|
Post by the light works on Jul 30, 2017 3:47:37 GMT
saw this tonight. quite a complicated show, Valrian is a special agent who begins the movie tasked to recover a stolen item. complications, of course, ensue.
I found the imagination and skills of the visual effects department to be quite commendable. the storyline, was a bit chaotic, but attentive people could follow it. there was enough exposition to set the scene without feeling you were starting the movie with a history lesson. overall, I enjoyed watching it. there are some visuals that benefit from a larger screen, but the movie has the feel of a TV serial, which should make it carry well on a smaller screen, as well.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jul 30, 2017 13:41:41 GMT
Good to know you enjoyed it. I have tickets booked to see it when it comes to the local independent theatre in September.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 30, 2017 14:09:32 GMT
Good to know you enjoyed it. I have tickets booked to see it when it comes to the local independent theatre in September. I saw a lot that critics could pick at, and it may not become a blockbuster, but the imagination of the authors was quite nice. a bit of trivia, the movie is based on a 50 year old comics series.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jul 30, 2017 15:36:00 GMT
Good to know you enjoyed it. I have tickets booked to see it when it comes to the local independent theatre in September. I saw a lot that critics could pick at, and it may not become a blockbuster, but the imagination of the authors was quite nice. a bit of trivia, the movie is based on a 50 year old comics series. Yes the idea of such a lot of background appeals to me as well. Plus the Directior was behind "The Fifth Element" and knows how to create a good looking world.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 30, 2017 16:22:21 GMT
I saw a lot that critics could pick at, and it may not become a blockbuster, but the imagination of the authors was quite nice. a bit of trivia, the movie is based on a 50 year old comics series. Yes the idea of such a lot of background appeals to me as well. Plus the Directior was behind "The Fifth Element" and knows how to create a good looking world. I kind of look at it like I looked at John Carter. there was a whole lot of world building that happened to create that story. unfortunately, Disney kind of dropped the ball in the promotion of John Carter. another trivia bit - some of the scenery in the fifth element was based on the Valerian comics. - which is kind of an indication that the director likes Valerian, which I think often makes for a better production.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jul 30, 2017 21:42:53 GMT
Good to know you enjoyed it. I have tickets booked to see it when it comes to the local independent theatre in September. I saw a lot that critics could pick at, and it may not become a blockbuster, but the imagination of the authors was quite nice. a bit of trivia, the movie is based on a 50 year old comics series. The production Budget for the film was something in the region of $200 million. Thus far it has managed to pull in just under $35 in 10 days. That, by the by, is WORLDWIDE not just in the US. To put this in context the Emoji movie has made $25 million in its first weekend in the US Domestic Box Office. So its not a Blockbuster, its a Job-Buster as more than a few people are going to end up losing their jobs over Valerian.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 30, 2017 21:51:44 GMT
I saw a lot that critics could pick at, and it may not become a blockbuster, but the imagination of the authors was quite nice. a bit of trivia, the movie is based on a 50 year old comics series. The production Budget for the film was something in the region of $200 million. Thus far it has managed to pull in just under $35 in 10 days. That, by the by, is WORLDWIDE not just in the US. To put this in context the Emoji movie has made $25 million in its first weekend in the US Domestic Box Office. So its not a Blockbuster, its a Job-Buster as more than a few people are going to end up losing their jobs over Valerian. that is the sucky thing about liking imaginative Sci-Fi. It isn't fashionable with the critics, so it comes out at a decided disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 31, 2017 7:59:17 GMT
The production Budget for the film was something in the region of $200 million. Thus far it has managed to pull in just under $35 in 10 days. That, by the by, is WORLDWIDE not just in the US. To put this in context the Emoji movie has made $25 million in its first weekend in the US Domestic Box Office. So its not a Blockbuster, its a Job-Buster as more than a few people are going to end up losing their jobs over Valerian. that is the sucky thing about liking imaginative Sci-Fi. It isn't fashionable with the critics, so it comes out at a decided disadvantage. This I never understand... I am and always will be sci-fi-sci-fantasy-pure-fantasy[Hobbit and lord of the rings and Diskworld] fan, yet, films of that genre are "Open season" for all the critics to go nuts on about how awful they are. I dont get why. Some films are pretty good in their own right...
