|
Post by Kings_Requiem on Mar 10, 2018 19:43:42 GMT
Solid opening 10 minutes and closing 20 minutes...but everything else is a plodding mess.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Mar 10, 2018 19:44:54 GMT
My 3 stars letterboxd review: It's truly commendable how Red Sparrow doesn't settle for being the Fun Spy-on-Spy Action Movie of the Year, I always appreciate when big budget movies aim for being brainy. With that said: relax a little bit. The direction is fine, but it's too uptight. Red Sparrow is 140 minutes long, and there's not a single moment of relief or levity. It's more than two hours of everyone being tense all the time, and it gets tired after a while. It gets really tired when you realize the plot is way below the tension that's being built-up. The first act, when Jennifer Lawrence's Dominika is introduced, her downfall and her initiation in the spy school is really engaging. Jennifer goes back to her Winter's Bone days of bleakness, and she does it really well. Some sequences, like the ballet dance, are breathtaking. Maybe she should have stayed in school with Charlotte Rampling reprising her cold bitch persona. Cause when she goes to her mission, well... It's just not interesting at all. Of course, this part of the movie is not completely irredeemable. It's very Verhoeven-esque, and it has a hell of an atmosphere. But the plot gets more and more confusing - and Red Sparrow is a movie that relies heavily on plot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2018 21:58:08 GMT
It has some legitimately cool parts, and Lawrence is pretty solid, but after she leaves the Sparrow school, it becomes overstuffed, dragged out, and disengaging. The plot with the CIA is remarkably bland, and it’s hard to see Lawrence and Edgerton as a couple. They look more like a guy dating his niece. Still better than Passengers.
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Mar 11, 2018 19:41:47 GMT
Its nothing we haven't seen before, in fact we get those films about female super agents now basically annually. Last year Charlize Theron gave us the "Atomic Blonde" and while that was pretty original in its execution, "Red Sparrow" is rather classical story telling. Its not a bad film at all, in fact it had many fine aspects and nice tension but it was also flawed. A bunch of british or american actors acting with russian accents - yeah it was irritating. Jennifer Lawrence still gave a pretty decent performance, at least most of the time. She had some nice scenes to showcase her talent. I also liked Joel Edgerton who was not as colorless as I expected. Because usually the male lead in those films is colorless. Charlotte Rampling was terribly wasted and underused. Its the kind of roles he used to play before her Oscar nomination and now she continues with it. Matthias Schoenearts was doing his very best to give his one dimensional role some life. Jeremy Irons was fine, especially towards the ending. Mary-Louise Parker was terrible. The film had some continuity issues for which I mostly blame director Francis Lawrence. I did not feel that this was the right project for him. Also I did not see the reason for it being so overlong. You could have easily cut it to a 2 hours running time. Also the screenplay was often not too believable. Or the mix of the rather weakish direction made it not always believable. What I liked were the twists and some smart turns. Lawrence also makes the film interesting as it was a brave turn for her. Nothing new but besides the running time quite enjoyable. 7/10
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,389
Likes: 1,274
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Mar 12, 2018 3:57:41 GMT
I think the problem with this film ( as normally is with a Francis Lawrence film ) is that it takes itself very seriously and many scenes are unintentionally funny, and when the humor is selfinflicted doesn't work, is awkward and that makes it a tedious watch but Lawrence ( the actress ) does her absolute best and holds the entire film on her shoulders, she's the only reason to see it. What did I do at the end of that day ? Go home and watch Atomic Blonde for the 5th time.
A question, does anyone know what year the movie is suppose to happen ? There are fancy cell phones but also diskets, 80s cable telephones and a laptop I had in the 90s...
