I would prefer watch a black and white russian movie with 7 hours than watching this piece of garbage again
This felt like required reading for the movie…it seems like Elemental flopped because it was TOO personal and buried in a relatively high concept
All I can say is: I should've watched it sooner. I started to watch it a little bit skeptical but found myself laughing at the jokes and rooting for Emmet throughout his journey. A definitely pleasant surprise.
We used to build a huge city out of Legos, and then rain fire on it with marbles when the parents left...ahhhhhhh the 80's were a better time
Far more fun than the concept really had any right to be, braving new horizons while still remaining loyal to the beating heart of the product and its passionate generations of fans.
Simply enough, this is a perfect encapsulation of the kind of imagination, enthusiasm, adaptation and sheer randomness that runs like lifeblood through the spirit of a happy childhood. It jabs in delightfully unexpected directions. It bends physics without an explanation (nor a need for one). It casually hops from one licensed fantasy to another, mashing Green Lantern with Gandalf, and doesn't even slow down to consider the repercussions.
At the best of times, I felt like I was a kid again myself, lost in nostalgia and the infinite potential locked away within every new block. And while the last act overreaches in an effort to really hammer the morals home, otherwise this is pretty much a direct hit. Crafty, funny writing, a dazzling array of vocal talent and a playful, distinct visual style - this is the kind of family film I can always make room for.
What an incredible story, with so many layers, I've honestly lost count.
Please watch it to the very end, it is worth it, believe me! I thought the movie was super average at best, especially towards the end, but there was a specific scene that the moment it happened, certain things about the story clicked, and it became beyong relatable for me within the span of a single second.
To say I'm pleasantly surprised is a grave understatement.
To conclude: everything is awesome.
It’s so funny to me how this kids movie with lego characters has deeper and more challenging things to say than most movies that are made for adults.
The way that this is constructed as a narrative is truly genius.
It’s essentially a big ode to creativity, but it also takes a firm stance about how corporatism can ruin it by favouring predictability and stability.
Not to mention that it also looks great, the voice acting is top notch and the animation is inventive.
And it manages to be funny for all ages.
It feels a bit too long though, which comes as a result of it being as fast paced as it is and makes it overstay its welcome.
The Lego Movie is ridiculously fun while offering more than just that. Richly layered plot, fantastic animation and a sense of humor that is self aware offer more than what you expect.
The IP weighs it down. It set itself up to be inferior but in a vacuum its a decent movie.
First half is decent, then Michael Bay gets "Space Dementia" and gets carried away in the second half.
So bad, it’s good. And that this acts as a permanent record of embarrassment for this cast is the cherry on top. I almost died of laughter when gary oldmans leg was in the shot. Worth the short watch
The intro was great, but the standup is painfully unfunny.
A potentially great film being held hostage by its PG-13 rating and its messy, all over the places screenwriting.
By PG-13 I don't simply mean its visuals/goriness, but most importantly its dialogues, themes, and storytelling it tries to raise. Let me explain.
First, the dialogues.
The film opens with murder and Batman narrating the city's anxious mood. We get a glimpse of noir in this scene, but it soon falls flat due to a very uninteresting, plain, forgettable choice of words Batman used in his narration. Mind you, this is not a jab at Pattinson - Pattinson delivered it nicely. But there is no emotion in his line of words - there is no adjectives, there is no strong feelings about how he regards the city full of its criminals.
Here's a line from the opening scene. "Two years of night has turned me to a nocturnal animal. I must choose my targets carefully. It's a big city. I can't be everywhere. But they don't know where I am. When that light hits the sky, it's not just a call. It's a warning to them. Fear... is a tool. They think I am hiding in the shadows. Watching. Waiting to strike. I am the shadows." Okay? Cool. But sounds like something from a cartoon. What does that tell us about you, Batman?
Compare this to a similar scene uttered by Rorschach in Watchmen. "The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood. And when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. All those liberals and intellectuals, smooth talkers... Beneath me, this awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children, and the night reeks of fornication and bad consciences." You can say that Rorschach is extremely edgy (he is), but from that line alone we can tell his hatred towards the city, and even more so: his perspective, his philosophy that guides him to conduct his life and do what he does.
