Barbie is a lot of fun, except when its feminist writers portray the real world. Then it just becomes hateful propaganda. The only thing that could really make it more fun is if it had been written as a parody of the ultimate feminist movie, by a room of 50-year old men. Either group of writers would have written the same story.
I remembered being totally obsessed with that movie when i was a kid, writing tons of fanfics about a possible sequel and what else could happen in the story. Looking today, i think that The Missing Lynx is still very good, a pretty simple movie, but a one that i am very grateful to growing up to, since that film kinda make me love write things and make creative stuffs ( To the point i'm realesing a original book this month😅). Anyway, nice review, i hope you don't give up and continues your contents. Thanks for the good memories about that film!
I think it was good choice to leave out the inner monologues becuase if they were to ADR the thoughts from the book 100% and keep everything already in, the movie would way to long and for most people lisenting to the thoughts of them would get old quick. Example original the Blade Runner flim had a cut a where you can hear the thoughs of Deckard most of time it just made the movie unwatchable, sometimes it did add insight to SOME scenes. On the other hand it would have been nice to have a cut where we can hear it but like i said earlier you would a long ass that most people would find boring. I do agree that more from the harkonnens would be cool, Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen is such a ball to watch, I love his energy. I find it a little goofy how you havent read the books and you say "the movie is lacking information the book has" (5:56) maybe you watched a video about the books I don't know. But, I genuinely recomend reading the books they are truly a great read. If you don't thats alright reading is not for everyone, I do reconmned a video by a youtuber named Alt Shift X called "The real Dune". Ps just a little pet peeve but when you talk about you waited 3 years for this movie, hears the thing good movies like this take a long time to make. If it was easy everyone would make a smash hit.
Ah, which Indiana Jones movies have been split into 2 parts... ever? (Hint:none). Also, the........... um.,,,,,,, Wait. Is this a parody review? Hold up bruv, I'd best look at the rest of your content to tell if I just wasted MY TIME responding to what seems to the dumbest thing to ever be preserved in an audio/visual transmission. Nothing you say makes any type of sense. At all. Unless you're weaving an elaborate comic narrative. In which case, cheers.
(also - please don't do that tired sh☆t of "humorously" stumbling over the pronunciation of someone's name. It just makes you sound like a dumb@ss. Stop it)
@nosnackz I apologize for the condescending tone. No hate here. You sound like you may be pretty young, not that that's a defining characteristic all unto itself. I grew up in the '80s, and I've lived with the original Dune novel, the David Lynch film, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, etc. for a very long time, and I saw the Villeneuve films 3 times each in the theater, so watching your video hit my (very sleep-deprived) brain like some sort of alien language. Discussion is good! I've got to go right now, but I will leave you with this: no Indiana Jones movie has ever been divided into two parts, at least not in the U.S. market. ✌️
@@sjz1925 you were definitely harsh. It looks like I was wrong about Indiana Jones, I'll admit it. I'm just giving my opinion about Dune wanted to make a point
I thought almost exactly the same and also arrived at 7/10 for my IMDB vote. The final twist and reveal was definitely shocking, but I found it heavy-handed, absurd, and the bread crumbs didn't seem there all along throughout the film to make it a particularly clever twist. The fight scene was definitely one of the coolest fight scenes I've seen and that was the most memorable part for me. My absolute favorite from Park Chan-wook is Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. That one is also very edgy, very shocking, but I found the writing very clever and far less heavy-handed in the way it revolves around a deaf-mute character. It's rather brilliantly tragic at times in the way it deals with the deafness of the protag.
Franchises are generally tiring to me as well. I think they especially tend to lose their momentum when the writers attempt to connect the previous stories and characters together, especially if the franchise uses the same main characters over and over. I think one of the biggest problems is that if the writers are trying to reuse more than the basic setting and premise of the franchise and really trying to weave the stories together, that tends to require extensive planning and foresight in advance to pull it off repeatedly. Yet the planning clearly isn't there in most cases; there are only so many times I suspect even great writers can, as an afterthought, effectively improvise compelling ways in hindsight to weave all existing stories together with new ones.
