|
|
Post by merh on Aug 5, 2017 5:29:42 GMT
I loved Dunkirk and Baby Driver pity. its so interesting to me. my taste usually matches with the critics scores on RT. And usually I understand why other people don't like some of the movies I do (for example I am a fan of Adam Sandlers work and totally get why people hate him/don't like him) and I most of the time I also understand why other people like the movies I don't like (like Captain America. I didn't find it entertaining but understand why others did). But with Dunkirk and Baby Driver I just don't get it. Critics love it. Audience loves it. What am I missing? Dunkirk was boring and soulless to me, and Baby Driver was over-hyped over-styled empty shell of a True Romance look alike… This I what I don't get-modern fans who seem to think there is validity to critics. In the 60s & 70s of my childhood & teen years, critics never seemed to like the popular stuff. I didn't bother with Baby Driver because it looked like it was just style. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 5, 2017 23:09:16 GMT
its so interesting to me. my taste usually matches with the critics scores on RT.
I didn't say there was validity to critics (and neither did I say there wasn't :-)) It just so happens that when I review movies and later look at what other reviewers say, I find RT critics a category that most of the time matches my own rating. RT Audiance score not so much, Metacritic or IMDB not so much. But when it differs (like RT critics totally hate most Adam Sandler whereas I love his work) I can usually understand why it is. And I also understand when critics don't love something but the fans do (Warcraft is a good example). I get it why it has a much higher IMDB score. But Dunkirk, Baby Driver and Atomic Blonde might be the first case (I can recall) where not only I would give it a different rating than both groups (audience and critics) but cannot understand why there is such gap. With Dunkirk I think a lot of it has to do with Nolan's name. Imagine the same movie (3 different somewhat odd timelines, and a movie without any real characters or god forbid character development and with such few dialogue lines) made by a no name. Would it then get the same high ratings? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Baby Driver didn't even carry such a strong name. And Atomic Blonde was -for all practical purposes- a feature debut as a solo director. Is feminism a part of why it is rated so well? Again. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Maybe Ill just have to make peace with the fact I don't understand why things are the way they are. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by merh on Aug 6, 2017 1:27:31 GMT
This I what I don't get-modern fans who seem to think there is validity to critics.
I didn't say there was validity to critics (and neither did I say there wasn't :-)) It just so happens that when I review movies and later look at what other reviewers say, I find RT critics a category that most of the time matches my own rating. RT Audiance score not so much, Metacritic or IMDB not so much. But when it differs (like RT critics totally hate most Adam Sandler whereas I love his work) I can usually understand why it is. And I also understand when critics don't love something but the fans do (Warcraft is a good example). I get it why it has a much higher IMDB score. But Dunkirk, Baby Driver and Atomic Blonde might be the first case (I can recall) where not only I would give it a different rating than both groups (audience and critics) but cannot understand why there is such gap. With Dunkirk I think a lot of it has to do with Nolan's name. Imagine the same movie (3 different somewhat odd timelines, and a movie without any real characters or god forbid character development and with such few dialogue lines) made by a no name. Would it then get the same high ratings? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Baby Driver didn't even carry such a strong name. And Atomic Blonde was -for all practical purposes- a feature debut as a solo director. Is feminism a part of why it is rated so well? Again. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Maybe Ill just have to make peace with the fact I don't understand why things are the way they are. :-) The only thing I look at on RT is the right side & that is only on the ones I'm not sure about. The audience side. I don't care about the critics getting free tickets. I figure it has to be a pretty disappointing job. Not saving lives. Not creating anything. Just maybe killing other creators' work. I learned in my youth critics are bitter wannabes in many cases. They admitted back then. I remember a really bad KISS review where the critic (Creem magazine for Unmasked) complained the members of the band should have been pumping gas long ago & referenced a garage band (his own) being far better. Roger Ebert wrote a couple movie scripts. Poorly received. So, yeah, it was easier to put together in the past that critics were wannabes. But they are. I feel Theron is favored right now by critics of action thanks to Mad Max. Don't forget she has won an Oscar & a Golden Globe. When I attended the panel at Comic-Con for Snow White she was classy. It was very obvious the director hired actors for their audience-he basically said so by referencing the popularity of Twilight & Avengers. Kristen Stewart kept trying to sound so important, it was sad. I remember one question from the audience where Stewart tried to come off as so important -what was she bringing to the movie?-& same question Theron she just said the skills that won an Oscar. She was gracious about it. Not bragging, but she wasn't being pushed back by some little sparkly vampire movie star. She has class. She has presence. She is not afraid of "getting ugly". She got very trashed in this, no problem looking beat up. Some actresses won't go there. |
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Aug 6, 2017 1:37:17 GMT
Atomic Blonde is a good movie IMO. 8/10.