Rorschach's choice of words is sometimes verbose, but he is always expletive and at times graphic, making it clear to the audience what kind of person he is. Batman in this film does not. His words are always very safe, very carefully chosen, which strikes as an odd contrast to Pattinson's tortured portrayal of Batman as someone with a seemingly pent up anger. His choice of words is very PG-13 so that the kids can understand what Batman is trying to convey.
And this is not only in the opening scene. Throughout the film, the dialogues are written very plainly forgettable. It almost feels like the characters are having those conversations just to move the plot forward. Like that one encounter between Batman and Catwoman/Selina when she broke into the house to steal the passport or when Selina asked to finish off the "rat". They flow very oddly unnatural, as if those conversations are written to make them "trailer-able" (and the scenes indeed do appear on the trailer).
Almost in all crucial plot points the writers feel the need to have the characters to describe what has happened, or to explictly say what they are feeling - like almost every Gordon's scene in crime scene, or Selina's scene when she's speaking to Batman. It feels like the writers feel that the actors' expression just can't cut it and the audience has to be spoonfed with dialogues; almost like they're writing for kids.
Second, the storytelling.
Despite being a film about vengeance-fueled Batman (I actually like that cool "I'm vengeance" line) we don't get to see him actually being in full "vengeance" mode. Still in the opening we see Batman punching some thugs around. That looks a little bit painful but then the thugs seem to be fit enough to run away and Batman let them be. Then in the middle of the film we see Batman does something similar to mafias. Same, he just knocked them down but there's nothing really overboard with that. Then eventually in the car chase scene with the Penguin, Batman seem to be on "full rage mode", but over... what? He was just talking to Penguin a moment ago. The car chase scene itself is a bit pointless if not only to show off the Batmobile. And Batman did nothing to the Penguin after, just a normal questioning, not even harsher than Bale's Batman did to Heath's Joker in The Dark Knight - not in "'batshit insane' cop" mode as Penguin put it.
Batman's actions look very much apprehensive and controlled. Nothing too outrageous. Again, at odds with Pattinson's portrayal that seem to be full of anger; he's supposed to be really angry but somehow he still does not let his anger take the best of him. The only one time he went a bit overboard that shocked other characters is when he kept punching a villain near the end of the film. But even then it's not because his anger; it's because he injected some kind of drug (I guess some adrenaline shot). A very safe way to drop a parent-friendly message that "drug is bad, it can change you" in a PG-13 film.
And all that supposed anger... we don't get to see why he is angry and where his anger is directed at. Compare this to Arthur Fleck in Joker where it is clear as sky why Arthur would behave the way the does in the film. I mean we know his parents' death troubled him, but it's barely even discussed, not even in brief moments with Alfred (except in one that supposedly "shocking" moment). So... where's your vengeance, Mr. Vengeance? And what the hell are you vengeancing on?
Speaking of "shocking" moment... this is about the supposed Wayne family's involvement in the city's criminal affairs that has been teased early in the film. Its revelation was very anticlimactic: the supposed motive and the way it ended up the way it is, all very childish. If the film wanted the Wayne to be a "bad person", there's a lot of bads that a billionaire can do: tax evasion, blood diamond, funding illegal arms trade, fending off unions, hell, they can even do it the way the Waynes in Joker did it: hints of sexual abuses. But no, it has to be some bloody murder again, and all for a very trivial reason of "publicity". As if the film has to make it clear to the kids: "hey this guy's bad because he killed someone!" Which COULD work if the film puts makes taking someone's life has a very serious consequence. But it just pales to the serial killing The Riddler has done.
Even more anticlimactic considering how Bruce Wayne attempted to find a resolve in this matter only takes less than a 5 minute scene! It all involves only a bit of dialogues which boils down to how Thomas Wayne has a good reason to do so. Bruce somehow is convinced with that and has a change of heart instantly, making him looks very gullible.
And of course the ending is very weak and disappointing. First, Riddler's final show directly contradicts his initial goal to expose and destroy the corrupt elites. What he did instead is making the lives of the poor more difficult, very oxymoron for someone supposed to be as smart as him.