I really enjoyed this one. I think the concept was so much more interesting than the actual execution, but it was still so interesting that I was constantly in a state of suspense and so eager to find out what happens next. I wouldn't mind seeing some additional films or even a TV series built around the same concept since I think it lends itself to such compelling storytelling when multiple characters are racing against their clocks and lifetime is treated as an actual currency. It's such an engaging premise that I think there's room for some additional material.
The books are generally considered near-impossible to adapt to film (at least in a remotely accurate way) not because of their length. As you pointed out, many books just as long have been successfully adapted with reasonable accuracy to films of similar or often even shorter length. One of the main reasons is that the books are extreme examples of stories told from third-person omniscient perspective. Few books utilize omniscient narrators as heavily as Herbert's Dune, even Austen's Pride and Prejudice doesn't come close to the degree of omniscience. Major scenes often have us getting deep inside the innermost thoughts of two or more characters in the same single scene. Not only that, but many of the major conflicts are internal and both set up and resolved introspectively inside of the minds of our characters, not through their external actions. Films generally want to tell the story primarily through external actions: dialogue, body language, and other external character actions, not tell the story primarily from inside their minds. Many mention the expansive nature of the universe and the difficulty of filming across distant planets with such intricate worlds. That presents enormous technical difficulties for sure, but nowhere near as much as the fact that the bulk of the story is not only taking place across such an expansive universe but mostly in the minds of our characters. It's actually what makes the books so interesting to me is that we actually get to feel like a psychic audience able to constantly read the minds of various characters in each scene, including being able to read the mind of two characters at once who are antagonistic to each other and deceptively concealing their hidden thoughts from each other mid-interaction. And that gets me back to the two films. I also didn't find them so engaging despite each individual scene being so visually spectacular, since I didn't get a strong impression of the inner conflicts of each character -- not even Paul as our main protag -- to glue our interest between each scene together and be on the edge of our seats eager to find out what's next. I didn't get a strong sense of climax in scenes that should have been so climactic or a sense of tension and suspense in between the climactic moments, beyond the immediacy of each individual scene. The whole was nowhere near as strong as the sum of their parts for me lacking that strong connective glue. A lot of setup was often absent strong payoffs, and a lot of things seemed to be set up with no payoff whatsoever. The scene of Paul uniting the war council was really exciting and seemed climactic on its own, for example, and it was cool to see Paul's transformation there after drinking the Water of Life. That's actually when I finally thought Timothée Chalamet was starting to make most sense as a casting choice was after his transformation. Yet when we consider what went on before that one scene, it didn't appear to me like the build up was there to make it nearly as climactic in the overarching context of the storytelling as a whole. The film just seemed to me like a bunch of cool scenes loosely tied together by relatively weak threads. Some of them are extremely interesting, but in ways that didn't seem much more interesting than they are on their own. If I compare to Lynch's 1984 version, it was very cheesy and campy and Lynch used heavy voiceover to try to capture some of the omniscient perspective of the books, but it still managed to convey the conflicts well enough to make me much more eager to find out what happens next. The individual scenes are weaker in that one, but I thought the whole was still greater than the sum of their parts.