|
|
nemesis617
Sophomore
@nemesis617
Posts: 167
Likes: 84
 
|
Post by nemesis617 on Aug 6, 2017 2:06:29 GMT
Atomic Blonde is a good movie IMO. 8/10. Taylor, if it wasn't for that scene, (and you know which one I'm talking about) would you still give Atomic Blonde 8/10 stars? |
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Aug 6, 2017 3:33:59 GMT
Atomic Blonde is a good movie IMO. 8/10. Taylor, if it wasn't for that scene, (and you know which one I'm talking about) would you still give Atomic Blonde 8/10 stars? Yes. I really don't care about "that scene". This is an action movie so I rate it based mostly on the action. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 6, 2017 3:48:07 GMT
I didn't say there was validity to critics (and neither did I say there wasn't :-)) The only thing I look at on RT is the right side & that is only on the ones I'm not sure about. The audience side. … I don't care about the critics getting free tickets. I figure it has to be a pretty disappointing job. Not saving lives. Not creating anything. Just maybe killing other creators' work. I learned in my youth critics are bitter wannabes in many cases. d back by some little sparkly vampire movie star. … She has class. She has presence. She is not afraid of "getting ugly". She got very trashed in this, no problem looking beat up. Some actresses won't go there. It actually is a pretty ok job. For some maybe even a dream come true. Lets say you love movies and now you are paid to watch them and talk about them? How awesome is that? Getting paid for what would otherwise be your hobby? And you get to see movies first, (and yes, there are free tickets and premiers etc) and you get to present your opinion on them. I like it. Yeah, it doesn't save lives. But very few jobs do. And I wouldn't say you don't create anything. Each review is your creation. There are some that are truly spectacular reads too. Some that are very funny. Sometimes a review will make me laugh more than the actual movie did. Yes, I presume there are some - and maybe even many - critics that are "wannabes". At the same time I there are some (if not most) that never had such ambition. Like with every job, there are different people doing the job for different reasons. For me - next to the fact I love movies and love talking about them - I like the fact a lot of times my article will be one of the (if not the only one) factors contributing to people seeing or not seeing a movie. I am painfully aware of how challenging it is to make a movie. So with each movie I review I add a section "what I liked". And even a very poorly rated movie will have something that I liked about it. And I always encourage people to see movies at the cinema and not at home on their computers. As far as Charlize not afraid of getting ugly - sure, she proved that in the Monster, she is not afraid of that. however in Atomic Blonde, no matter how beat up she was, she always looked stylish and hot. Please know I am not trying to put her down as an actress. I do recognize her talent. An had the movie not taken itself so seriously I think I would have given it a better rating. :-) PS: in my head every fan that gives an opinion on a movie or gives it a start rating on IMDB or anywhere is a critic too… PS2: we could have learned she was into women without a scene that looked like the one in the movie… |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 6, 2017 3:49:40 GMT
Atomic Blonde is a good movie IMO. 8/10. I am interested in hearing your thoughts. Why was it so good in your eyes? 8 out of 10 is really pretty high. Can you name a movie you rate as 10? What makes Atomic Blonde be this close to it, do you mind telling? |
|
|
|
Post by merh on Aug 6, 2017 5:42:31 GMT
It pulled me in.
Do I think about what I need to do when I leave after the movie?
Do I want to see it again or is once enough?
Do I want to know what's next for the characters?
Does it remain in its universe? If it says Hobbits can't fly & then they fly-better have a damned good explanation & "we need to wrap this up" isn't it. This is a problem with a lot of comedies. It's easy to crack jokes for an hour, but then they have to resolve everything.
I don't really care for real world. I get enough real world in my real world. I want to escape. I don't need to live vicariously through fictional characters. I want sci-fi. I want fantasy. I want possibilities explored.
If we buy Black Widow kicks ass against men, why the puck is there a problem when another comic book female does it as well?
SPY STUFF. James fricken Bond can take out everyone under the sun, but we're worried about being real because it's a female?
I grew up watching My Mother the Car about a woman who died & came back as a car. Gilligan's Island where they couldn't get off the island, but half the planet seemed to find them.
Captain Nice & Mr Terrific-2 shows where a couple of normal, even 98 lb weaklings became superheroes.(think greatest American Hero from the 70s)
It's About Time-astronauts who land in the stone age
Hogun's Heroes-prisoners in a German camp run all sorts of sabotage missions never getting caught.
Get Smart-Spy talks to his shoe.
Wild Wild West-James Bond set in the West after the Civil War.
That was just the 60s. We aren't talking about 6 Million Dollar Men, blind private investigators, or green rage monsters from the 70s.