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jul 31, 2017 11:06:42 GMT
The production Budget for the film was something in the region of $200 million. Thus far it has managed to pull in just under $35 in 10 days. That, by the by, is WORLDWIDE not just in the US. To put this in context the Emoji movie has made $25 million in its first weekend in the US Domestic Box Office. So its not a Blockbuster, its a Job-Buster as more than a few people are going to end up losing their jobs over Valerian. that is the sucky thing about liking imaginative Sci-Fi. It isn't fashionable with the critics, so it comes out at a decided disadvantage. It's why it's good to have friends those opinion you can trust give you recommendations, rather than listen just to critics.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 31, 2017 13:24:08 GMT
It's why it's good to have friends those opinion you can trust give you recommendations, rather than listen just to critics. I don't go out to see many movies, but when I do, it's always because of a recommendation from a friend. I pay no attention to the critics. And that's not just for movies, I have even less opinion of car critics.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 31, 2017 13:31:17 GMT
that is the sucky thing about liking imaginative Sci-Fi. It isn't fashionable with the critics, so it comes out at a decided disadvantage. This I never understand... I am and always will be sci-fi-sci-fantasy-pure-fantasy[Hobbit and lord of the rings and Diskworld] fan, yet, films of that genre are "Open season" for all the critics to go nuts on about how awful they are. I dont get why. Some films are pretty good in their own right... because critics have their little checklist of what is needed to make a film good, and none of the things that make sci-fi good are on it. of course, when I'm feeling less charitable, I say that none of the things that make a movie good are on it. imaginative? not important. entertaining? don't bother. cohesive? unnecessary. female lead who was raped by her daddy's second cousin twice removed? critically important.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jul 31, 2017 16:46:47 GMT
that is the sucky thing about liking imaginative Sci-Fi. It isn't fashionable with the critics, so it comes out at a decided disadvantage. This I never understand... I am and always will be sci-fi-sci-fantasy-pure-fantasy[Hobbit and lord of the rings and Diskworld] fan, yet, films of that genre are "Open season" for all the critics to go nuts on about how awful they are. I dont get why. Some films are pretty good in their own right... A lot of your "film school graduate" - type reviewers go into their jobs with a lot of preconceived notions of what is or isn't "art", and many reviewers across the spectrum can't maintain personal neutrality when it comes to films that support or challenge their sacred cows. Well, "escapist" fare generally rates poorly among both groups unless it's pushing the message they want to see pushed. Last year's "Ghostbusters" movie? People were falling all over themselves to kiss Paul Feig's pseudo-papal ring for delivering this "masterpiece" of feminism, never mind the fact that the film itself was such utter garbage that Dan Aykroyd himself was actively calling Feig out on his nonsense. "Ender's Game"? Orson Scott Card was "evil", and so anyone who gave the film a positive rating was to be immediately excommunicated from the church of political correctness. I was gay-bashed for giving the film a near-perfect score. Et cetra. Occasionally you have a film like "American Sniper" that forces its way into the forefront, but beyond that? As "South Park" noted, if a movie isn't "gay cowboys eating pudding" no one cares. I mean, just look at the Academy Awards. The whole bleeping thing is pretty well rigged. The "best animated picture" category was created specifically so that animation would be confined to a single ghetto, of which Disney is king. The "best picture" category is almost always populated by limited-release art house films the general public never came to see, with a few token mass releases so that everyone can pretend it's fair. Most of the awards for the behind-the-scenes people aren't even shown on television. Et cetra. For example, consider this past February's awards: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/89th_Academy_AwardsThe only films that actually screened at the local theater were "Arrival", "Fences", "Hidden Figures", and "Hacksaw Ridge". Of those, "Hidden Figures" didn't even show until this January, when it - like "Fences" at the end of last year - was slotted in as filler since there weren't any scheduled wide releases. Only "Arrival" and "Hacksaw Ridge" were given regular releases. Yeah. So as far as I was concerned, awards night was just another Sunday. So yeah...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 1, 2017 0:53:16 GMT
I pretty much ignore the awards shows. it's an insider game that somehow became outsider entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 1, 2017 13:51:24 GMT
Ironhold, you are not just a film critic, you are OUR film critic, so, ignore the jibes against your trade, we intend to help you beat the cr@p out of the "Usual" reviewer by telling it like it is, if the film is good, its good, if its utter garbage, time to be honest, and if it needs saying, SAY IT, because we trust you to do so.
