maegul

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Yea I got the general or vague impression that this was reminiscent of their initial maps roll out.

Are any heads gonna roll for this?

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago

I’m not sure I understand you.

If this is a US politics thing … I’m not USian.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

I’m genuinely curious to see how it goes!

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Lucky you to have enjoy Lost Highway for the first time!

In a cinema no less!

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago

Yep agreed. On the English language thing, I suspected but don’t know enough about him and haven’t seen enough of his films to be confident enough to claim it. But it certainly seemed to me that the writing-directing-editing just was not landing at all. I think my problem is that I picked up on it fairly early on in the film and couldn’t stop it from distracting me from the films positives.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You’re not alone. It happens! I’m around the 10 mark I think.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Mickey 17 (I posted about it already, suffice it to say it’s flaws bugged me to the point of ruining the film despite me wanting to enjoy it)

Mulholland Drive (re-watch) -

I watched Lost Highway for the first time recently (both Lynch films) and wanted to compare. It made me appreciate both actually. MD is surprisingly brisk and varied and well paced in a way that sneakily draws you into a Lynch film without you really noticing or feeling it until the end … such that it’s “success” makes a lot of sense. But LH’s more gritty and disturbing atmosphere was appreciated by comparison too.

For someone seeing them for the first time, seeing them back to back could be quite cool I suspect.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

It’s a tragedy how expensive it was though. They’ll never give him this budget again.

Yea this is partly why I posted, the “meta” story around the film is interesting (and sad) I think.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Interesting comparison. I think Mickey 17 is trying to be something different from Moon, with some overlapping themes. I’d say it’s more Starship Troopers and fifth element with moon-like themes.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don’t think I’m a raging IMDb reviewer.

As I said in another comment:

As for a summary of “reasons”, I’d say it was thin on meaning and loud and discombobulated in its direction, dialogue, pacing and plotting beyond my threshold of enjoyment or even tolerance.

Beyond that, the review I linked captures my thoughts well.

In short I think it crossed a threshold for me that’s likely different for many (thus the mix of up and down votes here).

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 weeks ago

Objective was quoted to signal that it’s a loaded term.

I mentioned a number of other things besides not liking it and linked to a review that mirrored my thoughts well.

I like plenty of films (Bong’s included).

As for a summary of “reasons”, I’d say it was thin on meaning and loud and discombobulated in its direction, dialogue, pacing and plotting beyond my threshold of enjoyment or even tolerance.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 weeks ago

Yea that’s an interesting perspective (and obviously I’d recommend staying away from the film, I think it’d only frustrate you).

 

I wanted to like it for basically everything going for it - premise, Pattinson, Bong, sci-fi, “original” film - but came out pretty much as bitter as I have ever after a film. I’m not one to do it, but I was close to walking out on it.

There are some touches of what the film could have been, some moments maybe. But on the whole it felt like a train wreck where I’d bet that people knew on set that it just wasn’t going to work.

At some point I noticed there was a good amount of yelling from the actors (I’m wondering if that’s just me) and can’t help but suspect it was the director or actors trying to find energy in scenes that were struggling. Or maybe that happened in the edit. Then there’s Ruffulo and Collette’s satirical characters that just didn’t land and felt dumb and amateur (along with Poor Things, I’m thinking Ruffulo is just not good and “original” film makers would do well to stay away)

All up, I think it’s embarrassingly bad, or “objectively” bad. No real depth, no coherence or pacing or well directed momentum, much of the comedy doesn’t land, characters and plot often feel like afterthoughts, and it got boring too.

I think this movie review (from a pleasantly non-hype yt channel) says it better than I can.

What’s funny is I think a lot of people want this to be good. For the sake of original, fun, quirky, satirical films (and honestly, me too). But are stuck confronting a film that’s only making that situation worse not better and which represents the risks that studios need to accept not the successes they don’t understand).

Am I off here? I was pleased to find the review I linked as it seemed to match my thoughts.

EDIT - epilogue

And on the point about the fate of films … I saw this in the cinema (somewhat in support of original films) and dragged a friend too.

It was expensive. There was bad behaviour in the cinema (people taking photos with flash of each other!). And the film was bad, IMO, in a way that I feel people should have been more honest about (like I said, I think people wanted this to be good). Plus my friend doesn’t trust my choice in movies any more.

It’s really put me off going to the cinemas TBH. I’ll see how I end up feeling over time, but I think this might have been the straw that broke my back on the whole cinema thing. In part, sadly, because I don’t get how the film was that bad.

view more: next ›