|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Jan 31, 2018 19:17:42 GMT
What a wasted potential. The plot outline was brilliant and it offered a great concept for a very interesting movie that makes you curious to watch. Then you have a mastermind like Alexander Payne behind the camera and a great leading actor like Matt Damon, so what could possibly go wrong? Well … losing ideas. Because this is what happened here. The first 30-45 minutes were great and full of energy and great ideas, then it feels like Payne abruptly ran out of ideas and just created a new plot, which is more than the second half of the film, that doesnt really have much to do with the original concept anymore. That is what went wrong and it is a shame. Maybe it would have worked as a short film (no pun intended). Matt Damon sleepwalked through the film and probably didn't really know what to do with that thing either, I don't think he handled his character very well or rather did not really care for it. Christoph Waltz was irritating and unfortunately gave a very disappointing performance. Also what was this accent?! Same goes to Udo Kier. Kristen Wiig was built up well, but just like the prime plot motive she just disappears. Some nice cameos like from Laura Dern and Jason Sudekis. The best part of it was definitely Hong Chau who delivers a fantastic performance full of energy. She is really the only reason to watch this film. She does so much with so little and puts so many different emotions and facettes into her character. Its great. Next to her, Damon appeared to be even duller. The soundtrack was a bit annoying at times, but at least it had some nice images. Still, kudos for the first third but Payne really needed a script doctor for this.
Nominations:
Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Hong Chau
Rating: 5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on Jan 31, 2018 19:35:04 GMT
I agree with every single word you just said. Such an underwhelming mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jan 31, 2018 21:28:09 GMT
It’s like Alex and Jim kept playing madlibs through the writing process. There’s plenty of potentially great themes that could have elevated the film, had they stuck to one as the overarching concept, but the second that a potentially interesting idea gets brought up, the film hand waves it away for something completely different.
But Hong Chau was the best. Funniest F-bombs of the year.
|
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Feb 1, 2018 0:49:32 GMT
Wouldn't surprise me if he had two separate plot ideas about shrinking people and going underground into a tunnel and them tried to mash the together into one film. 5/10 is about right. The first act is promising, but then it goes off the rails. 5/10 is about right.
Although the Christoph Waltz character was a glorious example of eurotrash. I wish I could be friends with that guy.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,392 
Likes: 1,274
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Feb 2, 2018 7:36:25 GMT
It's a baffling movie when you put the first act next to the last one, but I wouldn't necessarily say is bad it's just that they don't go well together. The prologue and first act are perfect and among my favourite films of 2017 and I wish the whole movie was focused exploring those ideas, good intentions being trivialized, everything he does in that segment is precise and sharp, I know so many people who want to "save the planet" that it was delightful to see them on screen, the scene between Matt Damon and her mother is so on point. I think there many good things in the second act but starts becoming too self-serious and didactic, Waltz has the most interesting character introducing how the vice is part of their lives there too and actually I really like his performance and especially Udo Kier, the movie is fine until Hong Chau appears ( she's great though, and for that reason I can't dismiss it ) and Matt Damon come in contact with the non developed side of the comunity and the way Payne depicts that society really is problematic and just so wasted and lazy, last year Beatriz at dinner did the same, there's no logic behind giving a halo of innocence and kindness to those people that no matter how poor they are they live happy, help each other and watch fucking mexican telenovelas, it's just a dumb representation of the "good people", and this is not exactly an ideological complaint or that an imperialist view is wrong is just the baffling switch in tone. Yet, I wouldn't say that in the third act Payne ran out of ideas, if anything is here where he reinforce his inicial idea of "is better to do something in the immediate environment instead of worrying as something as abstract as to save the planet", I think Payne's observation is very incesive. PS. Why so little of Wiig ? I completely lost it when she appeared shaved and with only one eyebrow  |
|
