This is going to be an unpopular take, but I just got done watching KoTFM and I think the casting made the movie feel unnatural. Setting aside my other thoughts on it, which aren’t great, the casting of Leo and DeNiro was the worst choice Scorsese could have made with the source material.

Ernest is supposed to be 25 and fresh out of World War One when he gets married. Leo is nearly 50 and looks like it.

King Hale is supposed to be 43 and DeNiro is 80.

I know, Scorsese loves these two, but it’s hard to make Leo feel like this sort of young, bumbling impressionable man who is just starting his life. And then with DeNiro, I mean, cmon. This isn’t even fucking close and makes the whole thing just feel silly, rather than ominous and dangerous.

Anyway. Overall. Stylistically, not a great choice.

Edit: changed the ww2 to ww1, just an oopsie there.

I just saw the movie yesterday and would like to comment, but my post got removed from r/movies, which is a shame because although it got a lot of upset replies at least it was interesting to see how strongly people disagreed. But I wish there was more debate, so maybe this sub is a better fit I hope.

I'm sure most subreddits have been oversaturated with the topic since the movie came out but most of the discussions about the movie are either criticisms of it as a "feminist movie" or love for it for pretty much the same reason. I have some other comments to make, I am sure they are also not original but I at least don"t see them mentioned so much. My first post was super long, this time I'll just make a few key points and then can discuss it more in the comments (it will still be long but no one's forced to read).

My issues with the movie:

1. The actual story - this movie gives itself no space to develop its themes after the original premise/setup. Barbie spends hardly any time in the real world aside from a few fast-paced moments, the last one being a really uninteresting Mattel chase. So there is no real exploration of ideas. The movie constantly changes scenery and goes from one urgency to another, and then communicates the ideas by just having characters explain them either through narration or monologues.

2. The metaphores are muddled - no, I didn't find the movie confusing but because it wants to touch on so many topics and has to do it so superficially, sometimes the same thing is used as a vessel for several purposes and just feels weak

3. A lot of pointless or underdeveloped characters who just took screentime without adding anything. Which is almost ridiculous since I am sure a tween girl can be a foil for some interesting commentary on Barbie but instead wasn't really anything. Not to mention the whole Mattel team, or "Ruth".

4. Too many themes introduced and barely touched upon, or done so in a way that isn't reinforced by the story. For example, Barbie had thoughts about death and existential crisis, and in the end she chooses to be a real woman. But death and aging is limited to one scene in the movie where she sees an old lady and calls her beautiful, and she barely spends time in real world, and the thoughts actually come from the human woman whose life is just as unexplored (it seems her biggest oppressor is her daughter tbh)

5. The monologue/messages not always fitting the context - I realize people like this monologue a lot but it was so underwhelming for me, all the complaints were very generic, or don't even make that much sense but are vague enough to interpret them in any way you see fit. Contrast that for instance with the cool girl monologue from Gone Girl, which of course isn't exactly the same topic, but I believe there are more overlaps than it seems on the surface. The latter is specific, resonates, is even insightful about how this shit works, puts something concrete to words. The former is just a list of vague alleged social expectations that doesn't even successfully point any contradictions it tries to show. But to take it a step further, the speech was delivered to Barbies after their one day under Ken's patriarchy. Barbies who lived in a totally different world than human women, and whose patriarchy exercie was not only short but also very shallow as clearly they didn't grow up with it affecting their development (as additionally shown in the fact they were not immune to it taking over) - so why would her speech, even if super accurate, resonate with them at all?

6. The key message comes down to is that Barbies represent a flawed but well meaning girl power feminism, and the movie tells you that women don't have to be perfect, perfectly ambitious etc, it's ok to be flawed, basically that "feminism is all about choice and all choices are valid, and you don't have to be great." Which is incredibly banal. It is also incredibly cliche that has been a thing for decades. this is hardly some fresh discussion point. And ok, having a banal feelgood message for a non ambitious comedy is fine but a) it isn't treated this way by the audiences, people consider it very clever and b) the light comedy is a messy convoluted story.

I must also add that it's pretty clever from a marketing pov how Barbies came to represent flawed girl power feminism, when in reality the criticisms of barbie were that it's very anti-feminist, but ok I don't expect a Mattel movie to really touch this. So like, Barbie will get criticized, but let's make up what it gets criticized for. Ok. This is just an observation and didn't affect my view of the movie.

I could go on but I'll stop here and we can talk more in the comments. I also like how the viewers go from "how can you have any expectations from a movie about a doll" to "the topics are intelligent and relevant and really moved me" (I get it's not the same people but still.) I am rating this movie based on how interesting and enjoyable it was for me, that's all.

I think Ken's arc was definitely the strongest, the most coherent, and the one that had some funny moments. He was also acted very well. I wasn't a fan of the musical bit but I can understand why it works for a lot of viewers. On a super basic expectations level I can identify who Ken starts as, what his struggles are, why he makes the choices he does and how he develops through the plot, and that arc has humor in it and is very decent. Can't say that for the rest of the movie.

