|
Post by cheesecake on Sept 21, 2019 23:10:41 GMT
This is such a bland film to end up being so divisive. Outside of the visuals there is just nothing there... like watching two films trying to fight it out and neither one coming out on top. The voice over is ridiculous and the writing is so ham-fisted. Complete waste of my time.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Sept 22, 2019 1:33:46 GMT
I dug it but didn’t love it or anything. Definitely solid but fell a bit short on character and emotional investment.
|
|
erickeitel
Junior Member
The beauty of life is in small details, not in big events.
Posts: 464
Likes: 383
|
Post by erickeitel on Sept 22, 2019 16:45:25 GMT
I liked it but I would like to see a director's cut, if there is one. It felt very compromised, like an abridged epic. Still, the sound was the best I've heard all year.
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 1,045
|
Post by chris3 on Sept 23, 2019 6:28:01 GMT
That was so much worse than I expected. The arthouse elements fell flat for me (mainly because of the excruciating voice-over narration droning over Hoyte's sumptuous visuals) and the popcorn setpieces were HILARIOUSLY ridiculous (WTF were those CG space baboons? And MOON PIRATES??). And it all leads to the dullest, dourest dud of a third act. What a bizarre mess of a film.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Sept 23, 2019 8:05:38 GMT
You people are fucking crazy.
This confirms Gray as one of the only great ones we got in America right now. One of the most harrowing depictions I've seen of depression in a multiplex.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Sept 23, 2019 8:07:55 GMT
If you can watch this movie, that is a gigantic Hollywood production, and come out thinking it was a waste of time, I really don't know what to say to you.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Sept 23, 2019 8:09:17 GMT
For folks who have seen it: Interstellar or Ad Astra? Astra
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Sept 23, 2019 8:12:20 GMT
james gray can do no wrong, this was pretty great. love how he handles melodramas. lot of little things that make this operate smoothly, and him going into quasi malick territory was a cool mixup. more genre films by competent directors please Just watching someone work with a budget who actually knows how to make a film is depressingly refreshing
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Sept 23, 2019 8:13:42 GMT
People hating on the Immigrant too? This might feature the most bad takes of any thread on this board.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Sept 23, 2019 8:37:30 GMT
people can have different anticipation levels, ya twerp But to say "guess I'm waiting for a screener" after 2 negative reactions on here is pretty ridiculous. Especially for a movie that obviously looks like something that'll benefit from the theater experience. It's more than 2 negative reactions, it was also the reviews out of Venice and the fact that the trailers didn't look good to me. It's not like I was highly anticipating this and then suddenly did a 180 when two people on here said they didn't like it.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Sept 23, 2019 8:47:00 GMT
But to say "guess I'm waiting for a screener" after 2 negative reactions on here is pretty ridiculous. Especially for a movie that obviously looks like something that'll benefit from the theater experience. It's more than 2 negative reactions, it was also the reviews out of Venice and the fact that the trailers didn't look good to me. It's not like I was highly anticipating this and then suddenly did a 180 when two people on here said they didn't like it. Venice literally gave Joker its top prize
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Sept 23, 2019 8:55:37 GMT
It's more than 2 negative reactions, it was also the reviews out of Venice and the fact that the trailers didn't look good to me. It's not like I was highly anticipating this and then suddenly did a 180 when two people on here said they didn't like it. Venice literally gave Joker its top prize The jury did, yes. Obviously I'm not talking about the Venice jury.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Sept 23, 2019 9:02:53 GMT
by the way, the Interstellar comparisons are a another huge fucking red flag for me, because fuck Interstellar. And Ehrlich also compared it to First Man in his review so that's strike two.
I'm waiting for the screener.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Sept 23, 2019 9:30:41 GMT
by the way, the Interstellar comparisons are a another huge fucking red flag for me, because fuck Interstellar. And Ehrlich also compared it to First Man in his review so that's strike two. I'm waiting for the screener. I mean people are just comparing it to any emotional Sci fis of recent years. Are you too busy to see it in a theater or something? Why not just see it? The fuck
|
|
|
Ad Astra
Sept 23, 2019 11:30:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by bob-coppola on Sept 23, 2019 11:30:20 GMT
This movie sounds so much like MAR-catnip that I’m finding incredibly odd that it’s divisive here hahaha I’m watching it this friday hopefully.
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Sept 23, 2019 13:27:00 GMT
I liked it, but didn't love it as much as I had hoped.
If somebody would have showed me the film without telling me who was the director, I'd actually have guessed Malick rather than Gray. Though Malick would have handled the voiceover much better, though it didn't irritate me as much as most people. Some of the monologue there was good, some was bad. I found it strange how short the final act was handled. You would expect much more of a scene of McBride and his father, since this is what was the core of the movie. So it felt a bit abrupt. Also some of the scenes didn't really feel fitting that well into the whole composure. Also in some moments it felt a bit lethargic for being such an extraordinary journey.
