|
|
Post by hi224 on Jan 9, 2019 19:00:42 GMT
seems as if Bale is only positive aspect as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 10, 2019 8:52:46 GMT
seems as if Bale is only positive aspect as well. I actually enjoyed the overall film very much—I considered it "good/very good" and I plan to view it once or twice more. Vice is clever and funny yet also poignant at times, and it is very engrossing, especially as the film progresses. I would take it over McKay's The Big Short from three years ago, which I viewed three times in the theater and deemed "good." Vice is smoother than The Big Short, and the performances are better. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Feb 1, 2019 11:51:05 GMT
Just like THE BIG SHORT, VICE suffers from constant narration and montages with clips from the year the scene takes place in (except for a certain commercial that first aired in 1999, not 2001) that don't really give context to the situation (by the time they're shown, the audience already knows what year it is). There are also texts that indicate a character's name and job, even though that will be made clear a while later or even immediately (sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly) through dialogue. The difference with that movie is that the story and characters are now more compelling and that the camera work and editing are much smoother. There are even a couple of long still shots. I'm not sure why one of the longest shots (the ones we're supposed to pay more attention to) shows DICK CHENEY gargling, though. While the performances in that movie weren't really bad, none of them stood out to me. Here, Christian Bale's performance is great. Amy Adams', Steve Carell's, Sam Rockwell's, Alison Pill's, Lily Rabe's and Tyler Perry's are good too. As a non-American who was a pre-teen when 9/11 happened, my knowledge of the vice president before entering the theatre was limited to "That guy who accidentally shot someone during a hunting trip." I admit I had a morbid curiosity on how the recreation would be. It turns out that it, its aftermath and its repercussions are shown in less than 2 minutes. In retrospective, that was a good decision. It's not that important compared to other events in this man's life, and focusing too much on it could've come off as gossipy. What wasn't a good decision was to throw the viewer in the middle of the situation without any build up (thereby confusing those who didn't know about this accident). In fact, it's shown after a scene where CHENEY is having a political problem and before a scene where he's still going through said problem, making the accident feel like an awkward detour. Other moments, like his daughter LIZ making a decision that affects his other daughter MARY, aren't fully explored. A biopic doesn't have to include everything that happened in a person's life if there isn't enough room for story and character development. There's a gag involving a restaurant that's hard to laugh at, because A) it feels out of place as the only instance of surreal humour in the entire movie, and B) the line that exposes the true nature of the setting is uttered by a famous actor the very moment he appears on screen for the 1st time, so we can't help but to focus on the cameo rather than the comedic revelation. We do get a powerful HOUSE OF CARDS-y moment at the end. The funniest moments are the opening text, the fake ending about halfway through the movie and the mid-credits scene. Without going into too much detail, there's a joke that implies that the FAST AND FURIOUS franchise is for dumb people. You know, half of those movies have been well-received, not just by audiences but critics too. I'm shocked that Adam McKay would write such a joke considering the first couple of movies he made. I'm not dismissing his work and I'm not defending F&F as a fan, which I'm not. I'm just saying that Adam shouldn't have this attitude when he of all people knows that even lowbrow entertainment can have merit depending on each specific example. I know it's just a joke, but the satire applied on most characters in every other scene is also a series of jokes. The intention behind the mockery is what counts. Is it all in good fun or is there commentary that's trying to reach to us? 6/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Feb 1, 2019 13:38:08 GMT
i gave it a 6 as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Feb 6, 2019 9:11:33 GMT
Just like THE BIG SHORT, VICE suffers from constant narration and montages with clips from the year the scene takes place in (except for a certain commercial that first aired in 1999, not 2001) that don't really give context to the situation (by the time they're shown, the audience already knows what year it is). There are also texts that indicate a character's name and job, even though that will be made clear a while later or even immediately (sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly) through dialogue. The difference with that movie is that the story and characters are now more compelling and that the camera work and editing are much smoother. There are even a couple of long still shots. I'm not sure why one of the longest shots (the ones we're supposed to pay more attention to) shows DICK CHENEY gargling, though. While the performances in that movie weren't really bad, none of them stood out to me. Here, Christian Bale's performance is great. Amy Adams', Steve Carell's, Sam Rockwell's, Alison Pill's, Lily Rabe's and Tyler Perry's are good too. As a non-American who was a pre-teen when 9/11 happened, my knowledge of the vice president before entering the theatre was limited to "That guy who accidentally shot someone during a hunting trip." I admit I had a morbid curiosity on how the recreation would be. It turns out that it, its aftermath and its repercussions are shown in less than 2 minutes. In retrospective, that was a good decision. It's not that important compared to other events in this man's life, and focusing too much on it could've come off as gossipy. What wasn't a good decision was to throw the viewer in the middle of the situation without any build up (thereby confusing those who didn't know about this accident). In fact, it's shown after a scene where CHENEY is having a political problem and before a scene where he's still going through said problem, making the accident feel like an awkward detour. Other moments, like his daughter LIZ making a decision that affects his other daughter MARY, aren't fully explored. A biopic doesn't have to include everything that happened in a person's life if there isn't enough room for story and character development. There's a gag involving a restaurant that's hard to laugh at, because A) it feels out of place as the only instance of surreal humour in the entire movie, and B) the line that exposes the true nature of the setting is uttered by a famous actor the very moment he appears on screen for the 1st time, so we can't help but to focus on the cameo rather than the comedic revelation. We do get a powerful HOUSE OF CARDS-y moment at the end. The funniest moments are the opening text, the fake ending about halfway through the movie and the mid-credits scene. Without going into too much detail, there's a joke that implies that the FAST AND FURIOUS franchise is for dumb people. You know, half of those movies have been well-received, not just by audiences but critics too. I'm shocked that Adam McKay would write such a joke considering the first couple of movies he made. I'm not dismissing his work and I'm not defending F&F as a fan, which I'm not. I'm just saying that Adam shouldn't have this attitude when he of all people knows that even lowbrow entertainment can have merit depending on each specific example. I know it's just a joke, but the satire applied on most characters in every other scene is also a series of jokes. The intention behind the mockery is what counts. Is it all in good fun or is there commentary that's trying to reach to us?
6/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.The film is certainly offering commentary—namely a (satirical) meditation on the nature of power, its attractiveness, and what it does to the soul. The hunting vignette clearly expressed that point to me, as it suggested Cheney's outrageous nature, lack of conscience, and ability to manipulate events to his benefit. The victim of the shooting accident ends up apologizing to his friend , the perpetrator, thus obliquely suggesting the vice president's exploitative and intimidating power. The way that Liz betrays Mary is important to explore because the sequence suggests that Cheney himself had negated his principles and prior position in order to help Liz attain political power. In other words, the movie ambiguously indicates that Cheney approved Liz's decision, meaning that he had secretly betrayed his other daughter. Whether there is any truth to this indication about the former vice president is probably unknown; in this regard, McKay is likely engaging in speculation. Ultimately, Vice prospers from a better cast than The Big Short, and McKay seemed more secure in his diegesis-breaking satirical style. |
|