I am at a point of disregarding any other single film critic on the planet in favour of reviews by Ironhold.
I will sweep over the "general consensus" of the lot of them, but word for word reviews, I do not trust, like, approve, agree, or even care aboout, because, as you say Ironhold, they tend to pander to "Fashion", and "Kiss the donkey", because thats whats expected of them. They are more like reading adverts than reading what they are supposed to be, and to be honest, If I ruled the world...
Should we start with a whole thread of "If I ruled the world" type laws we WANT to see made to prohibit bad practises like this?..
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 1, 2017 13:58:10 GMT
Ironhold, you are not just a film critic, you are OUR film critic, so, ignore the jibes against your trade, we intend to help you beat the cr@p out of the "Usual" reviewer by telling it like it is, if the film is good, its good, if its utter garbage, time to be honest, and if it needs saying, SAY IT, because we trust you to do so. I am at a point of disregarding any other single film critic on the planet in favour of reviews by Ironhold. I will sweep over the "general consensus" of the lot of them, but word for word reviews, I do not trust, like, approve, agree, or even care aboout, because, as you say Ironhold, they tend to pander to "Fashion", and "Kiss the donkey", because thats whats expected of them. They are more like reading adverts than reading what they are supposed to be, and to be honest, If I ruled the world... Should we start with a whole thread of "If I ruled the world" type laws we WANT to see made to prohibit bad practises like this?.. somewhere back in the archives, there IS an "if I ruled the world" type thread.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 1, 2017 15:47:32 GMT
Thanks.
But yeah - a lot of reviewers pretty much do things for the wrong reasons. It's less about the art and more about pushing an agenda.
For example, one critic I can't stand is Katie Walsh from Tribune News Service. She's about as feminist as Anita Sarkeesian, and so unless a film is truly, absolutely irredeemable so long as there's something "feminist" to latch on to she'll give it high marks. In contrast, no matter how good a film is, if it's not adequately "feminist" she'll tank it.
I can't seem to find it, but at one point I had a link to the review she did for "Deadpool". She went off on how "sexist" she thought the film was, then at the end said that she was hoping the character Negasonic Teenage Warhead would get her own solo movie... never mind the fact that *actual* Marvel fans tend to agree that the character only works in collaborative events.
That's the kind of nonsense out there.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 1, 2017 16:26:47 GMT
Another thing to consider is that movie reviewers get to see a hell of a lot of films, far more than the average movie goer does.
Because of this they can;
End up seeing the same movie tropes/styles to the point that it gets very annoying and can make it difficult to look past those things.
Get burnt out.