As for rating, I'd give it a 8/10.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Sept 23, 2019 13:57:07 GMT
Cannot fucking believe that this readily accessible movie is going to become a pleb filter but you guys never fail to deliver
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Sept 23, 2019 14:01:07 GMT
Venice literally gave Joker its top prize The jury did, yes. Obviously I'm not talking about the Venice jury. Mmmm yes obviously. The Venice critics you refer to are of course paramount. Enjoy not seeing one of the best American movies of the year in a theater because of an RT score
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Sept 23, 2019 15:41:45 GMT
by the way, the Interstellar comparisons are a another huge fucking red flag for me, because fuck Interstellar. And Ehrlich also compared it to First Man in his review so that's strike two. I'm waiting for the screener. I mean people are just comparing it to any emotional Sci fis of recent years. I think it's crazy having to defend not wanting to see a movie in theaters, especially one that never looked that good to me in the first place and is getting divisive feedback (voiceover has to be my least favorite narrative device ever, especially in an "emotional" film). It sounds awful to me quite frankly. I know my taste pretty well and the gut is telling me to skip it. I'm more than willing to eat crow if I actually enjoy it, but I resent the idea that any movie needs to be seen in theaters. If it's truly a good film, I can enjoy it on any screen. I've only heard that argument used to defend films I didn't like ( Dunkirk for example, because no IMAX screen is going to fix bad writing or a gimmicky plot structure). I didn't see First Man in theaters last year and I'm so glad I didn't, but I did see Interstellar and it gave me a hernia, and The Revenant which everyone knows I disliked. Movies don't need to be seen in theaters if they're good, and if they're not, seeing them in a theater won't help, it'll just be unbearable. If I like it you can have the first dibs on saying "I told you so," but given my record with "emotional sci-fis" (fast becoming one of my least-favorite genres), I'd rather skip the moon pirates this time.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Sept 23, 2019 16:03:28 GMT
I mean people are just comparing it to any emotional Sci fis of recent years. I think it's crazy having to defend not wanting to see a movie in theaters, especially one that never looked that good to me in the first place and is getting divisive feedback (voiceover has to be my least favorite narrative device ever, especially in an "emotional" film). It sounds awful to me quite frankly. I know my taste pretty well and the gut is telling me to skip it. I'm more than willing to eat crow if I actually enjoy it, but I resent the idea that any movie needs to be seen in theaters. If it's truly a good film, I can enjoy it on any screen. I've only heard that argument used to defend films I didn't like ( Dunkirk for example, because no IMAX screen is going to fix bad writing or a gimmicky plot structure). I didn't see First Man in theaters last year and I'm so glad I didn't, but I did see Interstellar and it gave me a hernia, and The Revenant which everyone knows I disliked. Movies don't need to be seen in theaters if they're good, and if they're not, seeing them in a theater won't help, it'll just be unbearable. If I like it you can have the first dibs on saying "I told you so," but given my record with "emotional sci-fis" (fast becoming one of my least-favorite genres), I'd rather skip the moon pirates this time. You sound like a very gentle person. Save your two hours so you can pump out another 8000 posts on here, thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Sept 23, 2019 20:34:23 GMT
Surprised by the reactions on here. It's slowly paced but kept my interest. It felt like a cross between Arrival and First Man.
One of Pitt's best performances. He's better here than in Hollywood.
Top 5 of the year for me.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Sept 23, 2019 21:27:38 GMT
Ultimately, I found the writing/script to be poor and confused. Interstellar and First Man were very good; this was just bad. My least favorite Gray film along with The Immigrant (another film with substantive craft sunken by poor writing).
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Sept 24, 2019 4:51:20 GMT
I mean people are just comparing it to any emotional Sci fis of recent years. I'm more than willing to eat crow if I actually enjoy it, but I resent the idea that any movie needs to be seen in theaters. If it's truly a good film, I can enjoy it on any screen.... Movies don't need to be seen in theaters if they're good, and if they're not, seeing them in a theater won't help, it'll just be unbearable. Preach! Not that I’m knocking the cinema. It’s my absolute favorite way of watching stuff, and now that I can afford to do it more, I wouldn’t have it any other way. But if a movie truly *needs* to be seen on the big screen to get maximum impact, what’s it going to lose when in 10 weeks it leaves, and you can’t experience it that way? I know that Life of Pi has its fans on here, and if you love it, then that’s great. I personally didn’t, and when people told me I *needed* to see it on the big screen, it didn’t improve my thoughts on it. If something’s good, it’ll still be good in any format. I didn’t watch The Favourite three times because it would suffer on home video. I watched The Favourite three times because it’s a phenomenal movie in any format. A big screen can enhance the experience, but it doesn’t automatically improve it. With that said, I have not seen Ad Astra yet, but I’m eager to, in the same way I was for several of the movies Tommen says he hated. But if it’s good, it won’t be because of the screen.
|
|
oneflyr
Full Member
Posts: 566
Likes: 255
|
Ad Astra
Sept 24, 2019 8:52:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by oneflyr on Sept 24, 2019 8:52:51 GMT
very disappointing in its current form, gray’s worst by a mile
release the snyder cut
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Sept 24, 2019 9:02:10 GMT
I mean people are just comparing it to any emotional Sci fis of recent years. I think it's crazy having to defend not wanting to see a movie in theaters, especially one that never looked that good to me in the first place and is getting divisive feedback (voiceover has to be my least favorite narrative device ever, especially in an "emotional" film). It sounds awful to me quite frankly. I know my taste pretty well and the gut is telling me to skip it. I'm more than willing to eat crow if I actually enjoy it, but I resent the idea that any movie needs to be seen in theaters. If it's truly a good film, I can enjoy it on any screen. I've only heard that argument used to defend films I didn't like ( Dunkirk for example, because no IMAX screen is going to fix bad writing or a gimmicky plot structure). I didn't see First Man in theaters last year and I'm so glad I didn't, but I did see Interstellar and it gave me a hernia, and The Revenant which everyone knows I disliked. Movies don't need to be seen in theaters if they're good, and if they're not, seeing them in a theater won't help, it'll just be unbearable. If I like it you can have the first dibs on saying "I told you so," but given my record with "emotional sci-fis" (fast becoming one of my least-favorite genres), I'd rather skip the moon pirates this time. Honestly, you are damn right not to see it in theaters. I wished I hadn't pissed thirteen quid away on it. I should have gone to see Hustlers, at least then I might have being laughing at the film for the right reasons.
The visuals are impressive, but they are nothing that hasn't been one before and better, and the film is bland as fuck. Just don't waste your money on it.
|
|