rhodoraonline
Badass
Your Generosity Hides Something Dirtier and Meaner
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 499
|
Vice
Jan 12, 2019 17:04:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by rhodoraonline on Jan 12, 2019 17:04:02 GMT
I don't so movie reviews but I'll say this:
All the award bodies keep nominating Vice however much they can, despite its undeniable shortcomings, to make sure it stays in the conversation till the end and people are moved to go see it, experience Cheney's inflicted horrors for themselves.
Also, if Bale does end up winning the Oscar for this, I'll consider it fully earned and justified and this after having seen First Reformed. Malek is the only one I still gotta see but I don't think he's gonna change my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by harlequinade on Jan 13, 2019 12:29:05 GMT
Adams was all right but she doesn't even make my line up. i much preferred her Lady Macbeth in tHe Master than here
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Jan 13, 2019 14:18:43 GMT
An excellent biopic about Dick Cheney and an impressive depiction of how one man with questionable power can have so much influence about the worlds fate with his pure sense of manipulation and the right amount of charisma. Yes, it works with many dictators that way but also in the common political regime. The film was similarly shot like Adam McKay's previous effort "The Big Short" - giving it a semi decumentary style with the right amount of wit but without ignoring the seriousness of the story. I think in the case of the "Vice" McKay brought that style to near perfection. I am also glad he did not ignore to show us more positive sides of Dick Cheney sides and his personal life. Like the fact that one of the reasons to run for President was to keep his daughter's private life safe. The other reason this movie works so well is the perfect choice of actors. Christian Bale is terrific as Cheney and not only owned his mannerisms but added a lot to it. The line deliveries were perfectly and so well that it really stick with the audience. Bale's transformation aside it was also a very deep and thoughtful performance. The work of a masterclass actor. Another performance that stood out was definitely Sam Rockwell's George W. Bush. You could blame him for being too cartoonish and being a caricature.. but wasn't that what Bush was anyway? Sorry.. politics aside... yes Rockwell imitated Bush but he imitated him perfectly to the point. Amy Adams also shines most of the times. Her opening scenes was a bit too over the top for my tastes and really not a good example for a caricature but she saved her performance throughout the film and give a very commanding and charismatic performance. Steve Carell is very underrated here. Especially in the first half of the film he was a real scene stealer and played the role with a mix of great self confidence and self irony. The rest of the ensemble is also simply good there is hardly any weak spot to find. Like Alison Pill has one tremendous scene in the middle of the scene, very short but memorable. And Jesse Plemons is always a pleasure to see. His connection to the story offers a great and very though provoking twist and really nails what the film is all about. A great political piece... with a lot of wit, seriousness and involving many of the years finest performances.
Nominations for:
Best Picture Best Director: Adam McKay Best Actor in a Leading Role: Christian Bale Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Amy Adams Best Original Screenplay Best Make-Up Best Ensemble*
Rating: 9/10
|
|
|
Vice
Jan 17, 2019 22:36:06 GMT
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 17, 2019 22:36:06 GMT
I actually prefer The Big Short to Vice – The Big Short was a thumbs up 7/10 for me but Vice is really a beat behind in a lot of ways if not all – less funny, less inspired and audacious, and far more headache inducing to me this time around.
Like Oliver Stone and Spike Lee, McKay never shot a straight ahead scene in his life, and like those two annoying polemicists he’s obvious when he thinks he’s being profound. McKay sees his approach as expressive of any material it seems but it’s not here, this film needs a meditative/contemplative rhythm and dramatic arc – but he’s constantly interrupting and stepping on all of his film’s flow. The Big Short in its didactic intent maybe needed the “trick” to lull you in, here you’re pushed you away by it. What’s more very little dramatic stuff happens here, the dramatic content becomes how the story is told.
Very long and feels longer, with some funny and random incisive stuff that mostly plays like cheap shots. Bale is great and funny too anyway (between this and American Psycho – he has the most perverse comic triumphs in modern films), and Adams is strong too – but McKay is placing himself in and around and above what he's presenting and it just weighs everything down.
6/10
|
|
AKenjiB
Badass
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 653
|
Vice
Jan 19, 2019 19:13:30 GMT
Post by AKenjiB on Jan 19, 2019 19:13:30 GMT
I definitely had some mixed feelings watching this but I ended up enjoying it quite a bit by the end (except the mid-credits scene which is easily the worst and most condescending scene in the whole movie). Maybe the low-expectations I had made me enjoy it more, I don’t know. It’s definitely flawed and I don’t fault anyone for disliking its bizarre editing or condescending tone, but I got pretty immersed.