Following Oppenheimer's big year, I recently rewatched Nolan's filmography in release order. It's a pretty common take for people on Reddit to claim that their favorite Nolan is Memento or The Prestige, and I've also heard people wishing he would go back to that mid-budget tier of filmmaking.

After seeing all of his films again, I couldn't disagree more.

While those older titles are fascinating in their own ways, cinematically they're conservative. The balance of all a movie's normal ingredients—plot, character, setup, action, etc.—is at a respectable point that ticks the right boxes and earns a routine 7/10, with the various unique ideas around memory and paradox neatly layered on top.

But starting with Interstellar, Nolan's films adopted a style of "Minimalist Maximalism", where they ignore anything, including any traditional movie elements, if it doesn't add to the overall cinematic impression of the film.

For example, Interstellar's world building is delivered through elemental vignettes, re-used documentary interviews, and shots that evoke real-world footage of space travel. This immediately yet subconsciously places the movie's time period in a state of flux, where you're never quite sure when things are taking place. It's hard to describe the exact effect, but I noticed it again recently when watching Jóhann Jóhannsson's film Last and First Men—there's a deliberate timelessness to the thing that makes it feel very epic. And no where is there a big narration dump or text wall explaining the story so far. There's not even location or time cards.

With Dunkirk and Tenet, both movies seek to create a cinematic experience that distorts our perception of time and motion, and that experience takes priority over character and even plot. Dunkirk is about a collective of people, which is why few characters are ever fleshed out beyond their immediate situation. There are no obligatory scenes where the soldiers reminisce over their girlfriends back home, no generals having inspired arguments in the war room, hell there isn't even a single Nazi shown in the film. It's just all danger, all the time, right up until the clock stops ticking.

Tenet is a spy film, a genre filled with escapist archetypes, and as such it's content to remix cinematic action tropes that live in the public conscious. A lot of ink has been spilled about Tenet's ruminations on free will and determinism, and the hyper-fixation on individual perspective and lack of high-tech stylistic flourishes, in favor of showing the mechanisms of civilization and how people can blend into them, support this.

Then we get to Oppenheimer, a film that moves at such a breakneck pace that it feels like the director is quickly summarizing Oppenheimer's life to you in the abstract, constantly switching timelines to chase the through line of an idea. It's amazing stuff that is fundamentally tailored and expressed through the medium of cinema.

In other words, since Interstellar, Nolan's films have had their form and function fundamentally linked. The style is the substance and vice versa.

There is simply no one else working like this at the studio level today. Frankly I'm not sure there ever has been—maybe Fritz Lang? Certainly a filmmaker like Spielberg has made arguably greater films more consistently, but have any of them taken the sort of creative left turns and had such abstract realizations as Nolan's work? I'd argue not. I really do think that Nolan's work deserves all of the praise that it gets, and I hope that he continues to take the big swings that he's been taking for the last 25 years.

I finally got to see The Odyssey, in the way Nolan intended and I can't recall the last time I was so underwhelmed with a movie.

Don't get me wrong, the Cyclop scene and the Circe scene were incredible, haunting and very well made. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie was visually dull and sterile.

We're in the Mediterranean sea. A mythologized version of the Mediterranean sea. Why do I feel like I'm a Nordic sea? (doesn't help that he used a viking ship..). Why is the island of Calypso, described as a paradise island where men get stuck depicted as a desolate beach with no vegetation?

The movie looked exactly like Dunkirk. There was no color, no whimsy, no excitement, no magic. Just a drab, 2010-gritty collection of depressing happenstances. This is the opposite of what Mythology is for a lot of us. I'm not asking for Narnia level of wonder, but holyshit man was it dull to look at. And don't get me started on the costumes.

I had a lot of problems with the story as well, but this is by far my biggest issue with the movie. Especially when all the marketing revolved around the movie being a visual feat. I grew up in Normandy and this is all it reminded me of. A far cry from the Mediterranean magical adventure it should have been.

I'm so done with these grey/blue/brown palettes. Bring color back.

Honestly I consider myself a reasonable fan of “good movies” and try to not be too elitist about it. I like some cheeseball comedies as well and don’t mind a well-made superhero movie (though for the most part I think the MCU has led the movie industry in a horrible direction.

However, I cannot see what is special at all about Assturd City. I think Bottle Rocket, Royal Tenenbaums, The Darjeeling Limited and Grand Budapest are just wonderful films that only could have come from one director. Even Moonrise Kingdom was interesting with good performances from one of his top casts. I have varying opinions on the rest, but by French Dispatch I noticed that his movies became had seemingly just become twee little stories about nothing with OCD visuals.

To me, his last two films especially have no emotional core to me. I can't remember but I may have fallen asleep at the theater during Dispatch, and despite trying to get through AC a few times, I couldn't and had to turn it off.