Very well put. I didn't read the books, so I didn't know that there's so much information left out. With the characters' inner thoughts, maybe if there was narration, it might have adapted better. But like you said, probably impossible for a film. The difference between books and film💁♂️
@@nosnackz Cheers! I think with the direction Villeneuve took with the films (even though he cut out so much), it could have been far more interesting. I don't mind the films radically deviating from the books, but I think in trying to figure out what to cut and what to keep and what to change, Villeneuve might have forgotten to create the strongest threads to tie the scenes together. There's a lot of setup with relatively weak or no payoffs. As a very simple example, compare the scene where Paul conquers and rides the sandworm in this version to the Lynch version. In both versions, they help establish Paul's acceptance among the Fremen and reinforces the idea that he's the prophesized one. Yet in Lynch's version, the setup has a more satisfying payoff with Paul leading the assault against the Sardaukar on a giant sandworm. In this version, Paul just rides a sandworm once and that's it; we never see him ride one again so there's less of a connective thread to tie that one scene, as thrilling as it was, to the others. Take the final scene where Paul encounters and defeats the Emperor and his forces. That seems like a relatively weak payoff because there's hardly any setup as we barely see the Emperor throughout the film. The choice to make Chanti somewhat antagonistic towards Paul could have made for a really interesting and reluctant romance between them, yet I think the build up is lacking and the chemistry seems to be lacking in ways that made me feel like they just suddenly fall for each other out of the blue. The fight between Rabban and Halleck didn't seem nearly as climactic as it could have been, since I found nothing to invest me so much into Halleck's vengeful grudge against the Harkonnen except mostly expository dialogue he delivers. We never see the two characters encounter each other before that to set up this final fight between them. I can ramble on and on but hopefully you get my point! Most of the two films were like that to me. Some of things that happen in a scene are really interesting, but I'm not so invested beyond the individual scenes. As for my dream adaptation, I would love to see one unconventionally use even copious amounts of voiceover (far more than Lynch's version) as well as being much longer like you suggested. I've heard excessive amounts of voiceover is a sign of bad filmmaking, but I thought Sin City (2005) was extremely engaging despite having extreme amounts of voiceover to translate all the thought bubbles in Frank Miller's comic books to the screen.
@@darkengine5931 I totally get you. A series is too close to the movie to ever come out in the next few years, so all we have is good cgi or the original books to enjoy😂 anywho thanks for the lesson, I hope everyone learned as much as I did
I think the statue scene was to show how desperate Nina wanted to understand the role of the black swan, or understand what freedom was. But the statue was quite disturbing, so it could also symbolize how Nina was scared of this freedom she needs to find. But I think it's up for interpretation. Great review tho! Can't wait to see more.
l take. there’s a lot of thematic stuff that it seems you didn’t pick up on that ties the story together. i understand that oldboy is definitely not for everyone but it does what it sets out to do absolutely flawlessly.
It's about the predatory reproductive psychology displayed by various species, (including humans, and birds) Certain species of birds will replace the eggs from other birds nests with their own, such that those other birds will be unknowingly burdened with rearing and raising them into fledgelings as if they were their own. In humans, it is most comonnly demonstrated as paternity fraud, where wmn will reproduce with one man (independent for seed), and decieve another into believing the children are his (codependent for feed). In the movie, it is an interdimensonal species exploiting humans, through dimensions, to raise their own offspring. It's a sci-fi thriller/horrer about inter-species paternity fraud. In nature, reproductive success, and the longevity of your offspring, (furthering of your genes), is increased, by engaging in immoral (predatory) reproductive behaviour. The more you can reproduce, and the more you can deffer the responsibilities on others, (taking resources and time from other's offspring, to give, indirectly, to your own) the more time and resource you can spend reproducing. It isn't just modern single mother psychology. It's fundamentally written (preprogrammed), into many different forms of life as we know it today. That's why there is footage of some of these birds in the move. He's telling the audience what the movie is about, without spelling it out. Just like how the birds replace dropped/pushed out eggs with their own, and fly away, and how the codependent man/husband, doesn't get a paternity test and finds out 20 years down the line, they are taken and placed into a 'vivarium', a prison nest disguised as a comfortable family home, and then the predator gives them offspring that is not their own, to raise. Humans are the selected victim species, of an interdimensional, alien predator species, like codependent men to covertly narcissistic wmn, and birds to other birds. What if humans as an entire species, were prey to a more advanced alien species, not just prey, to our own. That's what 'Vivarium', is about. Watch it from start to finish with this in mind and it all makes sense. Martin isn't a human. He's an alien, disguised as a human, leading them into the 'vivarium', where they will be trapped, and forced to rear his species offspring. (Just like most modern marriages. Statistically, its a cointoss). There are many vivariums, in alternate dimensional space. That's where they travel through when chasing the offspring. Those are the other vivariums.
This isn’t my favourite of the trilogy like a lot of people are saying, but I really enjoyed it. It still had the classic Guardians humour while also going more dramatic and somber than the previous entries. Rocket’s backstory was tragically and beautifully told. Great review