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Mar 16, 2018 2:56:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Mar 16, 2018 17:55:13 GMT
It's relatively engaging through the Sparrow school section, as someone above said, but after that I found it rather uninvolving and kind of a slog. It picks up in the last 20 minutes or so, but I had stopped being invested by that point. If I had stopped watching halfway through, I wouldn't have felt the urge to finish it. Lawrence makes it watchable, but it only really made me want to rewatch Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy instead.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Apr 19, 2018 1:58:49 GMT
This is leaving theaters now with a little under $50m domestic BO against a $70m budget (not incl marketing). Not worse than Mother! by any stretch. But for comparison Atomic Blonde made more domestic with less than half the budget. Tho it's actually doing decent at the global BO.
Anybody else see this? Like it? Hate it? I think it's an interesting one to discuss in terms of quality, the genre, critical consensus, and Lawrence......
So the critics surely didn't like it, except Mick LaSalle: "A thoroughly entertaining movie that stays fresh and interesting for all of its two-hour-plus running time. But what kicks it into a higher level is that it's a terrific vehicle for Jennifer Lawrence, one of the few movie stars who deserves one, who is a film star in the classic sense." Other most critics are quick to harry the accents (really?) and criticize the film for being "trashy" "gratuitous" "slow" or for its "sexpot shamelessness" and "limited vision of women" or for being "too disturbing and brutal to be popcorn entertainment." Some of these reviewers and probably smears of audiences were expecting another Hunger Games -- there are certainly some comparisons: occasionally tonally, the mother, the training, etc -- just not something quite this violent and quasi smutty. I think someone said 'Red Sparrow is like Paul Verhoeven adapting John Le Carre' which sounds about right haha. But its treatment of women, and how Dominika overcomes it, is vital and I think critics mixed up its less palatable elements with some kinda false commentary.
Now the pic itself is indeed wholly entertaining imo, it's well made and in fact I think it could've been longer; the pacing at the beginning and ending is a little abrupt and while we're mentioning flaws there are scenes I thought could've used a De Palma to wring out some grandeur and proper decoupage. But....Lawrence front and center is exceptionally smoldering, braced and controlled, not without a heart and the stress of manifold schemes. It's also, while a fascinating character, a daring and uncomfortable role, so extra props (with some back patting to 20th Century Fox for not diluting the material). Matthias Schoenaerts is also very good, when he's on screen there's a felt mix of duty, intimidation, calculation, care, fear, shame. I'd go with 7.5/10 maybe.....
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Apr 19, 2018 2:07:08 GMT
A question, does anyone know what year the movie is suppose to happen ? There are fancy cell phones but also diskets, 80s cable telephones and a laptop I had in the 90s... Modern day. The author of the novel it's based on is a former CIA operative, he consulted on the film and apparently the CIA etc still use outmoded materials such as floppy discs. Also, extra trivia, he said programs similar to the "sparrow school" do in fact, or at least once did, exist.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 19, 2018 18:54:35 GMT
So the critics surely didn't like it, except Mick LaSalle: "A thoroughly entertaining movie that stays fresh and interesting for all of its two-hour-plus running time. But what kicks it into a higher level is that it's a terrific vehicle for Jennifer Lawrence, one of the few movie stars who deserves one, who is a film star in the classic sense." Other most critics are quick to harry the accents (really?) and criticize the film for being "trashy" "gratuitous" "slow" or for its "sexpot shamelessness" and "limited vision of women" or for being "too disturbing and brutal to be popcorn entertainment." Some of these reviewers and probably smears of audiences were expecting another Hunger Games -- there are certainly some comparisons: occasionally tonally, the mother, the training, etc -- just not something quite this violent and quasi smutty. I think someone said 'Red Sparrow is like Paul Verhoeven adapting John Le Carre' which sounds about right haha. But its treatment of women, and how Dominika overcomes it, is vital and I think critics mixed up its less palatable elements with some kinda false commentary. Now the pic itself is indeed wholly entertaining imo, it's well made and in fact I think it could've been longer; the pacing at the beginning and ending is a little abrupt and while we're mentioning flaws there are scenes I thought could've used a De Palma to wring out some grandeur and proper decoupage. But....Lawrence front and center is exceptionally smoldering, braced and controlled, not without a heart and the stress of manifold schemes. It's also, while a fascinating character, a daring and uncomfortable role, so extra props (with some back patting to 20th Century Fox for not diluting the material). Matthias Schoenaerts is also very good, when he's on screen there's a felt mix of duty, intimidation, calculation, care, fear, shame. I'd go with 7.5/10 maybe..... It's aging fairly well for me (Lawrence and Rampling in particular), and I do think that some of the criticism is unwarranted or misdirected. I've seen people dog the movie for what they perceive as a gross over-sexualization of women, but I think the way Dominika uses it to her advantage and takes agency of her own body is actually refreshing (the way she turns the tables on the would-be rapist in front of the class is a great scene). I actually didn't think of Verhoeven while watching it, but yeah, it does share some similarities with the excellent Black Book and even a bit of Elle for good measure.