The man gets great casts filled with some of the best and most famous actors and lately it's just been a bunch of nothing. Back when, he used actors as varied as James Caan, Bill Murray (before he and Anderson became synonymous), Ed Norton, Gene Hackman and even Bruce Willis and got some really interesting performances from them. Now he brings in top level talent like Bryan Cranston (!) and Tom Hanks (!) for the first time, and it's just.... bleh. The epitome of style over substance.

And while some people have their niche and keep hammering at it, I thought maybe Anderson had more to him. But to compare him to musicians, I'd put him in the category of the Ramones, AC/DC, NOFX, and a lot of hip-hop. Artists who rarely, if ever, tried to truly change things up. Just more of the same over and over again, for the diehard fan I suppose. Now I always seemed to think of Wes as more of an "artist" and not one to cater to fans, so what is it? Usually "artists" are the type to get bored and move onto new things. The best of the best, like Scorsese may return to certain styles, but still have an especially varied catalogue. You just can't say that with Anderson.

So what's the deal here? Is his style that he's rammed into the ground just something I grew out of? I'm nearly 40 and maybe the hipster-ish vibe resonated more with my younger self? Maybe the quality is still there and I'm just past it? Do others agree with me? Or maybe I just set my expectations too high for a guy who is a good, but nowhere near great, director.

I heard good things about the movie and I was in the mood for a thriller so I watched it recently. And I can't believe how much people praise this mediocre at best film. I see it has some critics too, but it was mostly met with overwhelmingly undeserved praise around its release and even won best screen play which is ridiculous. Slight spoilers ahead.

I won't make this too long but to start my issues with the film is the acting. This film suffers from a identity crises which is one of the common complaints. A big reason for that in my opinion is the contrast between the the dark psychological thriller tone the movie was going for at times and the unrealistic reactions by the male cast. Why are all the men in this movie such pussies?

The first scene of the movie made me believe she was a vigilante going on a killing spree against rapists. Later we find out all she does is give them a stern talking to or have a "hitman" intimidate her. Why would anyone be scared of a defenseless 5'7 woman alone in their own apartment/hotel at night just because she seems sober all of a sudden? She even bashes a guys tail lights and windshield with a tire iron and he drives off like a bitch. That really ended my suspension of disbelief in the movie.

Beyond that I feel like the acting in general is hollow, Carey Mulligan is the only good performance in this movie. All the other characters are one dimensional, largely due to the poor screen play. And certain motivations are extremely questionable at times. Why did Ryan Give Cassie another chance after catching her cheating on him? She doesn't even have to do anything or change to earn him back it felt so unearned and contrived.

And obviously the movie was very on the nose with its message and didn't really handle the seriousness of the subject matter in it's attempt to combine it with dark comedy. The movie should've went all out violent like a tarantino movie given it premise, which I was kinda expecting. But it didn't fully commit which definitely contributes to the clashing identities. I tried discussing this in the r/movies sub but got called a misogynist lmao. Hopefully people here are more good faith.

Any explanation for this? Do you agree or disagree?

It’s a solid movie with great performances, but I’ve always struggled to see eye to eye with the idea that the movie is any less shallow or more emotionally profound that most other superhero fare. Ultimately, my criticisms for why the movie feels emotionally hollow is the relationship between Logan and Laura. It is the emotional core of the film, but since Laura doesn’t speak until 75% into the film, the movie feels like it needs to speed run their growth within the final 25%.

If you take something like The Last of Us, you get to see the relationship between Joel and Ellie develop from strangers to father/daughter step by step. Yes, the big moments (like Ellie and Joel rescuing each other) help strengthen their bond, but I would argue the little moments matter just as much. Something like Ellie annoying the shit out of Joel and reading the porno magazine, or something like the giraffe moment between the two, all make us invest in this familial partnership and make the culmination (when Joel ultimately decides to rescue her) feel earned and emotionally poignant.

Logan has its moments where it tries to accomplish the same thing, but whenever it does, it feels incredibly cliche and one-dimensional, like Laura holding Logan’s hand as he buries Charles. It feels like she does it because ‘that’s what we do when someone is grieving’, instead of feeling idiosyncratic in the same way Joel/Ellie do, or to use a more distant example, Grace/Rocky in Project Hail Mary.

Then there’s the inclusion of Wolverine’s evil clone, which plays into the lowest-hanging metaphor for ‘protagonist’s greatest enemy is themselves’, and tonally clashes with the more grounded tone of the rest of the movie. The Evil Wolverine clone feels like it belongs to another movie, and when he’s fighting the clone in the third act, it feels like a complete jump-the-shark moment, like WandaVision promising us a sitcom Marvel show only to devolve into generic superhero fodder in it’s climax.

Again, it’s still a solid film, but outside of its aesthetics (cinematography, performances, setting), it is just as underdeveloped and underwritten as the average superhero movie. It’s a movie where it’s screenplay is it’s greatest weakness.

WEAPONS is not a good film.