And people think there's a problem with The Girl from UNCLE being made set in the 80s?
|
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Aug 6, 2017 21:19:46 GMT
Big disappointment. Just like Life (2017, www.imdb.com/title/tt5442430/?ref_=nv_sr_1 )you get an ending that tries to salvage the movie but really falls flat because the rest is poorly structured and doesn't go anywhere. Instead of being flabbergasted you're just like "C'mon...". Also agree the lesbian scene was not necessary for the story. Overall: 4/10 |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 7, 2017 18:17:08 GMT
Wait... why were you disappointed with Baby Driver? That movie was awesome. i didn't like how silly the plot was and how much they pushed the visuals and style over story. I had a feeling they were going for a True Romance kinda flick, but then they should have had a much better story. Maybe I was just expecting something else. The silly/nonsensical/over the top stuff made it boring for me after a while. Oh and nothing felt genuine / effortless (unlike True Romance, or lets go with Edgars previous movies. Shawn of the Dead) I'm very surprised you think that. As you said, you were probably expecting something different. I don't think that its a "visuals and style over story" movie, but rather that it was a "visuals and style TO TELL the story" movie.
I know you understand that Baby was practically deaf from tinnitus, right? So the music and rhythm, extended to the movie itself via music and visuals, was what kept him functional? So its extremely organic to the story. As close to living in his shoes as we can get in a movie without us also actually having tinnitus.
In fact more movies need to unite all the separate story telling techniques movies include more harmoniously as this one did.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Aug 7, 2017 22:05:33 GMT
I saw a huge stand-up ad for this movie in a theater, and most of the reviews were touting not the movie itself, but one particular action scene, I think "the stairwell scene."
So apparently this movie is to be seen primarily for the stairwell scene?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 8, 2017 2:16:59 GMT
If we buy Black Widow kicks ass against men, why the puck is there a problem when another comic book female does it as well? SPY STUFF. James fricken Bond can take out everyone under the sun, but we're worried about being real because it's a female? Maybe I miscommunicated. I wouldn't have minded if she was presented as having extraordinary powers (such as Black Widow for example, with her biotechnology enhancements) or had "sci-fi" skills or whatever. I don't mind movies where the world is not "real". (Take John Wick or Kingsman, or James Bond of course none of which was remotely real or presented as such). My problem was that her world was Presented to Us as "real" (in the sense of it being the "ordinary" world we all know, where human bodies have human body physiology). And within that world, her fighting scenes looked ridiculous. Its not as much (if at all) about her being a woman - notice I mentioned Haywire above, which has a strong female lead who kicks ass and is believable. Its about her being so fragile looking and yet taking on much bigger (stronger) guys even when she is outnumbered. In hand-to-hand or close combat. That bugged me. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 8, 2017 2:20:40 GMT
i didn't like how silly the plot was and how much they pushed the visuals and style over story. I'm very surprised you think that. As you said, you were probably expecting something different. I don't think that its a "visuals and style over story" movie, but rather that it was a "visuals and style TO TELL the story" movie.
I know you understand that Baby was practically deaf from tinnitus, right? So the music and rhythm, extended to the movie itself via music and visuals, was what kept him functional? So its extremely organic to the story. As close to living in his shoes as we can get in a movie without us also actually having tinnitus.
In fact more movies need to unite all the separate story telling techniques movies include more harmoniously as this one did.
Yes, and I agree, the music was an important device to the plot and certainly a unique one. To me more of what I mean by the style was the cinematography. have you seen Punch Drunk Love? Or Big Fish? To me thats an example of a style done right to enhance the viewers experience. This looked too "kytchy" and "devised by the marketing department" (rather than the creative director) to me. For lack of a better words. But there is a perfectly viable option, that I would reconsider upon a second viewing. As I did with Sicario for example. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 8, 2017 2:23:35 GMT
I saw a huge stand-up ad for this movie in a theater, and most of the reviews were touting not the movie itself, but one particular action scene, I think "the stairwell scene." So apparently this movie is to be seen primarily for the stairwell scene? well, the stairwell scene is "good" in a way that it is thrilling and very important to the plot and includes characters that drive the story. So from the pow yeah, thats scene not to miss out on. Also she looks cool/sexy doing it. BUT - it is also the very scene (or the one this leads to, the fight in the room right after the stairwell scene) that made me snicker at it a bit. I felt like I could see the guys "waiting around" a bit, to throw another punch. Something I never saw (and I hate to repeat myself but I am gonna) in John Wick (god was that good fight-choreography) or Haywire (female power). |
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Aug 8, 2017 3:59:51 GMT
Yeah, I see that quite a bit, where in many movies and TV shows, people are standing around waiting to have their asses handed to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 8, 2017 21:03:16 GMT
I'm very surprised you think that. As you said, you were probably expecting something different. I don't think that its a "visuals and style over story" movie, but rather that it was a "visuals and style TO TELL the story" movie.
