Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Wasted three hours at IT Chapter Two. I want my money back.

arugula2 wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:Can you explain the badness so that Nameless and I can appreciate it from a fresh perspective? See, me, I don’t know much about MP4s (other than the video format) and military tactics, so would welcome an informed critique. Or maybe it’s something about the acting I’m not getting?

My reaction is mostly to the editing & direction. Pretty consistent with the opening 'action' scene... badly spliced, badly timed, pretty uninspired raw material (director's fault), makes the characters' response times and reactions look dumb (not the actors' fault).

One example (unfortunately seems representative): she sees someone in the reflection dressed in police gear approaching from "behind" (whatever that means, in this scenario) - weapon drawn and aimed, movements poised and professional. He has his target in sights. We even see him stop in the reflection, presumably because he's ready to shoot. And that's a professional "ready", as in, "not fucking around, ready", as in "I pull this trigger, and you're guaranteed to have holes in you, ready" (that is, unless the narc battalion populating the map doesn't see him & his intentions before he can do that... something the movie doesn't want me to think about, or which is capably explained in a scene I haven't gotten to - it has to be one or the other). From the moment he has his target for the shot, to the moment he pulls the trigger, several seconds pass (unclear how many, because he's on the approach when we see him, but by then the car is within spitting distance anyway). Let's be generous and say that from the moment he has a guaranteed shot to the moment he pulls the trigger, 3 seconds pass. In those 3 seconds, she sees him in the mirror, recognizes what this is about, GASPS long enough for us to count the lines between her teeth, veeerrrrryyy slowly DIPS for cover (explain that logic to me - is this a game of peekaboo with a toddler? Are his bullets union-bound to only penetrate windows?), then POPS back up, aims, and shoots him dead. No bueno. I don't like watching extras *stand perfectly still* for no reason. I instantly picture the director telling him, "ok, good, now HOLD that position... good... good... now FIRE your toy gun, good... just like that... now HOLD... HOLD.... HOLD... now collapse. Aaaand... cut! Great take, guys. No, no, that's a wrap, we got it. Yes, yes, editing can finesse all that, yes, and my cousin has a WHOLE library of stock dramatic movie sounds we can squirt into that... thing we just did. Yes, they'll lap it up, trust me."*

This isn't how most people watch movies, I get it. Can't help it. I've seen good editing way too many times to fall for this shit.

But all the direction so far has been bland and pointless. And the writing is shitty too. Nothing I've heard (even in that scene) feels like it needed to be said. It literally would've been as good without the words. So boooooooo on that count too.

*Added: more sharing... I was left with an irritating guess as to why that Mexican "cop" chose to target her and not the much bigger targets around her. Does it have something to do with her reticence about what the fuck they are doing? (Helpfully telegraphed by the subtle line "What the fuck are we doing?" delivered by a palpitating Emily Blunt, after a 4-minute sequence which, I'm sure, <sarcasm>had theretofore left us clueless as to her feelings about the situation</sarcasm>?) Is it to put blood on her hands, and magically tie her participation to those of her colleagues? Booooooriiiiiiiiing.

aban57 wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Wasted three hours at IT Chapter Two. I want my money back.

Is it faithful to the book at least ?

scott1328 wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Wasted three hours at IT Chapter Two. I want my money back.

Is it faithful to the book at least ?

It is missing the cosmic turtle and the destruction of Derry.

aban57 wrote:

scott1328 wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Wasted three hours at IT Chapter Two. I want my money back.

Is it faithful to the book at least ?

It is missing the cosmic turtle and the destruction of Derry.

Oh, so classic hollywoodian adaptation then. Thanks.

aban57 wrote:

scott1328 wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Wasted three hours at IT Chapter Two. I want my money back.

Is it faithful to the book at least ?

It is missing the cosmic turtle and the destruction of Derry.

Oh, so classic hollywoodian adaptation then. Thanks.

scott1328 wrote:

aban57 wrote:

scott1328 wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Is it faithful to the book at least ?

It is missing the cosmic turtle and the destruction of Derry.

Oh, so classic hollywoodian adaptation then. Thanks.

I view those as improvements. Many of the complaints about the movie adaptation apply to the source material. Rachel regrets wasting three hours of her life. Think of those poor sods that actually trudged through 1000+ pages of cosmic turtles and adolescent gang bangs...

arugula2 wrote:So far, only those 10:37 and that youtube clip. But I will watch it start to finish pretty soon.

WTF? I just noticed this is directed by Denis Villeneuve, with soundtrack by Jóhann Jóhannsson.

The_Piper wrote:Shh...It's around the corner.

LucidFlight wrote:Samurai's Promise



A Japanese period drama (jidaigeki) set during the 18th century. A slow film with much nice scenery of the passing seasons, punctuated by the occasional sword fight. Time passes as slowly in this film as the seasons do in real life. One has to really savour the passing of time to enjoy this film. A man with a sword (I think he is a samurai) has a wife and then he goes around killing some other guys. There's a bit of politics and subterfuge. (Is it subterfuge? I dunno.) Very slow, but I watched it until the end. I was determined to be cultured. Now, I can talk to you about how cultured I am with regard to Edo-period Japan.

6/10

(Added an extra point for not being advertised on the side of a bus.)