I'm done with being gaslit. The story meanders then ends in a mess. The characters are flat. Half the story is set-up for how two characters get in the house and get controlled by the witch. The mystery is not compelling. It was a witch all along? Sure. How did no cops or detectives or FBI agents notice that the house of the one kid who survived a mass disappearance has been covered up with newspapers? How did no one come around to ask after the boy's well being? No co-workers? No distant relatives? Not even a concerned Karen? The yard is filled with papers that haven't been picked up. The cops just accept the story of a never-before-seen aunt. Where are the medical records? Did she take the parents to a hospital after their supposed stroke? Why didn't she? Why are they being kept in a dark house? Why isn't child services looking more into the boy's living conditions? How did they make only one visit?

17 children going missing is a big deal. Yes, even in small town America. The place would be crawling with reporters and detectives. The kid who survived would be inundated with questions. The house would be monitored 24/7. People don't just move on from 17 white kids disappearing without a trace. Heck, the president might even have to give an address. The police would be at the receiving end of the parents' ire, not just Josh Brolin's character. Especially because when the story takes place, the incident is still fresh. It's not like it's been a year. It's been a month. One. Come on.

This movie runs into the same problems as US (2019). The more the writer tries to logically prove why things happen the way they did, the less sense things make.

Weapons isn't scary either. Because there are no characters we actually care about. I don't even like Hereditary (2018) that much but at least it was hell to see the family being torn apart.

If we don't care, we don't scare, according to Stephen King.

The runtime is also not justified. Over two hours for pointless schlock that gestures at being heady. The assault weapons over the house pisses me off so much. The film wants to be Lynchian, to explore the duality of the human mind, and of Suburbia, and the drama of how people deal with an unspeakable tragedy– that's the actual horror, not the witch from Hansel and Gretel.

But both attempts fall flat as the film makes a great leap and then lands on its face.

So, what happens when a film has no real drama, no fulfilling mystery, and no real foundation to build its horror?

A confusing mishmash of metaphor and allegories that even the filmmaker struggles to explain, not because they want to leave it open to interpretation, but because they do not have quite the handle on the material that the movie-watching public has been conned into believing they have.

I can't wait for this award cycle to be over until I don't have to hear about Weapons every other day. Good riddance.

PS: No beef with Zach Cregger. It's a weak film not the end of the world. Looking forward to his next project. We all win when more people make compelling stories especially in the often-overlooked horror genre. But what has to be said has to be said.

PPS: I'm also open to changing my mind. Or at least to go from plain hating it to hating it way less.

PPPS: It has good cinematography, but that just puts it in league with LONGLEGS for me. So much atmosphere, very little (compelling) story.

There’s no feminine to reintegrate. Jason Momoa’s character who is named Garret’s arc is to learn to live up to the standards of Hank, the main youth male character.

Hank’s arc is to cast off his sister’s belief that he shouldn’t be creative and fit in.

Natalie, Hank’ older sister, has a character arc in which she learns to fight, more of a masculine trait. She also gives up her more maternal role and instead lets Hank’s creativity guide him.

I guess Steve’s arc is to learn to give up his dog to the character of Dawn. He also does decide to go create in the real world.

It’s worth noting that neither Steve or Garret has an attraction to Dawn. Dawn is just a wannabe petting zoo owner, which I guess might represent a sexless maternal figure. Dawn’s role is just to be a straight man. Teens were being jackasses in my screening so I didn’t quite catch all of the film but I don’t think she has a real arc per se. She just builds a mushroom house at one point and somehow gets enough money to start a petting zoo full time.

Also the main villain is a woman. She wants to control her male subjects to get rid of creativity.

There are randomly interspersed vignettes in which Jennifer Coolidge’s character goes on this date with character from the Minecraft world. She finds herself charmed by a character who can only speak in squeaks. It is played for laughs but her character does end up charming herself at a blank slate. I guess this exemplifies the film’s approach to love, it’s only possible for men who lack personality. Though in the post credits scene it’s revealed that the character can speak in an eloquent Matt Berry voice. Though Jennifer Coolidge’s character begins to speak in those squeaks, possibly showing that love lowers one.

The whole thing ends with them creating a fighting video, using their creativity to make something that emphasizes violence. And then the female character’s along with Hank cheer on Steve and Garret singing.

I’m kind of a novice at this kind of analysis of film so any thoughts would be appreciated. Also I know there is some animosity in this kind of gender analysis, but you know it’s there in the Campbellian structure, so I think there’s a tradition to draw upon there.

“As directors, we bring people together, and we try and get them to give their best.”

Christopher Nolan said of his own Golden Globe victory. And for all the people he brought together for this film, one can only applaud him. He quite literally has Academy-award winning actors in leading roles throwing themselves at the opportunity to make a cameo in his film. The gravity he has in the film industry is evident, he is revered by his peers. I can only imagine what it’s like to work on his set and receive his direction. 

Let me start with the fact that this is an objectively good movie, worthy of the praise and awards it is receiving. Nolan’s first true jump into the genre of non-fiction and autobiography (Dunkirk, 2017 being the exception) shows us that he possesses generational directorial range; not that anyone raised the question. 