My letterboxd review:
As much as I love Rockwell (Moon is one of my favorite performances ever and I was thrilled when he won an Oscar last year), I’m pretty shocked by his Best Supporting actor hype. He’s barely in the movie and the bit that he’s in isn’t really made memorable by his performance. Bit of a shame because I was really excited for his performance. I thought Carell as Rumsfeld was a much better Supporting Actor.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Jan 29, 2019 1:50:06 GMT
Sort of glad Bale is probably not winning for this. Aside from the physical transformation, I didn't really think there was a whole lot there... I mostly found his performance overly mannered to the point that it was distracting (did anyone else feel this way?) It's not entirely his fault because the film around him doesn't really do him any favors. I think he has some good scenes like the final monologue and the hilarious Shakespeare scene, but overall I didn't get the sense that it was a performance that went particularly deep... am I missing something here? I suppose I'm also not sure if my being underwhelmed is based on expectations for a different type of performance that I didn't get from this film - because the film itself is kind of a mess in terms of tone, I guess it's hard for me assimilate to the kind of performance that it's supposed to be in relation to the film. Is this an accomplished comedic performance that's not supposed to have much depth, or is there something else to the performance that people are seeing that makes it great on another level?
Haven't seen Malek yet, but Dafoe is far and away the best of out the rest of the nominees for me...
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 29, 2019 1:53:45 GMT
Sort of glad Bale is probably not winning for this. Aside from the physical transformation, I didn't really think there was a whole lot there... I mostly found his performance overly mannered to the point that it was distracting (did anyone else feel this way?) It's not entirely his fault because the film around him doesn't really do him any favors. I think he has some good scenes like the final monologue and the hilarious Shakespeare scene, but overall I didn't get the sense that it was a performance that went particularly deep... am I missing something here? I suppose I'm also not sure if my being underwhelmed is based on expectations for a different type of performance that I didn't get from this film - because the film itself is kind of a mess in terms of tone, I guess it's hard for me assimilate to the kind of performance that it's supposed to be in relation to the film. Is this an accomplished comedic performance that's not supposed to have much depth, or is there something else to the performance that people are seeing that makes it great on another level? Haven't seen Malek yet, but Dafoe is far and away the best of out the rest of the nominees for me... I think that despite Bale being a nominally and distractingly mannered actor for the most part, his Cheney is actually fairly grounded and doesn't feel like a typical Bale performance. It actually does work as an inhabited character. Problem is, the writing does him absolutely no favors and he's forced to drag McKay's bloated, unwieldy script around his neck like an albatross.
|
|
|
Vice
Jan 29, 2019 2:07:12 GMT
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jan 29, 2019 2:07:12 GMT
Sort of glad Bale is probably not winning for this. Aside from the physical transformation, I didn't really think there was a whole lot there... I mostly found his performance overly mannered to the point that it was distracting (did anyone else feel this way?) It's not entirely his fault because the film around him doesn't really do him any favors. I think he has some good scenes like the final monologue and the hilarious Shakespeare scene, but overall I didn't get the sense that it was a performance that went particularly deep... am I missing something here? I suppose I'm also not sure if my being underwhelmed is based on expectations for a different type of performance that I didn't get from this film - because the film itself is kind of a mess in terms of tone, I guess it's hard for me assimilate to the kind of performance that it's supposed to be in relation to the film. Is this an accomplished comedic performance that's not supposed to have much depth, or is there something else to the performance that people are seeing that makes it great on another level? Haven't seen Malek yet, but Dafoe is far and away the best of out the rest of the nominees for me...
