth wall breaks became a staple of the character.
Looks like Deadpool #28dates to 1997, though, so Deadpool breaking the fourth wall has been around for over a quarter of a century.
The whole point of Deadpool is the self awareness though. You can find it annoying, it’s not for everyone, but it’s true to what the character has become.
The way I had it explained to me by a friend who’s into his comics (I’m not a comic reader) is that his regen abilities + cancer basically damaged his brain and made him insane which is why he “thinks” he’s a comic book/movie hero. Not so much that he’s breaking the 4th wall but that he’s talking at it like a crazy person. He even has multiple personalities that I wish they’d introduced in DP2! It was hinted at when he’s reunited with Vanessa in DP1 when he says “and now the moment I’ve all been waiting for”
Films where I don’t recognize a single actor among the whole crew are almost always better than ones where I’ve seen such and such actor in other movies. Just more immersive. And even if they’re not the best actors I’d much prefer that over whatever the hell Chris Prat or Tom Cruise or Leo D are up to.
It's part of the blockbuster model, which does everything it can to reduce risk. Before the 70s, studios would go bust when an expensive movie flopped. Studios became very risk averse, especially for the expensive stuff. So they make a sequel to a movie that's done well, or a plot similar to that of a movie that's previously done well, based on an intellectual property that sold well in another medium(comic, book, tv-show, ...), in a genre that's previously done well with audiences, starring actors people previously liked, preferably very attractive actors so that audiences like looking at them, pushed by a saturation marketing campaign that gets as many people to watch it on the opening weekend as possible, so that if it sucks they can't tell their friends not to go and see it. It's like McDonalds. It's not the best meal you'll ever eat, but you know what you're getting, so you won't have wasted two hours or your life, or shit yourself after eating it.
Also, video killed the radio star. It's rare to be incredibly beautiful. It's rare to be incredibly talented. It's incredibly rare to be both. If you have to pick one, pick the incredibly beautiful actor, who looks good on posters and in promotional material. Acting isn't that hard. Even a pretty moron can be a passable actor.
This is basically what I told people when I started to watch some of the most amazing international and documentary cinema in the early 00s. Ciudade de Deus, La Cité d’enfants Perdus, Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amelie Poulain, La Vita è Bella, Der Untergang, Lola Rennt, 올드 보이, Mononoke Hime, Rabbit-Proof Fence, Whale Rider. Documentaries by Adam Curtis or Errol Morris. So many people just don’t know.
True to an extent, there are a few famous actors out there who are genuinely good at taking on different roles and immersing you in the character. A great example is Jim Carrey. Obviously I know Ace Ventura and Truman Burbanks are the same person, but it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching them. They might share similar qualities, but they’re clearly different characters.
I knew being faceblind must have some benefit. I often only realise I know an actor when I see their name in the credits. Then again it can take me half a movie to realise there are two men with dark hair, a beard and glasses, so I wouldn’t entirety recommend it.
My experience watching The Departed while almost entirely sober felt like a face blindness simulator. I was baffled when one of the characters that had been killed came back and none of the other characters acknowledged it. Cool movie but so confusing.
I'm somewhat faceblind but great at voices. There's no escape. It also totally ruins a lot of animated shows and movies because a very small number of voice actors get a majority of the work.
en again it can take me half a movie to realise there are two men with dark hair, a beard and glasses
I’m not face blind, but this is the reason I never watched another Mission Impossible movie after the first one: Every single male in that movie looked identical to me, and I couldn’t follow any of the plot line(s?), as I never knew who was doing what to whom. I can only imagine how annoying it must be when that’s the norm.
Regardless how you feel about “woke Hollywood injecting forced diversity into films,” it’s really helped the issue of telling all the good-looking white people apart.
Especially when there are a few examples of amazing actors that you can know and still sometimes struggle to recognize them in their characters. Like Gary Oldman, and … uh… OK well I’m not in a movie headspace, but he’s not the only one!
Tons of lesser names that play great side/background characters and it’s hard to tell, too, so I totally agree others need chances at lead characters.
Those are the actors I’m never tired of because their characters are almost always unique characters.
Nobody actually enjoys watching Citizen Kane. It’s the Wuthering Heights of the movie world: you get to feel pretentious and cultured for having checked it off your bucket list, but the actual experience was a total slog and you’re probably never going to re-watch/read it ever again.
Truth. Mostly its the first movie shown to media students because there is simple concepts and camera tricks there, and its always best to start with the basics.
I'm going to watch it twice now just to be that much better than most. Also I can say things like, "I personally enjoyed my second viewing much more than my first."
This is probably true of Citizen Kane. However, this isn't true of all the arty farty, black and white, older, or foreign stuff.
Some of those aren't just 'good for their time', highly rated because they were/are innovative/interesting, or because people want to be pretentious. They're still fucking good.
Eg. I watched Tokyo Story (1953) when I was in my early twenties. Tops critics lists. Seems like it's just another pretentious movie. Black and white, boring, pondorous, gave up on it. Watched it a few years later when I had a bit more life experience. Hit me like a truck. Openly wept in the movie theatre.
Sometimes if you push through, you will be rewarded.
I completely understand why people who watch Citizen Kane would find it boring. Compared to movies made in this day and age it is very boring. However, this movie was made in 1941 and was groundbreaking in many ways.
The cinematographer Greg Toland was a master who could have worked on any film he wanted. He chose to work with 25 year old first time director Orson Welles. He was tired of the Hollywood movie studio BS and saw that this kid wanted to do something revolutionary. Over 50% of the movie contains special effects most of which had never been done before. If you watch this movie next to any other movie of that era it is amazing how much different the style, camera angles, shots, etc are comparatively.