Grow a resistance to aspects of a film that will probably 'wow' the average movie goer.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 2, 2017 0:07:14 GMT
Another thing to consider is that movie reviewers get to see a hell of a lot of films, far more than the average movie goer does. Because of this they can; End up seeing the same movie tropes/styles to the point that it gets very annoying and can make it difficult to look past those things. Get burnt out. Grow a resistance to aspects of a film that will probably 'wow' the average movie goer. I'm dealing with all of that myself. I handle it, in part, by bringing it up in my reviews to let people know how I feel about certain things and genres. I also try to avoid genres I'm burned out on whenever possible.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 2, 2017 8:19:00 GMT
Thanks. But yeah - a lot of reviewers pretty much do things for the wrong reasons. It's less about the art and more about pushing an agenda. For example, one critic I can't stand is Katie Walsh from Tribune News Service. She's about as feminist as Anita Sarkeesian, and so unless a film is truly, absolutely irredeemable so long as there's something "feminist" to latch on to she'll give it high marks. In contrast, no matter how good a film is, if it's not adequately "feminist" she'll tank it. I can't seem to find it, but at one point I had a link to the review she did for "Deadpool". She went off on how "sexist" she thought the film was, then at the end said that she was hoping the character Negasonic Teenage Warhead would get her own solo movie... never mind the fact that *actual* Marvel fans tend to agree that the character only works in collaborative events. That's the kind of nonsense out there. Another thing to consider is that movie reviewers get to see a hell of a lot of films, far more than the average movie goer does. Because of this they can; End up seeing the same movie tropes/styles to the point that it gets very annoying and can make it difficult to look past those things. Get burnt out. Grow a resistance to aspects of a film that will probably 'wow' the average movie goer. I'm dealing with all of that myself. I handle it, in part, by bringing it up in my reviews to let people know how I feel about certain things and genres. I also try to avoid genres I'm burned out on whenever possible. If they get that burned out, time to hang up the jacket and sit with a pipe and slippers?.. and the men can sit with a can of beer?.. The job is to review the film. Its not to add your own personality to that review, its to review the film, for the average film goer, that hasnt been to see all the films maybe that you have. You have to hang on to that "Wow" factor for as long as possible. If youyr name isnt ironhold, may I suggest a few things.. A Little sideways thought.. I was unfortunate enough to have to call out an emergency plumber one time, he is now a good friend. I apologised for the state of the house, we had no chance at all to tidy up, and as we had young kids at that time, the place was untidy as it can get with three under school age kids causing havoc... He said to me, If you have been in as many houses as I have, you tend to get blinkered?.. I dont see mess, I just see the job in hand?.. Anyway, I have kids same age as yours, and this place is TIDY in comparison to ours, and think again about how many places I have been to, some of them you wipe your feet on the way out?. So, applying this thought process to films. If you have to wipe your feet on the way out, maybe that was a bloody awful film, and you should say so. "The job in hand" does not include the fact someone put a dent in your car door today because you parked to close to that fire breathing dragon that owns it, nor does the film reflect you spilt coffee down your best shirt, or the fact you get another 1,000 "h@te mail" relies in twitverse because you slated off Ghostbusters the remake. The job in hand is the film you just saw. See it like the first film you see that year. Then when you get to the end, compare it to the good films you see. Would you wish to see that film again if it was against a film you know your going to hate right from the start if you had the choice?. And REVIEW the damn film, thats the job, the plumber doesnt leave you with a leaking pipe, so you must review the film and leave politics out. If after your review you wish to leave a paragraph about other certain happenings in the film world, and your Editor is happy for you to do so, then you may... But remember, the headline news is NOT your job?.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 2, 2017 8:28:16 GMT
My usual format:
1 - 2 paragraph opening explaining anything I feel needs to be explained about the film, including anything that might affect my review. IE, "Believe it or not kids, I saw the original television series back in the day."
Brief summation of the film up to a cliffhanger, which I fell is just enough for folks to know what the film's about.
Reason why I do or don't like it. IE: "I find it hard to accept this film as being a 'progressive' symbol when the original television series was more progressive than this here film. I kid you not."
edit - The above examples are based on my review of the "Jem & The Holograms" movie. The live-action movie was pretty much the franchise in name only, and as part of it much of what made the original show stand out was paved over. For example, the original cartoon was one of the first kids' shows in the United States to depict an interracial relationship,* that of Rio Pacheco (Hispanic) and Jerrica Benton (white). The film, however, redid Rio as the son of the main villain in order to set up a Romeo / Juliet romance, making him white in the process. Oops.
*The "Macross" aspect of "Robotech" is often credited as the first, with fighter pilot Roy Fokker (American of German descent) and communications officer Claudia Grant (black).
|
|