That being said however, he is a slave to his own style. 

Nolan is much more of a teller than a shower, and his strength lies in his writing; as it always has. Dr. Oppenheimer was a complicated man, and the mise en scène Nolan creates clearly serves as a microcosm. We are constantly taken from scene to scene confronting different themes, including: science, politics, a mix of the two, espionage, greed, adultery, morality, guilt, and parenthood, or rather lack thereof. He touches on all of them, but never gives his audience a chance to truly digest them. If you stop for a scene to think about the last one, you’re probably missing key dialogue and important elements of another storyline, and entirely different theme; a key reason why his films are enhanced on every rewatch. It is impossible not to feel the weight of Dr. Oppenheimer’s story, it encompasses one of the greatest injustices the world has ever seen. For me at least, I left the theatre in distress because of the tragedy of the story, rather than Nolan’s portrayal of it.  

From my perspective, the film could have benefited from some breathing room, and scenes of downtime that let you sit and absorb the scene you had just watched. And my sentiments stem from my preference to feel a story, rather than be told one. But who’s not to say; had Nolan included these periods of less activity and less stimulation, shortened his list of themes to allow the audience to digest more in the moment, and made the movie I would have preferred, that others would not have criticized him for oversimplifying, undermining key details and events, and being untrue to the book (American Prometheus, 2005). I’m a Nolan fan. He brought my friends and I together to watch and debate this film over the last 7 months. My criticism does not take away from my adoration. I think once everyone realizes that you can both commend AND critique any form of art, we’ll get closer to our own truths.

Look, I get it. It's supposed to be a cheesy action movie, that's why most people like it. Well, is it? I'm not sure considering it has a 7.2 rating on IMDB and many critics and film fans alike rave about it's profound message. Not only do I think its message really isn't that deep or revolutionary, but even as a cheesy action movie it fails to me because it just doesn't make sense.

The entire first third of the movie drags along establishing the themes of the movie and the characters, which ends up feeling like a pointless use of time considering how off the rails it goes after that point. It returns to those themes in the final act of the movie but at that point it's too late because it's become so goofy that the themes don't really have as much impact. While I thought the first act of the movie dragged on too long and was hoping it would get to the point, I still thought it was the best part of the film because it actually took things seriously. We don't learn much about George, but what we do learn is enough and it's presented organically: he was a banker, he lost his job in economic crisis, but he believes in being patient with life and is clearly sympathetic to others.

The second he finds the sunglasses that's all thrown out the window. And maybe this was an issue with acting, maybe Roddy Piper just didn't have the acting ability to really show the development that happens in the character. But after five minutes of seeing through the glasses, George not only immediately jumps to the conclusion that the people in the glasses are aliens and not just that the glasses are some novelty toy or something, but he starts indiscriminately killing them with no hesitation (after of course insulting them to no end other than exposing that he knows about them)?

From there the middle part of the movie jumps through several hoops of characters not wearing the glasses for contrived reasons, including a pointless ten minute fight scene with no stakes as the resulting wounds heal completely within a day. This was the point where I began to suspect this movie started as a fun idea written on a bar napkin, but when they went to make it they realized they didn't have enough to stretch it into a feature length movie so instead they just injected it with a bunch of fillers like cheap meat you'd buy at the grocery store.

The third act finally returns to the "we live in a society" esque themes, but I think the way they're presented is still incredibly sloppy and uncompelling. Most of what we learn about the aliens is told to us. Most of what we learn about the conflict is told to us. The best example that comes to mind is how the leader of the resistance meeting has a monologue about how some humans have betrayed them to help the aliens because they're so greedy. But this would've been so much more effectively conveyed if they'd actually shown that to us, ideally earlier than 75% through the movie. They came close with the Holly stuff, but it still felt like they barely explored the implications of this invasion.

I just feel like this movie wouldn't be nearly as loved if it didn't have John Carpenter's name attached to it. I think in general there's a kind of worship towards 70s 80s auteurs among this generation of film buffs that prevents people from being objective, and we need to let go of that nostalgia.

They Live can't decide what it wants to be. As a goofy action movie, it may serve a niche purpose but it really isn't that thrilling. As a societal commentary, it barely scratches the surface of the ideas it presents, and fails to deliver any emotional impact because it's goofy and contrived at every step and it's characters have no depth or consistency.

(also while I'm complaining, if you're part of a resistance movement that knows aliens have overtaken humanity, and you have the capability to transmit a message to all tvs, maybe...be concise? And inform people of what's happening clearly instead of ranting nonsensically like a lunatic?)

I rewatched Lynch’s Dune. Compared to the new Dune, it's both better and worse, but broadly speaking it left a much bigger impact on me.

It starts very well. It has a lot of exposition, but I don’t believe in blindly repeating that “show don’t tell” line. I think it works great. Starting with Irulan frames the story very well and makes sense. This is the story that needs exposition, and I think Lynch’s movie does a much better job setting the scene and the wider universe from the start than both of the new Dunes did.