All of the American movies at the time (and this pretty much holds true even today) had someone who started with nothing and became successful or won against all odds etc. Citizen Kane flips this and takes one of the richest men in the world who starts out as the hero and turns him into the villain who ends up sad, bitter and alone. Again this is much different than other films of this era. I would argue that it is still much different to the vast majority of films today.
Charles Foster Kane is clearly supposed to be William Randolph Hearst who was the media mogul of the time. They made a movie about one of the most powerful people of that era and make him look like a sad douchey a–hole. The writer Mankiiewicz was someone who regularly attended the parties at Hearst Castle and many details in the movie are spot on about Hearst’s real life. Rosebud (Kane’s final word and the plot device for the film) is supposedly Hearst’s nickname for his wife’s private area. Hearst did everything he could to stop this movie from playing in the theaters and was pretty successful in ensuring it lost money at the box office. It wasn’t until about 10 years later when people in Europe started watching and appreciating the film that they decide to re-release it in the US. By this time Hearst was dead and there is no campaign against the movie. This is when it really gets wide recognition as a great film.
So basically a 25 year old upstart took on the most powerful media mogul of the day with a movie that had groundbreaking special effects, style, and story line. I can’t think of any film to this day that can compare to these accomplishments. Many of the worlds greatest film makers were inspired by this movie. It is for all these reasons why it is looked at as one of the best movies ever made and shown to all film students.
This is true for most “important films”. They were the first to do something well enough that the entire industry latched onto it, but their stories and presentation don’t stand well against the test of time. 2001 and Casablanca also fall into this.
That “The Man from Earth (2007)” is the best movies there is. I recommend it to people all the time but no one seems to realise how profoundly interesting it is. And it doesn’t need any scenery or special effects. It’s literally just conversation and dramatic music, tuned to perfectly tell a story that touches on many philosophical questions. I just love that film.
A lot of commenters agreeing and recommending this, so I’ll probably look it up. That said, a movie where it’s just talking with music, seems pretty obvious why most people avoid it.
Way too many good movies to have a single best, but that one is one of my favorites certainly. If I recommend it to someone I avoid any spoiling of the twist because it was so great when it happened. It might be obvious before that point for some, it came from left field for me.
And while I heard the sequel wasn't all that great, I felt that even if a sequel could be good it was totally unneeded. It'd be like trying to make a second Highlander movie, if one could even imagine that.
I agree, and i think everyone i know that has seen it does so too. You should check out the one where they hop into a tent to travel through time(primer 2004) , it has a similar ‘production value’ vs ‘delivering plot’ ratio!
Primer and The Man from Earth are two of my all time favorite films. Production value is nice and all, but an interesting idea explored well wins every time for me.
I’ve seen this movie many times and introduced many to it. It’s one of those movies that sticks with you. I think about it a lot, I find, drawing parallels to it all the time.
I’ve watched the film and it’s nothing more than okay. It’s reduced to the point of being bland. The good script can’t carry everything else that is mediocre at best.
The Mario movie was incredibly mediocre, despite its high production value. I’m talking MCU-levels of truckloads of money spent with shockingly little to show for it.
I can’t speak to its reception with film critics, but the word of mouth opinions I heard were very positive. It was also nominated for a number of Oscars.
I made it through 5 minutes before I stopped and deleted it. Most of the time I just close the player and plan on coming back to it when my mood is different, but with Mario I felt this visceral sensation of "nope."
I don't follow advertising hype for anything because I generally despise advertising of all types, so I had no expectations for this movie. The only information I had about it beforehand was that Chris Pratt would be the voice of Mario instead of the longtime English voice actor.
One day not long ago, it was a trending torrent so I picked it up.
I guess I am very far from the target audience. Immediately the tone, pace of the editing, and the dialogue did not sit right with me. It felt like a worse version of Detective Pikachu, which I thought was average at best.
Funny you mention the MCU because the audience for those movies is practically the same. For everything I’ve read and seen it basically sounds like a animated MCU movie
When I first read this comment, I thought you were talking about Super Mario Bros (1993) and was about to throw hands. Because that movie is actually good, if deeply flawed. Its flaws make for a more entertaining movie altogether.
If you like the YouTube channel “Some More News”, you should check out their “movie”. Yes, they made a movie and yes, it’s out there at times, but the way it ties real world to the 1990s Mario Bros movie is so fragmented that when they finally connect all the dots, it’s a mind blow!
I’m still mad it basically kicked the DnD movie out of theaters. If it wasn’t for all the hype for Mario, I think the DnD movie would have done a lot better, but that’s partly their fault for choosing a terrible time to release a movie - a week or two before the biggest video game franchise of all time releases their movie.
The story feels rushed and incoherent. Characters without character and chemistry. It’s a film in which every aspect of its production was solely determined by the amount of money that was put into it. If Jack Black can’t save a mediocre film…
I am NOT going to even consider watching the new Death Stranding movie when it's out.
Just like Morbius, that movie is a "would rather ask my in-laws parenting advice than ever watch it".
I was like “this Lemmite gets it,” until I got to the Interstellar part.
But I’m glad we have common ground on the shit show that is Inception. It felt incredibly long. I don’t know if it was because I was bored, or if it’s genuinely six hours long.
All the people saying inception was actually sht made me doubt myself and go and binge all of Christopher Nolans movies again in chronological order. Maybe Im just a sucker for his film style but I still liked Inception even after all these years. The prestige was also better than I remembered it was. I also appreciated what Tenet was trying to achieve despite that movie having pretty bad reviews for a Nolan film.
I really liked Tenet’s “half of everything is moving backwards” action scenes, which I guess was the main achievement. They must’ve used a bunch of cool tricks while filming it.
I think it was also challenging to write a story that can work both forwards and backwards. I don’t think they succeeded in doing so but I’m impressed that they tried.
Add comment