|
|
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 Apr 19, 2018 22:44:30 GMT
It's reasonably entertaining and slicker than I expected it to be, but suffers from cramming way too much plot into two and a half hours, to the point where it can't reasonably execute everything in a satisfying way. It jumps from one hoop to the next without much space to breathe and without the time to fully flesh things out to make the plot's progression natural and believable. The beginning is very rough and some of the narrative threads are taken nowhere before we're on to the next thing (the whole hoopla with Dominika's fellow dancers is introduced and resolved in like 90 seconds), and because it's all done at such a chop-chop pace, a lot of the character arcs feel rushed and unfinished. To compare where Dominika begins and where she ends is startling, and the film doesn't make the various transformations and transitions she undergoes flow terribly smoothly.
As for the violence, I get what it was aiming at and I very much appreciate how it was willing to take its premise to darker places than most big-budget studio tentpoles would dare, but the fact remains that the film does repeatedly resort to rape, torture and sexual humiliation to build character without ever fully contextualizing it or digging deep into Dominika's mindset. Since you guys brought up Verhoeven, to me what truly elevated Elle and turned it from mere exploitation into an endlessly fascinating and compelling character study was that it had a razor-sharp script that took the time to develop its lead and went to great lengths to explore different facets of her psyche and her behavioral patterns, as well as her reaction to/processing of the violence that's inflicted upon her, which was then magnificently executed by Verhoeven and Huppert. Of course Red Sparrow doesn't set out to have the same tone (it certainly doesn't possess the same streak of dark humor and is tasked with covering far more ground in terms of plot), but it is treading in similar waters while not treating the subject matter with the gravity or (especially) patience it calls for, which to me makes it perfectly understandable why some people criticize it for using violence and nastiness as a crutch rather than as an organic plot element.
As for the acting, Lawrence remains a very watchable screen presence and I like that between this and mother! it seems that she's willing to go for audience-unfriendly material and break out of the same-old-same-old that she'd been stuck in for a few years, but the accent (yes, really) bothered the shit outta me and kept taking me out of the film. This is verrrrry much a Rrrrrrussian charrrrracterrrrr she's playing, and she neverrrr lets us forrrrget it. (Truth be told, that goes for every English-speaking actor doing an Evil Russian skit. The contrast between how the film paints its Russian and American spies is... quite something.) Dominika is also so chilly and detached she essentially becomes a blank slate, which is mostly the script's fault for not giving Lawrence much to sink her teeth into.
Edgerton was great, though I guess it worked against the film that he was so jaw-droppingly hot I could barely pay attention to what was being said whenever he was on screen. Schoenaerts was good too.
I did like it more than I'm letting on (just adding to the debate), but it feels very first-quarter studio fare-ish when it could've been something truly provoking in the hands of a better writer and a director with more identity and flair. It hasn't had much staying power with me in the month or so since I saw it, but it's all right all things considered.
