Saw The Creator. Thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it outperformed its 7.1 IMDB rating easily.
Perhaps not an 8+ movie, but I was surprised. That said, I am a big sci-fi movie/show guy so it is right in my ballpark, and am sad when that category is always filled with comic book stuff when looking for new things to watch.
Give it a shot if you haven't seen it and enjoy the genre!
I was a bit surprised by the movie too. It was pretty well done, though I think 7 is fair for it. I'm glad when movies that take a risk and be different like that come out.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Ridley Scott's Napoleon produced by Apple belongs on Apple TV.
I know it's hard to condense a prolific 28 years of a legendary individual down to 2.5 hours but this isn't the way to do it. It's a jumbled mess of chaotic cuts and jumps that don't have any structure.
This is a thoroughly 1-dimension depiction of Napoleon. Joaquin Phoenix is horribly miscast and gives one of the worst performances of his career. This is likely due to a bad script and bad direction. His voice is the wrong timbre & cadence, his entire presentation is a comic-book Penguin caricature.
Ridley Scott does nothing to explain the motivations of Napoleon aside from a trite attempt to frame his life within the borders of him being an almost-autistic dork dealing with his obsession with a woman. Then he casually throws in the 3,000,000 Napoleon killed before the closing credits without having explored any of the actual themes of Napoleon and Revolutionary France that led to this with any insight or meaning.
The few battles are poorly explained. The brilliant maneuvers and cunning of Napoleon's Marshalls are all ignored. Strategy is barely perceived. It's just a melee of crowds running into each other interspersed with awkward grunts & stares by Phoenix.
Here are two better versions of The Battle of Waterloo:
Last edited by Hack&Lube; 11-25-2023 at 02:57 PM.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
We all like the guy but as an actor he kinda sucks.
No, he's a really good physical actor, especially in action but really in general, he can convey a lot of nuance with his body, and when given the right (simple) emotions to express he can express them with sincerity few can.
But yeah, he's very limited when it comes to line delivery, to a point of kinda sucking
It's a limited skillset, but the skills he does have are great. He's one of the best examples of an actor that will shine bright if the role is right for him but be almost hilariously bad if it's not.
Ridley Scott's Napoleon produced by Apple belongs on Apple TV.
I know it's hard to condense a prolific 28 years of a legendary individual down to 2.5 hours but this isn't the way to do it. It's a jumbled mess of chaotic cuts and jumps that don't have any structure.
This is a thoroughly 1-dimension depiction of Napoleon. Joaquin Phoenix is horribly miscast and gives one of the worst performances of his career. This is likely due to a bad script and bad direction. His voice is the wrong timbre & cadence, his entire presentation is a comic-book Penguin caricature.
Ridley Scott does nothing to explain the motivations of Napoleon aside from a trite attempt to frame his life within the borders of him being an almost-autistic dork dealing with his obsession with a woman. Then he casually throws in the 3,000,000 Napoleon killed before the closing credits without having explored any of the actual themes of Napoleon and Revolutionary France that led to this with any insight or meaning.
The few battles are poorly explained. The brilliant maneuvers and cunning of Napoleon's Marshalls are all ignored. Strategy is barely perceived. It's just a melee of crowds running into each other interspersed with awkward grunts & stares by Phoenix.
Here are two better versions of The Battle of Waterloo:
Hahaha...holy ####, this is eerie. I saw it today with my wife and we both disliked it immensely. When discussing it, we said literally every single point you said here. It was an absolute chore to get through, which is something I would never thought I would say about a character or period so imminently fascinating. It was a brutal job of a film that had such potential.
I really liked Vanessa Kirby in it, but that was about it. They also missed on the potential in their relationship. They hint early on about the intense sexuality, but then proceed to give us horribly awkward scenes between the two when they're being "romantic" (this was my wife's biggest complaint).
I hate to #### on productions that swing big and miss, but I don't think I am here. I don't think they even really took a swing at anything big.