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 29, 2019 2:33:11 GMT
Sort of glad Bale is probably not winning for this. Aside from the physical transformation, I didn't really think there was a whole lot there... I mostly found his performance overly mannered to the point that it was distracting (did anyone else feel this way?) It's not entirely his fault because the film around him doesn't really do him any favors. I think he has some good scenes like the final monologue and the hilarious Shakespeare scene, but overall I didn't get the sense that it was a performance that went particularly deep... am I missing something here? I suppose I'm also not sure if my being underwhelmed is based on expectations for a different type of performance that I didn't get from this film - because the film itself is kind of a mess in terms of tone, I guess it's hard for me assimilate to the kind of performance that it's supposed to be in relation to the film. Is this an accomplished comedic performance that's not supposed to have much depth, or is there something else to the performance that people are seeing that makes it great on another level? Haven't seen Malek yet, but Dafoe is far and away the best of out the rest of the nominees for me... I think it's a bad film and not for everyone even in its individual components but I loved Bale and disliked the film - for me personally people are always praising safe schtick acting - performances that deliver exactly what you'd expect - "oh I believed him as a (insert job title here) - he was great." .............. Very boring, very safe, very tired to me - why was it great, what justifies the use of that term, ever? For me I thought there was a functioning logic to the characterization - there's more thought put into it than any of the nominees imo. I really do admire Dafoe, my number 2 of nominees, and the sort of poetic and almost spiritual nature of his Van Gogh but it's been played so much that there's a template to draw off of and subvert - its almost a tone poem. Malek I thought while he had a little zip and style to his performance (in another bad film) was closer to impersonation to me. But Bale was more daring than either - so daring that the film didn't even know what it had or what to do with it. Sometimes directors will turn over their film to the lead if he is really on form but here the film is too rickety to sustain Bale who is simultaneously funny, arrogant, oblivious and precise - a sort of scary satanic doofus. I thought that he was also a vain actor - Cheyney as acting out his power in a mannered way because everything about him is an outsized vulgarity - his approach to thought, intimidation of others, control, power dynamics. I found Cheyney mannered in speech, in posture or presence, playing the part himself of an thinking madman - but not Bale in performance as mannered. The film then sabotages all of that great work by going from cheap joke to cheap joke...........but the performance isn't to blame there. Sometimes Bale has done stuff like this before to me - in The Machinist where I first thought the weight loss was a mere stunt, and that I didn't realize how the whole snuck up on me emotionally, in AH where his De Niro impression eventually wore off into a uniquely Bale performance (the fake becomes the real thing!), or his precise and eerie take in American Psycho which is the comic kindred spirit of Cheyney (a purposely mannered, thinking intellect that rationalizes horrific behavior side by side with trappings of justification).
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Jan 29, 2019 4:58:45 GMT
Sort of glad Bale is probably not winning for this. Aside from the physical transformation, I didn't really think there was a whole lot there... I mostly found his performance overly mannered to the point that it was distracting (did anyone else feel this way?) It's not entirely his fault because the film around him doesn't really do him any favors. I think he has some good scenes like the final monologue and the hilarious Shakespeare scene, but overall I didn't get the sense that it was a performance that went particularly deep... am I missing something here? I suppose I'm also not sure if my being underwhelmed is based on expectations for a different type of performance that I didn't get from this film - because the film itself is kind of a mess in terms of tone, I guess it's hard for me assimilate to the kind of performance that it's supposed to be in relation to the film. Is this an accomplished comedic performance that's not supposed to have much depth, or is there something else to the performance that people are seeing that makes it great on another level? Haven't seen Malek yet, but Dafoe is far and away the best of out the rest of the nominees for me... I think it's a bad film and not for everyone even in its individual components but I loved Bale and disliked the film - for me personally people are always praising safe schtick acting - performances that deliver exactly what you'd expect - "oh I believed him as a (insert job title here) - he was great." .............. Very boring, very safe, very tired to me - why was it great, what justifies the use of that term, ever? For me I thought there was a functioning logic to the characterization - there's more thought put into it than any of the nominees imo. I really do admire Dafoe, my number 2 of nominees, and the sort of poetic and almost spiritual nature of his Van Gogh but it's been played so much that there's a template to draw off of and subvert - its almost a tone poem. Malek I thought while he had a little zip and style to his performance (in another bad film) was closer to impersonation to me. But Bale was more daring than either - so daring that the film didn't even know what it had or what to do with it. Sometimes directors will turn over their film to the lead if he is really on form but here the film is too rickety to sustain Bale who is simultaneously funny, arrogant, oblivious and precise - a sort of scary satanic doofus. I thought that he was also a vain actor - Cheyney as acting out his power in a mannered way because everything about him is an outsized vulgarity - his approach to thought, intimidation of others, control, power dynamics. I found Cheyney mannered in speech, in posture or presence, playing the part himself of an thinking madman - but not Bale in performance as mannered. The film then sabotages all of that