Banshees of Insherin. It’s just as dark and about half as funny as In Bruges. Farrell and Gleeson’s chemistry is still there. I’d watch any movie with both of them in it no matter how dull the plot sounded.
6 Likes
Guillermo del Toro’s Pinoccio
What a breathtaking awe-inspiring version of this story, with beautiful animation a wonderful message and absolutely inspired character design and story changes.
6 Likes
I don’t know if this counts because I haven’t seen it nor do I intend to but I’m not sure what’s funnier/sadder about some of the commentary I’ve seen about Avatar: The Way of Water: that is does in fact appear to just be the first one again, that the story appears to be just as paper thin “but you should definitely spend more to see those incredible visuals in 3D” 
, or that some seem to be disappointed in the story or lack thereof (again) and there still some of those who recommend it due solely to the visuals (again). Some of them seem to (finally) be waking up to the (myriad and massive) shortcomings of this franchise nobody asked for but… Anyway, apologies, just wanted to rant a bit; I’ve been dreading this opening weekend since it was first threatened all those years ago. I don’t even think I hate this franchise or the people who blindly defend it, I just wish neither existed (or that the films were worthy of their defenders) and that the franchise wasn’t going to be forcing itself on us for the next half decade…
2 Likes
I’ve actually read a review a short while ago that only the scenes of Pandora’s environment and the Na’vi themselves are good, and that the effects for several scenes come across like they’re pulled from a PS5 cutscene, and that the humans have an uncanny, soap opera look to them from the motion filter. In other words, the very thing this series banks in, that it operates on the most advanced technology currently possible for filmmaking, isn’t even completely true anymore. So, yeah, Cameron can crank out his third one and close this up, and he should do that and skip on the other sequels he had in mind, because really, nobody cares. Ooh and aah at the visuals, but we could put them on a screensaver.
2 Likes
Come one man even a basic Google search shows that isn’t true. Cameron and Weta had to employ new technology and CGI techniques to make the underwater scenes. This was one of the first articles I ran across after simply typing “Avatar 2 technology”.
6 Likes
The only returns I had on Avatar is : it’s some of cinema’s best in “transporting into a world”, and is not here for the story. And the technical aspects are some of the most advances existing. Admittedly in a way that can help the rest of the industry
The issue as a spectator : video games exists for that.
Avatar is the movie equivalent of a book that is really really good at describing scenes and movements. It’s impressive for the techniques and inside the specific art. But there are better medium for it. In this example movies.
5 Likes
Completely true, dude. I said, it’s not completely true anymore. And I did specify, in regards to the scenes of the alien world and the aliens themselves, it’s still doing it’s thing, but that same care doesn’t seem to have covered the entire film. And, again, this isn’t my conclusion; I haven’t seen the thing yet. This was a review I read a couple hours ago. Go tell them that new technologies and techniques were used.
3 Likes
It isn’t the public’s job to go over this sort of shit, they have editors for a reason and they are supposed to look into this shit. This fucking stupid take-up-mindshare, baiting style journalism is killing the medium, journalists need standards again not fucking business metrics.
2 Likes
Well, considering that part about how parts of the movie live up to the standards of tech presentation and others don’t, I think they’ve covered that, but that’s my take away after reading it. I’m sensing some discontent with something more fundamental at play here, so I’ll leave you be with that.
1 Like
I actually saw that one too! 
Critics were falling over themselves for the first one’s visual and technical achievements in 2009. The main difference is that while the first led the way in that department (for better or worse), the second has things it can be compared to. Even the first does now. The biggest issue is that, unless the third can actually craft a compelling story, the franchise will have very little if not nothing to contribute anymore.
Anyway, again, I have no plans to see the movie. I go for story, my suspicions have been confirmed that it is basically the first one again (which I did not enjoy), and I already had no interest in paying more for the “spectacle” if it wasn’t. I just wanted to vent about why this franchise gets praised for “style over substance” by many people who look for “substance over style” elsewhere. I think we did a pretty good about discussing it so we can probably move on to movies that are actually worth talking about.