Second, the way Batman just ended up being "vengeance brings nothing and I should save people more than hurting people" does not get enough development to have him to say that in the end. Again - where's your vengeance? And how did you come to such character development if nothing is being developed on? And let's not get to how it's a very safe take against crime and corruption that closely resembles Disney's moralistic pandering in Marvel Cinematic Universe film.
Last, the visuals.
I'm not strictly speaking about gore, though that also factors in the discussion. The film sets this up as a film about hunting down a serial killer. But the film barely shows how cruel The Riddler can be to his victims. Again, back to the opening scene: we get it, Riddler killed the guy, but it does not look painful at all as it looks Riddler just knocked him twice. The sound design is very lacking that it does not seem what The Riddler done was conducted very painfully. Riddler then threw away his murder weapon, but we barely see blood. Yet when Gordon arrived to the crime scene, he described the victim as being struck multiple times with blood all over. What?
Similarly, when Riddler forced another victim to wear a bomb in his neck. The situation got pretty tense, but when the bomb eventually blow off, we just got some very small explosion like a small barrel just exploded, not a human being! I mean I'm not saying we need a gory explosion with head chopped off like in The Boys, but it does not look like what would happen if someone's head got blown off. Similarly when another character got almost blown off by a bomb - there's no burnt scar at all.
Why the hell are they setting up those possibly gory deaths and scars if they're not going to show how severe and painful these are? At least not the result - we don't need to see blood splattered everywhere - just how painful the process is. Sound design and acting of the actors (incl. twitching, for example) would've helped a lot even we don't see the gore, like what James Franco did in The 127 Hours or Hugh Jackman in Logan. In this film there's almost no tense at all resulting from those.
I'm not saying this film is terrible.
The acting, given the limited script they had, is excellent. Pattinson did his best, so did Paul Dano (always likes him as a villain), Zoe Kravitz, and the rest. Cinematography is fantastic; the lighting, angle, everything here is very great that makes a couple of very good trailers - perhaps one could even say that the whole film trades off coherency for making the scenes "trailer-able". The music is iconic, although with an almost decent music directing. And I guess this detective Batman is a fresh breath of air.
But all that does not make the movie good as in the end it's still all over the places and very PG-13.
Especially not with the 3 hours runtime where many scenes feel like a The Walking Dead filler episode.
If you're expecting a Batman film with similar gritty, tone to The Dark Knight trilogy or Joker, this film is not for you. But if you only want a live-action cartoon like pre-Nolan Batmans or The Long Halloween detective-style film, well, I guess you can be satisfied with this one.
I did not like this movie at all but unlike the other weirdos in the comment section, this movie not being good has nothing to do some characters being gay or people of color. Some of you guys need therapy
Stunning visuals wasted on a shockingly uninspired screenplay.
To enjoy this film you have to buy into its weirdness. I did and had a good time with it, despite the bonkers plot. Cage is great here bringing his usual brand of cool and he is clearly having a good time in the role.
Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire’s Spider-Man character is easily the best faithful interpretation of the original comics. Peter Park is supposed to be a total dweeb before his transformation to super hero and Tobey nails this arc. I love Holland and Garfield but they’re far too naturally attractive and charismatic to be believable nerds, at least in the classic sense that Stan Lee was going for.
Beautiful film, but pacing is excruciatingly slow as the very simple story is stretched out too much and the characters are too boring to carry it. Its still required reading for movie lovers, but its not a classic I’m wanting to revisit anytime soon
Michael Moore: "If you were to talk directly to the kids at Columbine or the people in that community, what would you say to them if they were here right now?"
Marilyn Manson: "I wouldn't say a single word to them I would listen to what they have to say, and that's what no one did".
Bowling for Columbine is a documentary about the gun Violence in America is shown as Michael Moore looks for causes and answers from some of America's top opponents of gun control.
Bowling For Columbine is one of best documentary's I've seen in a while. It's both unique and interesting with it's powerful look on gun violence in america and the Columbine shooting back in 1999. All this is shown in different type of tones, you got a brilliant sense of humor, a strong statement and the truth.