great work by going from cheap joke to cheap joke...........but the performance isn't to blame there. Sometimes Bale has done stuff like this before to me - in The Machinist where I first thought the weight loss was a mere stunt, and that I didn't realize how the whole snuck up on me emotionally, in AH where his De Niro impression eventually wore off into a uniquely Bale performance (the fake becomes the real thing!), or his precise and eerie take in American Psycho which is the comic kindred spirit of Cheyney (a purposely mannered, thinking intellect that rationalizes horrific behavior side by side with trappings of justification). I know in the past you've talked about this aspect of characterization in other (sometimes criticized) performances where the characters themselves are "acting a part" (Streep in Doubt for instance). As much as I disliked Vice overall, I'd still like to rewatch it just for Bale with this perspective in mind because coming out of it initially I was unsure how I felt about his performance. I think I prefer Dafoe because of the way his film just allows his performance to breathe... there are a ton of really striking, almost uncomfortable close-ups of his face where you're just left with him and only him . . . there's no hiding behind any tricks and the film doesn't undercut Dafoe's ability to just "be" as he cycles through intermingling emotional states. I also just vastly prefer Dafoe's film, and so it's hard for me to separate the performance from how much the film around the actor is allowing him to put forth the best work possible.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 29, 2019 6:38:21 GMT
It really does help Dafoe to have a director on the same page as him - and together they work a minor miracle - they are in perfect sync together. I have spoken a bit before about how Altman's Vincent and Theo is my favorite movie ever on any artist ever - not just a painter but on any type of artist - I just have a fanatical love of that film and I also like and respect Pialat's Vincent film a whole lot too..........and yet even with that, Schnabel and Dafoe managed to create something unique that allows you to sort of understand and connect to him in a different way. It's really a tribute to the Academy that they saw it, appreciated it and then nodded it - it's basically a very fine, delicate and meditative Art film .........it's a great nod, one of their finest hours really.
|
|
|
Vice
Jan 29, 2019 20:20:34 GMT
Post by notacrook on Jan 29, 2019 20:20:34 GMT
Bale and Adams are both terrific (not sure why people are so dismissive of the latter - it's a strong, steely turn that made an impression even when she was just sitting in the corner of a scene), and some of McKay's undeniable creativity produces some sparks of sharp brilliance, but generally this was a messy, staggeringly unsubtle film that gets in its own way at almost every turn. That mid-credits scene in particular is possibly the worst thing I saw in any 2018 movie. 4.5/10
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Jan 29, 2019 23:05:47 GMT
pacinoyesThinking about it some more, I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by the rationalization that because Cheney himself can be seen as mannered in speech, posture, or presence, Bale's performance necessarily plays off that characterization in an effective way. When I say that I found him distracting at various times, I'm talking about certain facial tics and speech patterns that just seem comically heightened (maybe that's the intention?) to the point that it seemed unnatural... it's like Bale watched interviews with Cheney, seized on a certain facial tic, and exploited it as much as he could. If Malek felt more like impersonation, that's honestly sort of how I felt about Bale. Like I said in my OP, I sort of had trouble assimilating to the kind of performance that it's supposed to be in relation to the film around him and how to read it because of how tonally all over the place the film itself is. Maybe it's supposed to be exaggerrated and that's what makes it a comic performance... but then again other times it seems like it's supposed to be played straight and dramatic, so I'm really not sure what to make of it.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 30, 2019 1:15:07 GMT
I think that is all valid - I mean if you're responding to a film in the moment that way and in retrospect too then that's the best barometer. To me the tics in the performance didn't bother me too much (some actors it can set off my BS detector - Richard Gere in well everything). Really it's a question of whether it works in its totality and then who do you blame, praise or let off the hook. Whether the performance could be seen as comic overall (some of it clearly is) - and where it sits in this strange tonal world spares it from being an impersonation to me. Malek (who I do like) can only play Mercury one way (imo) but Cheyney can be played a lot of ways - I didn't know him at all prior as a man and maybe I still don't but I know the "fictionalized" film character of him almost too well now. Bale could have played him as a straight joke or played him as totally not getting the joke at all - there is a way to make himself less of the show here and maybe win over more people - but I liked the daring in how he found this outsized and peculiar level to set his character at. To me, I do see a total picture and approach there - the tics, that weird smile that's not quite a smile, the weight, the manner, the halting speech patterns gives a vivid outline that he also slowly fills in for me......... though unfortunately he still finds himself in a pretty badly directed and smug film.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Vice
Feb 7, 2019 7:11:44 GMT
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 7:11:44 GMT
This wasn't good but it also wasn't as godawful as a lot of people are making it out to be. It's like a 5/10. It's annoyingly condescending for a movie that has no idea what the hell it's trying to say, and most of the attempts at humor fall flat. Still, mildly enjoyable. Bale's weirdly eerie performance was fine, and I'll admit I found the sudden cut to credits like an hour in actually pretty funny.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Feb 11, 2019 2:14:24 GMT
I have to take a moment and appreciate the fact that this begins with a title card that says "we did our fucking best".