2 Likes
I still don’t get why people who liked Top Gun: Maverick seem to hate this film, they are both technically refined but cripplingly middle-of-the-road films. I can’t say if the avatars share the same plot since I haven’t seen or heard a lot about Avatar 2. That is what I want to complain about, it looks like an obvious double standard to me.
3 Likes
True. Who’s now morbidly curious to see the Barbie movie now?
5 Likes
I also have no interest in Top Gun so I can’t say anything but I have been wondering about the double standard for Avatar since I had the misfortune to be dragged to by a friend in 2010.
ME! There was just something about that teaser and I like Margot Robbie
5 Likes
Top Gun: Maverick is a long-await sequel that was basically the main launch of the career of a major actor, and it didn’t come for decades, allowing the nostalgia factor to set in. Avatar is the unwanted, I requested sequel that came for a film not even fifteen years old yet, that wasn’t very well-liked to begin with, and whose cast, even when we’ll-known and well-loved, is hidden behind blue CGI. So while both films might be meh, one is a sequel to a movie people seemed to like (
), while the other is not.
3 Likes
I’d rather a hundred Avatars than another Top Gun or other 80s remake. People say a lot about Avatar but Pandora is a richly detailed world in some regards, the actual creature design is lovely and James Cameron actively advances digital filmmaking techniques with each film he makes it seems. They are just let down by standardised plotting, it isn’t egregious to me either because as I said plenty of other films do it and plenty of games do it as well.
3 Likes
I have no interest in seeing the Barbie movie, because I’m pretty sure I know how it’s gonna go. Barbie will start off in a relatively simple life filled with her own glamor, her ability to do anything other than look pretty will be challenged, she’ll go on an adventure that shows off how strong and independent she is, while she shows up Ken at every possible turn to show how much she doesn’t need a man (with no mention of how often she relies on the help of the other women of the Barbieverse instead, which will be numerous), and she’ll come away looking like a Kim Possible action type who can do anything. Seen it before. Over and over again.
1 Like
I can’t think of a single person who was enthusiastic about Maverick when it was announced especially since news broke in the period where cashing in on the 80s was at its peak.
Tom Cruise became successful after Risky Business, that was three years prior and a much better film than Top Gun.
Also I fucking hate people judging films on whether they are “wanted” or not. A film justifies its existence by the way it is crafted not by its public demand for its existence, I didn’t ask for Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny yet it is my most anticipated blockbuster of next year.
Has anyone in this conversation actually seen Avatar 2? I feel like we are all morons for discussing the merits a film before everyone involved has seen it.
6 Likes
Fun Fact: There isn’t a single picture of Tom Cruise on his Wikipedia page that doesn’t creep me the fuck out. It is like looking at an Ikea store display, you think there is someone there, you know there can be but there just isn’t.
5 Likes
If I had a choice, I’d hope “other” was one. I’ve never had an interest in anything Top Gun and Avatar was painfully dull and not worth regular price of admission let alone the 3D price.
I can agree with this even though he seems to be getting a little high on himself because of it and the “spectacle” alone isn’t worth it to me.
To be fair, it’s Ken; he’s not much of a man and she’s definitely better than him. 
No, and I don’t intend to. I’m just going off my opinion of the first and what I’ve seen and heard of the second and the future. 
Might be moronic but my suspicions feel very much confirmed. Definitely down to move on though.
3 Likes
Maybe you don’t know a lot of people. It’s all I kept hearing about.
I said basically the main launch of his career, not when he became successful. Arnold became successful after The Terminator, but it was Predator that launched him into the status of superstar. Top Gun is thought of as the film that cemented Cruise’s status. Come on, man, pay attention to what I say, not what you think I mean.
Generally, when a sequel is not asked for, it means either the first one was so well made that nobody wants to see it tarnished by a sequel that risks being inferior, or the first one was so meh that nobody cares about seeing anymore. Avatar tends to be part of group 2 whenever someone talks to me about it.
1 Like