I know you understand that Baby was practically deaf from tinnitus, right? So the music and rhythm, extended to the movie itself via music and visuals, was what kept him functional? So its extremely organic to the story. As close to living in his shoes as we can get in a movie without us also actually having tinnitus.
In fact more movies need to unite all the separate story telling techniques movies include more harmoniously as this one did.
Yes, and I agree, the music was an important device to the plot and certainly a unique one. To me more of what I mean by the style was the cinematography. have you seen Punch Drunk Love? Or Big Fish? To me thats an example of a style done right to enhance the viewers experience. This looked too "kytchy" and "devised by the marketing department" (rather than the creative director) to me. For lack of a better words. But there is a perfectly viable option, that I would reconsider upon a second viewing. As I did with Sicario for example. Ah, Sicario. Another movie that's like an onion. At first glance, maybe not so hot, but then you peel the layers and theres more... I think if you ever re-watch Baby Driver one day at home on dvd you'll appreciate it more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 12:27:33 GMT
3. I understand the appeal of lesbian scenes including two hot women but it felt too forced and marketing-driven.
www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/831089/Charlize-Theron-lesbian-sex-scene-Atomic-Blonde-interview-Sofia-Boutellawww.esquire.com/lifestyle/sex/news/a56516/charlize-theron-sex-scene-atomic-blonde/Lack of and poor representation of lesbians and bisexual women has been a problem in Hollywood and the TV industry for a long time with many lesbian characters facing the 'bury your gays' trope (Over 60 major lesbian characters were killed off in 2016 alone) and being turned heterosexual whenever the so-called 'right' man comes along. When you can get past that we have straightwashing which has seen many female and male homosexual characters turned heterosexual for movies even in biographies and it is extremely rare when we have a lesbian romance movie that doesn't end with a horrible ending. TV has improved to a degree with representation but in movies it is still majorly lacking and in the comic book genre there has been a LOT of comic book series with lesbian and bisexual leads and lesbian characters in large roles such as Batwoman, Hack/Slash, Red Sonja, Sunstone, Painkiller Jane, Tarot Witch of the Black Rose, Hellina, the Ravening, The Infinite Loop, Witchblade (Danielle was the co-lead for a while), the Angelus, Gen 13, The Wicked & the Divine, Rat Queens etc and with Jessica Chastain saying Jane won't be straightwashed this time (her biggest love interest in the comics was female) we have a chance to see something that has never been done before in a comic book movie.  |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Aug 11, 2017 15:27:15 GMT
@deblovesbec
I am aware the LGBTQ community has been asking for bigger/better representation on the screen, and I am all for it whenever it makes sense in the context of the movie or brings anything to the movie other than the "marketing" effect (here of two hot women having sex).
to me this felt cheap/gratuitous/random. Charlize says it makes sense and it suited the character. How? How? We knew NOTHING about the character. Therefore nothing or rather ANYTHING she did "made sense/suited her". We learned only ONE thing about the character during the entire movie. That she is a lesbian or bi. Thats all. So to me, no, it did not "make sense" (as in "could have been expected, or fit well within the characters behavior/world). It felt random.
Also the way that scene was shot was (to me) also screaming "marketing". Don't get me wrong, I like and admire both of those actresses. But I felt that scene was added there and shot this way simply to (pls take a deep breath I don't mean to offend) please men and maybe add some shock/twist value. Not to represent an under-represented community. It was no Carol, no Bound, no Heavenly Creatures moment.
But I am glad that Charlize (and you and thus probably others also) see it as something good that helped an unrepresented community be more visible. If that truly was the film makers goal, then mission accomplished I presume.
PS: a lot of heterosexual scenes in many movies are put there and shot this way with very similar motivation and effect and I "mind" just as much. I love to see sex scenes in the movies, but I appreciate it more when it doesn't feel like I am just watching a sex commercial or a ticket selling point.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Aug 12, 2017 4:17:48 GMT
The Supergirl television series has a lesbian romance in it and it's probably one of the best representations I've seen of the lifestyle because after a whole season of this particular development, there still hasn't been a sex scene, and I honestly hope there never is.
And the reason for that is because the depiction of this relationship focuses exactly and specifically on that -- the relationship, rather than the physical aspect of it for visceral and lascivious reasons, which would be besides the point of the overall TV show anyway.
That's what I love about it. It's a well-written and well-acted depiction of two lesbians in a growing, loving, committed relationship, warts and all, without resorting to hot and heavy sex scenes, especially just for the titillating sake of it.
|
|