...well, then.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Feb 13, 2019 0:35:44 GMT
Okay, some more detailed thoughts. I seem to be in the minority around here when it comes to The Big Short, but I was a bg fan. It was undoubtedly a gigantic, chaotic mess with occasionally inexplicable editing and could've greatly benefitted from additional polishing, but McKay somehow managed to make it work through sheer maniacal energy and his evident, boundless outrage at the real-life events he was portraying on screen. Yes, it was condescending as fuck and basically a 2-hour lecture with visual cues, but I could forgive its shortcomings due to the incredible amount of information that it had to get across in order to make its points, as well as (most importantly) the fact that McKay was ultimately successful in conveying his frustration in a way that was at once entertaining and urgent. Vice, on the other hand, has a decidedly less rugged and more polished exterior. The horrible editing in this clip had me worried that it was going to take all of The Big Short's technical flaws and augment them, but that wasn't the case. At least it wasn't what bothered me. (With that said, the freeze frames 100% guarantee him a seat in hell, let me be clear about that.) Instead, what does Vice in is that it's a completely toothless, amorphous blob of a film that takes 132 minutes to say nothing. Whereas The Big Short was a machine gun of data and numbers and concepts persistently firing information from beginning to end, to the point where it alienated a considerable contingent of its audience, Vice feels shockingly surface-level in how little it exposes. McKay is convinced that Dick Cheney is the devil personified, and that he single-handedly shaped everything about modern American politics and international relations worldwide, but he's either uninterested or incapable of explaining how. He beats us over the head with "Dick Cheney did this" over and over again but for the most part he doesn't properly illuminate the machinations at play that allowed any of it to happen. It starts out promisingly enough, but as it goes along it becomes obvious that his script is too unfocused and skin deep to offer anything but a Wikipedia summary of Cheney's career and life story, and then it just begins to drag. To bring up another head-scratcher of an awards powerhouse, I didn't expect this to be comparable to Bohemian Rhapsody, yet in this regard it absolutely is. All of its theses can be summarized in no longer than two lines, especially with regards to the unitary executive theory that he presents as some game-changing revelation but never delves into with 1/10 of the detail and urgency that he employed in The Big Short. Even its most satisfying asides (like the bit about the rise of ISIS) warranted more attention and screentime than they got. There are two basic reasons for its shortcomings. The first is that a trajectory as long, dense and significant as Dick Cheney's isn't easily compressed into a 2-hour narrative, especially not one that sets out to portray 45 years of history in a linear fashion. There simply isn't enough time to dive into all of it in a substantial way, which is why the end result feels like a string of episodes that could've each been fleshed out and turned into their own individual 2-hour films. That becomes especially egregious in the second half, in which Vice seems to become a completely different film with a completely different ensemble (more on that later). Perhaps an approach like Tony Kushner's in Lincoln and Aaron Sorkin's in Steve Jobs would've been more effective: pick out a specific episode or a smaller period of time to focus on, and use that as a starting point to develop a three-dimensional character/political/historical study. The response to 9/11 alone could've been the basis for a fascinating, scathing indictment of everyone involved, but by beginning in the 1960s and ending during the Obama administration, McKay attempted something that was too sprawling for his own good. The second reason is that even if making a good biopic under McKay's chosen format isn't impossible, it's definitely difficult, and it requires that an extraordinary amount of attention and care goes into the screenplay in order to convey the necessary information in a sufficiently enlightening and insightful way. And McKay simply can't do that because he's too distracted throwing humorous curveballs at the audience one after the other, like having his leads break into a Shakesperean romp or having an end credits fake-out a third of the way in. These ideas may be amusing in theory, but almost all of them leave one wondering why exactly it was that McKay thought they added to the overall experience and how exactly he thought that his film would benefit from such trickery. In most cases, all they accomplish is to interrupt scenes just as they're about to get going and make a worthwhile point. I can see why Margot Robbie and Selena Gomez showing up to break the fourth wall and tell the audience to fuck off didn't sit right with people, but surely that's better than anything McKay does here. The Naomi Watts cameo