Michael Moore to me is 50/50, I know a lot of people don't like him and not a lot of people do like him. Yeah sometimes he can come off as jerk when it comes to interviews and some of the topics that he focus on, but I got to admit he sometimes comes up with some clever ideas to support he's statement and proving he's point to everyone, even when some may not agree. I don't hate the guy as these much more people out there that are even worse (like Katie Hopkins. If you don't know who she is look her up, she's a horrible human being). Moore is trying to get he's worries out about the fact that you can walk up to a counter of a gun shop and say "Can I have a gun please", and they give it to you and that person may shoot others if it falls into the wrong hands, and I can understand him right there even when Moore can take it to another level of forcing it in people faces which makes him look like a jerk to some.
The documentary jumps around to different places and people by hearing their thoughts on the gun problem and the Columbine Massacre. All opinions are mixed and this documentary is like a time capsule of what the people and the whole controversy bullsh*t that was happening back then was like. I always love those kind of documentary's that show you a bit of the past and everybody's thoughts back then, it's just so interesting.
The ending scene with Michael Moore interviewing Charlton Heston was both brilliant and it was hard to look away it was that strong. People may not like that scene has Moore is forcing the message down his throat, but I sawed something else then that, I sawed Moore trying to something right even when it might not be the thing but at least he's trying to prove he's own point.
Now for the problems: My only little problem with the documentary and it's only a ant size problem and that's when they talk about the Columbine High School Massacre and they talk about what may cause Eric and Dylan (The shooters of the massacre) to start shooting by on that day. They brought up that it might be violence on TV, violence in movies and games and they even brought up bowling as one, but they didn't bring up bullying and to those who didn't know, Eric and Dylan was bullied really bad and they were out cast of the school as nobody really cared for them, maybe that's why they did it, for revenge. The documentary didn't bring that up and I was wondering why they didn't put that in.
Overall Bowling for Columbine is a Documentary that's worth recommending and worth seeing.
While some of the weaknesses of Moores shtick are present in this one too, they get in the way a lot less than in his later work, and he stays on topic most of the time.
Wasn’t horrible but wasn’t great either. A little boring and goofy humor that didn’t seem to land. My kids seemed to enjoy and and wife said she thought it was cute. Theater was about empty for the opening showing, maybe 8-10 people in the whole theater
There is nothing really bad about this movie, it’s just kind of there, doesn’t really have the heart or thoughtfulness you’d expect from a Pixar film. I don’t know who this movie is for based on the story. It’s baffling why they didn’t just have Tim Allen voice this role.
If you're a sci-fi or Toy Story nerd, this movie will probably prompt more questions than it answers. The world-building is shallow, the sci-fi concepts are under-baked, and the way this movie fits into the Toy Story universe is vague at best.
If you're not worried about that kind of stuff and/or you are a child, then you'll probably enjoy this as a space-y action movie that expands on a character you know, and adds a new bunch that you don't.
Overall, Lightyear is a fine movie, but it definitely feels more like a (2010s) Disney movie, than a Pixar movie of any sort. It's missing a lot of that heart and charm Pixar is so well-known for, and that's probably the most disappointing part of all.
Like an NFT, this looked good but I wasn't invested in it.
Let's face it, if this was Andy's favorite movie, has questionable taste in movies.
I had low expectations about this movie, I didn’t even want to watch it. So, because it did better than I expected, I liked it.
Oh! And I’m a lesbian now :rainbow:
World 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.
World Premiere Impressions: Ugh, Chloe Zhao was a terrible choice for director. How she paces a movie made this feel excruciatingly long. This movie is also very DC in that its so visually dark, depressing, and takes itself so seriously, something Kevin Feige said would never happen to a Marvel movie. Basically everything you hated about Nomadland is in this... Now a handful of bright spots: some decent performances, especially Kumail and his assistant, they saved this movie from being a disaster. The Eternals overall are fine, but its really difficult to care about them considering their origin and nature. I also hated the design of the deviants. I was hoping to see things that had some semblance of Thanos as he is a Deviant in the comics. It appears they are treating him specifically as a "titan". The mindless animalistic Deviants in this are boring, uninteresting.
I had to shift this up my viewing priorities because he said the LGBTQ community gets triggered too easily and it triggered the LGBTQ community. Get it while it's available!