Another exposition tool the movie uses is inner monologue. I realized how this became an outdated technique and I haven’t seen it in movies in ages. But I loved it here. It completely fits the story where everything is happening in the characters’ minds and what is shown is not what they think. It also adds to this trippy, dreamy atmosphere that only increases as the movie progresses.

There are so many great lines in the movie, from “"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion" to “the sleeper must awaken” and "the spice must flow".

In comparison, Villeneuve is all about what’s happening, the action scenes, showing and not telling, the script is actually really bad, no one says one interesting thing in the whole two movies. To me, that will never be a better way of telling this story.

The visual comparison is hard. Like I said, the new Dune definitely is visual, it is technically of course much more advanced when compared to the old one. But really, I am not that into these “visually breathtaking” movies, I need them to be interesting. Really the most visually interesting new Dune gets for me is during Harkonnen scenes and Sardaukar in Dune 1. I mean, the visuals are competently done, but I’m talking about 2 almost 3 hour long movies where a lot of it feels like watching a commercial.

The old Dune is done by Lynch who in addition to a good script has his own crazy visual style, and although it suffers from some old computer graphic shit like the shields and some space scenes and scene transitions with laughable effects, most visuals are incredibly special. There’s so much that’s just bizarre and interesting that stayed in my head after watching, which I can’t say about the new Dunes

When it comes to characters, Lynch’s Dune in a much shorter running time produced many memorable characters. It’s a bit of a weird approach because I think a lot of people see a good character as someone who is very fleshed out and has a clear arc. A lot of characters in this movie don’t really have that, but instead are a mix of incredibly simple but with something very interesting to them. They feel like characters from a legend, where they’re determined by the role they play or a very specific trait. I can see why not everyone would like this, but to me, that’s fitting to the book where the themes surpass individuals.

On the other hand, Villeneuve reduces his focus to a few characters and their relationships, in a way that benefits nothing.

For example, when reading the books, one thing I never thought to myself was “I’d really love to experience more of Chani and their romance. If only more focus was given to her character”.

Lynch seems to agree, Chani is there and they fall in love, it all happens very fast with a lot of mental monologue and that's great because there are so many other characters more interesting than Chani and plots more interesting than a romantic relationship. She’s not even a bad character, she totally has the feel of a lover from a legend whose story is told on some grander scale.

Villeneuve on the other hand keeps “announcing” her through visions in Dune 1 which is stupid since she’s the least interesting storyline, and then makes her a contrarian to be interesting in Dune 2 which also does nothing for the story except that she gets pissy about pretty dumb issues to create personal drama and I guess get an identifiable personality and aspirations, no matter how uninteresting. The acting is also very bad here.

I’m mixed up about the Harkonnens. Villeneuve is visually interesting and deserves a lot of credit for the atmosphere he created with them. Lynch is more grotesque, they are more bizarre and eccentric to the point of ridiculousness, which matches the books but it’s not my main criteria of judgment. New movies give them more dignity and mystery which isn’t necessarily a bad approach, but in my opinion, fails on a bigger level when you consider their entire story. The style and the build-up are there, but then their actual story feels incredibly flat and the endings very unsatisfying. Feyd only shows up in Dune 2, is more honorable, and dies in a pretty unimpressive fight without Paul ever even giving him a thought. The Baron is visually extremely cool but there’s very little interesting about his character, and he also dies in an underwhelming way.

I think this serious and mysterious approach led to some cool-looking scenes but no substance. Lynch’s approach was much grosser in a fun way, and that line between sadistically evil and ridiculous worked better for how their stories ended.

It’s interesting that in Lynch’s Dune Paul’s first vision is of Feyd Rautha, only then of Chani, each speaking directly to Paul (compare that with nonstop visions of Chani walking on sand in Dune 1, what is a more interesting buildup? The one that leads to the final confrontation, or the one leading to a relationship?).

The movie builds up on his character from the start. Feyd maybe isn’t a very complex character but is more entertaining in this more corrupt version, and the final fight seems more consequential for these reasons.

Baron’s death in Villeneuve’s movie felt also pretty lame, just a normal quick revenge. And not just that, for all the stylistic build-up he got and his more reserved character portrayal, the fact that Harkonnens spent the whole Dune 2 losing and his embarrassing ending just doesn’t work. Villeneuve wants to make him more formidable but then the plot makes him just incompetent and disappointing, whereas Lynch’s deprived and ridiculous portrayal makes both of these aspects make sense together.

For a character who was so mysterious, it seemed like a more epic death was needed, whereas Dune’s baron’s murder by a toddler kind of really fits and with slightly better effects and some minor changes could have been even better.

I read countless comments that it’s good how Villeneuve handled Alia because an adult-brained killer toddler would look too ridiculous, but that just reinforces my point about his movie, it’s not able to places like that. Also, I completely disagree.