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Apr 19, 2018 22:49:13 GMT
Edgerton is a great actor but he was kind of miscast (his chemistry with JLaw was kind of meh too )and Schoenaerts needs to star in a Vladimir Putin biopic ASAP
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 19, 2018 22:55:55 GMT
It's reasonably entertaining and slicker than I expected it to be, but suffers from cramming way too much plot into two and a half hours, to the point where it can't reasonably execute everything in a satisfying way. It jumps from one hoop to the next without much space to breathe and without the time to fully flesh things out to make the plot's progression natural and believable. The beginning is very rough and some of the narrative threads are taken nowhere before we're on to the next thing (the whole hoopla with Dominika's fellow dancers is introduced and resolved in like 90 seconds), and because it's all done at such a chop-chop pace, a lot of the character arcs feel rushed and unfinished. To compare where Dominika begins and where she ends is startling, and the film doesn't make the various transformations and transitions she undergoes flow terribly smoothly. As for the violence, I get what it was aiming at and I very much appreciate how it was willing to take its premise to darker places than most big-budget studio tentpoles would dare, but the fact remains that the film does repeatedly resort to rape, torture and sexual humiliation to build character without ever fully contextualizing it or digging deep into Dominika's mindset. Since you guys brought up Verhoeven, to me what truly elevated Elle and turned it from mere exploitation into an endlessly fascinating and compelling character study was that it had a razor-sharp script that took the time to develop its lead and went to great lengths to explore different facets of her psyche and her behavioral patterns, as well as her reaction to/processing of the violence that's inflicted upon her, which was then magnificently executed by Verhoeven and Huppert. Of course Red Sparrow doesn't set out to have the same tone (it certainly doesn't possess the same streak of dark humor and is tasked with covering far more ground in terms of plot), but it is treading in similar waters while not treating the subject matter with the gravity or (especially) patience it calls for, which to me makes it perfectly understandable why some people criticize it for using violence and nastiness as a crutch rather than as an organic plot element. As for the acting, Lawrence remains a very watchable screen presence and I like that between this and mother! it seems that she's willing to go for audience-unfriendly material and break out of the same-old-same-old that she'd been stuck in for a few years, but the accent (yes, really) bothered the shit outta me and kept taking me out of the film. This is verrrrry much a Rrrrrrussian charrrrracterrrrr she's playing, and she neverrrr lets us forrrrget it. (Truth be told, that goes for every English-speaking actor doing an Evil Russian skit. The contrast between how the film paints its Russian and American spies is... quite something.) Dominika is also so chilly and detached she essentially becomes a blank slate, which is mostly the script's fault for not giving Lawrence much to sink her teeth into. Edgerton was great, though I guess it worked against the film that he was so jaw-droppingly hot I could barely pay attention to what was being said whenever he was on screen. Schoenaerts was good too. I did like it more than I'm letting on (just adding to the debate), but it feels very first-quarter studio fare-ish when it could've been something truly provoking in the hands of a better writer and a director with more identity and flair. It hasn't had much staying power with me in the month or so since I saw it, but it's all right all things considered. I don't think you're altogether wrong -- as I said, I think the film could've really done with some tightening and a more ambiguous backstory to Dominika, and I do agree that the "dancer rivalry" bit was glossed over (and considering the sudden violence of the scene, it speaks to a darkness in Dominika's character that is never really explored). And yeah, I can see where you're coming from on the accent, but it didn't take me out of it (at least in Lawrence's case; I actually didn't realize Irons was a Russian until midway through the movie, simply because his Russian lilt is so light).
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Apr 20, 2018 0:49:42 GMT
I saw the part I wanted to see...
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Apr 20, 2018 0:51:34 GMT
I saw the part I wanted to see... Never change, Fish.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Apr 20, 2018 0:53:00 GMT
I saw the part I wanted to see... Joel Edgerton’s stubble?
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Apr 20, 2018 1:26:29 GMT
I saw the part I wanted to see... Joel Edgerton’s stubble? Not quite, though I am a big Edgerton fan.
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on May 16, 2018 20:51:25 GMT
DELETED SCENES
|
|