was a waste because his argument about the inception of Fox News was spit out super quickly in order to get to the next plot point as fast as possible, and the Alfred Molina bit at the restaurant is so lifeless and drab in its execution that all it elicits is an unenthusiastic "heh". Very biting political critique indeed. Up until the halfway point, I was ready to say that this is Amy Adams's film and that she owns it. She made so much out of her short role that every time she showed up I thought I'd much rather be watching a film about Lynne Cheney than the one we got. It's a legitimately strong turn (Shakespeare scene notwithstanding ), one that enriches the whole project and helps speed things along far more than anybody else's does. This may be an unpopular opinion, but she was (and remained) the easy MVP for me. But then we got to the Dubya administration, and she all but vanished because McKay decided he had no more use for his Lady Macbeth after the halfway mark. At that point it became the Rockwell/Carell/Perry show, and none of them could compare. I don't know how hot of a take this is, but Rockwell's nomination is a bigger "what the fuck did he do" mystery to me than Jacki Weaver's for Silver Linings Playbook. It's not even that he was bad; it's that he didn't even have enough screentime to register either way. GWB was as good as non-existent here, which might've been McKay's point but is most likely just weak writing that tries to cover more bases than it possibly can and winds up leaving too many gaps behind. I might've maybe understood a nod for Carell if they absolutely needed to throw it some love in the category, but not Rockwell. I wouldn't have found that deserved either, but at least it would've made more sense. Everyone else in the supporting cast did their jobs as well as they could've been expected to. And then there's Bale, who clearly showed up for work but makes no impact at all. The physical transformation is predictably impressive, the voice work is commendable, and yet the Dick Cheney that McKay wrote for him is so washed out and blank that I'm having a hard time finding much else to praise about his performance beyond the surface. I walked out of the film not knowing anything about Cheney-- and I don't even mean the real life person (ha); even the character is already its own mess. In short, it's a confounding experience that has its moments but left me mostly indifferent. A 6 feels about right. Not a terrible way to spend two hours, but a wasted opportunity that lands far less punches than its targets deserved. As far as the "darkly humorous political satires" subgenre is concerned, The Death of Stalin is the real deal, and it's the one project that all these awards bodies should've thrown their nominations at instead. That's accomplished in all the ways that this isn't.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Mar 21, 2019 14:59:12 GMT
Since this hasn't been posted yet:
It could've been worse.
|
|
|
Vice
Mar 21, 2019 15:50:49 GMT
via mobile
morton likes this
Post by DeepArcher on Mar 21, 2019 15:50:49 GMT
Lmao. Embrassing.
Is it bad that I actually left the theater wondering why there was no musical number in this? It just felt like the kinda thing they would’ve done.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Mar 21, 2019 16:02:21 GMT
Lmao. Embrassing. Is it bad that I actually left the theater wondering why there was no musical number in this? It just felt like the kinda thing they would’ve done. What really shocked me was that McKay didn't find a way to throw this vine into the mix in whatever capacity.
|
|
|
Vice
Mar 22, 2019 2:59:23 GMT
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Mar 22, 2019 2:59:23 GMT
Since this hasn't been posted yet: It could've been worse. So he went full MacFarlane. Good to know (not really).
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,117
Likes: 1,533
|
Vice
Mar 25, 2019 10:19:02 GMT
Post by Nikan on Mar 25, 2019 10:19:02 GMT
It says nothing of value but was somehow entertaining.
|
|
|
Vice
Nov 9, 2019 1:34:02 GMT
Post by Martin Stett on Nov 9, 2019 1:34:02 GMT
I kind of want to see BH now, because there's no way in hell it could be worse than this and yet somehow still gets more ire.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Nov 9, 2019 2:04:46 GMT
I kind of want to see BH now, because there's no way in hell it could be worse than this and yet somehow still gets more ire. Because this had nowhere near the level of social relevancy. Apart from the Hollywood elite who wanted to celebrate it (clearly they have hard-ons for McKay) and the few cinephiles who care enough to stay involved in the awards conversation, nobody cared about this movie. Terrible box office, middling reviews. BH gets more hate because it was much more popular. Inexplicably popular garbage. A glorified highlights reel. Also a pedophile made it
|
|
|
Vice
Nov 9, 2019 4:45:36 GMT
via mobile
morton likes this
Post by Miles Morales on Nov 9, 2019 4:45:36 GMT
I kind of want to see BH now, because there's no way in hell it could be worse than this and yet somehow still gets more ire. Oh, it's worse. Soooooo much worse.
|
|