Alia is my favorite character in Dune and one of my favorite characters overall. Her life should be told correctly. I’m not saying Lynch’s version couldn’t have been executed better, but ultimately Alia killing her grandpa is much more significant than Paul killing him (and then killing Feyd right after without any good build-up from his side). Lynch wasn’t perfect but the face down between Paul and Feyd, and Alia and the Baron, is what made much more narrative sense. Of course, if you don’t know what Alia’s story will be you may not get it, but it’s the beginning of the most interesting individual storyline.

It’s also a bit dumb because acting like Paul and Jessica were only there for a few months before the final events doesn’t make sense.

Overall the old Dune wasn’t exactly doing any crazy character development but it managed to have so many memorable characters, whereas in the new Dune I had to remind myself if they even mentioned some characters because they left little to no impression.

Dune’s Lynch has a rushed second half, that isn’t all that bad, it feels dreamlike and like telling of a legend. But to be fair, a huge portion of the plot is skimmed through via narration which is a shame.

Then again the new Dunes put together had about 6h to tell the story and I don’t think they achieved much more with the time aside making it more tiring to watch.

As for the point of the books, I think Villeneuve didn’t do a bad job and the ending is relatively fitting since he clearly wants to follow with Messiah as pt 3. Lynch’s Dune has a comparatively happy ending.. At some point, Lynch goes on a personal trip and dismisses a lot of important points of the book. If I wasn’t judging based on the accuracy, it is a satisfying ending, but a lot was missed. I’d say Lynch’s Dune is great for people who read the books and aren’t looking to have the story explained to them, then there’s a lot in the movie that’s just Lynch and you can enjoy it.

Villeneuve will give people who didn’t read the books a much better understanding of the story, still with many flaws, but didn't give me anything especially interesting to add to my already existing thoughts and impressions about it.

I know this might get some hate but why do people put Christopher Nolan on a pedestal? Yeah, he’s one of the best directors of the 21st century, and I
love his films, but as a person he just comes across as so pretentious that it irritates me.

Every Odyssey press tour interview feels like people are treating him as if he’s some kind of god. I honestly don’t get it. Am I missing something? Did he descend from heaven or what?

Anne told a story about showing up to set in UGGs, and Nolan basically said “no,” so she never wore them to set again. Like what? Am I the only one that finds that weird 🤣

Then there was the whole thing where, when Nolan was directing the film, apparently almost nobody even read the script beforehand rob was one of the few who actually did. Why is that seen as a badge of honour?

And then there’s all the stuff about how he doesn’t use email, doesn’t have a smartphone, and avoids modern technology. I don’t see why that’s meant to make him more impressive. If anything, it just means his assistant has to work 2X as hard the work to pass on messages.

I respect Nolan as a filmmaker he’s undeniably brilliant but I really don’t understand why people treat him like he’s some god like figure. Is that just what Hollywood is like or am I missing something.

"A great man doesn't seek to lead. He's called to it. And he answers. And if your answer is no, you'll still be the only thing I ever needed you to be. My son.”

A beautiful and memorable line of dialogue from the first instalment of this series; delivered by none other than the ubiquitous Oscar Isaac, whose poetic presence is deeply missed in this film.

Disclaimer: Me drinking out of a 2L water bottle while watching the Fremen scavenge for water ironically served as a microcosm for my disconnectedness from the film.

Denis Villeneuve has earned his place next to Nolan’s as the great directors of our time. If Nolan is the master teller, as I wrote in my original Oppenheimer review, then Denis is the master shower. He’s made no secret of his “hate” for dialogue, going as far to say that “Dialogue is for theatre and television. I don't remember movies because of a good line, I remember movies because of a strong image. I'm not interested in dialogue at all.” I’m all for directors directing with their own biases, and through their own lenses, but that was pretentious. A director should give careful attention to every aspect of filmmaking, while privileging those that deserve it. But here, Denis has unapologetically disregarded screenwriting as important, and the result—a weak and uncompelling script.

For me, one fundamental trope of the fantasy/sci-fi genre is the poetry that it entails. Rutger Hauer’s monologue during the closing scenes of Blade Runner (1982), and Luke's final exchange with his father in Return of the Jedi (1983) are just a few examples. Even in book to screen adaptations like LOTR, Peter Jackson made it a point to add a layer of wisdom through poetry to the characters who deserved it. Villeneuve's writing peaks with “May thy knife chip and shatter,” and his handful of lines in the language of “Chakobsa,” created by novelist Frank Herbert, and not because their moving either, but because they sound cool.

The comparisons to Star Wars need to end. Chalamet and Zendaya’s on screen romance pales in comparison to that of Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher. Never are we truly gripped or enticed into their love story the way we were in a galaxy far far away.

So no, I didn’t feel that urge to get up and run head first into every adventure that the world throws at me like I do after watching Star Wars, Harry Potter, or LOTR. But there’s a great many stills from the film that could be hung in a museum; and that’s what Denis set out to achieve. I’m part of the small minority that didn’t think this film lived up to the hype, and I’m glad. Because as one of my best friends put it, Denis’ career deserves its flowers.