A surprisingly poor film that will be quickly soon forgotten. I give points to some of the visuals and scale of the scenes, but that's it. 2.5/10. Don't bother with it.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
I was on the fence all day about going to see the Creator. But I live in a s**t small town and had nothing else going on so I went expecting the worst. I've heard rumblings the story was a jumbled mess and the writing was pretty bad. Wow I was pleasantly surprised thought it was a solid 8/10. I don't know what everyone is talking about, the story flowed along. The writing was not cringe inducing drivel. Yes there was a few typical cliches being thrown around. Nowhere near the level of Avatar which was reviewed much better this movie despite being full of all the typical cliches and cringe level 10 writing.
I loved the setting, it was so unique. It really stands on its own as something different from anything else. It does hit you in the feels a couple times, especially if you have kids. And they made this movie with a relatively low budget which after watching it makes it even more of a feat. I swear if you told the audiences that Clint Eastwood directed this and the Americans in the film were not portrayed as they were it would of reviewed much higher.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dynamic For This Useful Post:
I watched Die Hard for the first time, what an awesome Christmas action movie. Love the edge to it compared to most action movies today, this one is going on permanent rotation for my Christmas watchlist.
The Following User Says Thank You to Nadal Fan For This Useful Post:
I watched Die Hard for the first time, what an awesome Christmas action movie. Love the edge to it compared to most action movies today, this one is going on permanent rotation for my Christmas watchlist.
That is correct. Overdone pop culture “it’s a Christmas movie” aside that may be the perfect action film.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
I'm looking for any recommendations for a specific sub-genre of Survivor movies. I don't know if there is an official name, but I'd call it Scavenger Survivor, or maybe McGyver Survivor. It's where the characters use the resources around them to survive a harrowing experience.
Looking through the Survivor genre, I just get a lot of lost at sea, walking in the mountains type of movies, which dont really scratch the itch.
I'd say that a good example is The Martian, also maybe 127 Hours. Any recommendations?
Not a movie but if you can find the series "I shouldn't be Alive" they are all great first hand accounts of horrific survivor situations. Production value isn't bad, though the acting is hit and miss. It's a mix of interviews with the people involved and re-creations.
Overall though pretty good. Might find it on one of the streaming services.
Hahaha...holy ####, this is eerie. I saw it today with my wife and we both disliked it immensely. When discussing it, we said literally every single point you said here. It was an absolute chore to get through, which is something I would never thought I would say about a character or period so imminently fascinating. It was a brutal job of a film that had such potential.
I really liked Vanessa Kirby in it, but that was about it. They also missed on the potential in their relationship. They hint early on about the intense sexuality, but then proceed to give us horribly awkward scenes between the two when they're being "romantic" (this was my wife's biggest complaint).
I hate to #### on productions that swing big and miss, but I don't think I am here. I don't think they even really took a swing at anything big.
A surprisingly poor film that will be quickly soon forgotten. I give points to some of the visuals and scale of the scenes, but that's it. 2.5/10. Don't bother with it.
I watched it last night with my wife.
The cinematography and set pieces were great. Felt grand. The battle sequences were pretty decent.
I admit to having read quite a bit about Napoleon, so the events in the movie did not need to provide the same context that it would need for an average movie-goer, but ill admit it would have been frustrating if you were going in to the movie knowing nothing about Napoleon.
But i agree with all the sentiments. Phoenix was miscast, his portrayal seemed all wrong, the movie did nothing to show Napoleon's actual military genius.
It would have been impossible to fit Napoleon's life into a movie. This is the problem with biopics though. For true greats, you need to either focus on a point in his life, or you make a 20-part limited series.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cappy For This Useful Post:
What's the deal with the new Godzilla Minus One movie?
I see it's a Japanese director, are his other movies good? I'm just skimming the Wikipedia and trying to figure out how it fits in with all of the original Japanese Godzilla movies. I assume this ignores the recent American films?