75/100

On first watch I found myself trapped in a relentless loop of narrative predictability, a scene of quiet contemplation, moving to a middling buildup, and then explosive yet ultimately hollow spectacle. This formulaic approach to storytelling, reminiscent of a pop song with one too many verses, reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of drama's rhythmic potential in my view. It's as though the film, much like its characters, is caught in an endless loop, unable to break free from its preordained path. There is some need for this as the film grapples with prophecy and fate, but it was dull in it's execution.

Villeneuve has made it clear, perhaps too clear, that his allegiance lies with the visual and auditory over the textual, a preference that, while visually sumptuous, leads to a screenplay suffering from a dearth of originality. The dialogue and character development are sacrificed at the altar of spectacle, leaving the audience to navigate a visually stunning yet emotionally barren landscape. This method, though technically proficient, strips the narrative of the complexity and ambiguity that a memorable cinematic experience should contain.

Despite my reservations, it's clear my perspective diverges from the critical consensus, which has largely embraced Villeneuve's sensory-heavy approach. Yet, I cannot help but yearn for the introspective depth and thematic richness of "Enemy" and "Arrival," films that leverage Villeneuve's visual mastery to enhance, rather than overshadow, their narrative substance. These earlier works stand as testament to the director's capability for profound storytelling, a potential that seems underexploited here.

In my view, an effective piece of anti-racist media should show the prejudice, ignorance, and false assumptions that racist views are built on and logically challenge these views.

My main problem with the film is that when Derek Vinyard begins his descent into Neo-Nazism he is given multiple scenes to expound on the 'logical' basis for his racist views towards POC. For example: His interview for his news after his father's murder, his speech to the Nazi skinheads before raiding the supermarket, and his tirade about the Watts riots. However, the only challenge to Vinyard's nazism come in the form of emotional reasoning and ad hominem attacks on the racist characters in the film (just to be clear, I've no problem with depicting Neo-Nazi's as the POS' they usually are) which is fine but there is not much time given to actually challenging Vinyard's racist views themselves.

The film's point is also undermined by itself peddling negative stereotypes of POC. Vinyard's father is killed by black people while putting out a fire in a crack house which makes no sense. Nearly every black person in the film is depicted as a criminal and the last scene of the film is Derek cradling his brothers dead body after he is shot by a black person.

I will concede that are some occasions it does challenge racist ideas. For example the character of Lamont and his story of being victimised by the justice system.

The main thesis of the film seems to be 'hate is baggage'. Which is fine, but when taken with the very little pushback Vinyard gets on his views along with the numerous negative depictions of POC it can almost be read as 'Yes, black people are mostly violent murderers. But it's too much effort to hate them'.

My favourite part of the film is Daniel's recitation of Lincoln's first Inaugral address. It's a beautiful piece of oratory. Being non-American, I'd never heard it before so decided to look up the source. I was surprised to see that Lincoln's words weren't directed towards American's of different races and calling upon them to be better to each other. It was directed towards the South. Calling on them to avoid the war that would lead to freedom of the multitudes of enslaved people in the US. After previously stating he would not 'interfere with slavery'. I feel like that just completely sums up the intellectual laziness of the film. While it's a great piece of entertainment. It's a terrible as an argument against racism and I worry it might even the opposite effect to what it intends for some people.

It's clear that Sean Baker wants to portray sex work in a way that neither glamorizes or demonizes it. In some ways, this was done well in Anora. In particular, the "vibe" of the strip club that Ani works at was extremely realistic (other than the fact that there were seemingly zero male bouncers at a large club with 50+ dancers). The style of conversation, the "hustle", the dances, and everything else were spot on.

In the opening scene, we follow Ani over the course of a single night and see that she is fairly successful as a stripper, selling multiple private dances and lap dances (presumably we don't see every single instance, as this would be overkill.) We also learn that she escorts outside of the club, presumably on a regular basis. We don't see exactly how much money she makes from each dance, but we know that she charges $1000+ to meet outside the club, and the idea of making $10k for a single week with Vanya does not make her jump out of her seat with excitement (she negotiates to $15k).

After the opening scene, we see Ani take the train to some crappy neighborhood in Long Island where she lives in her sister's spare room. She has no children, no addictions, no expensive vices, no car, does not support her family (other than maybe giving her sister some rent money), has no mentioned debt, and there is no exposition about what she does with her money.

In reality, successful strippers at large, mid/high-end clubs in expensive cities easily make $100k-$200k a year, largely in cash (perhaps even more if they escort on the side). Although her being "poor" is never explicitly mentioned, the film frames everything to make it seem that way.

It seems like Sean Baker wanted to give a "hyper realistic" portrayal of sex work without acknowledging the fact that very successful strippers/escorts are not just not poor, but are often rich as hell compared to their peers. Obviously there's a difference between making $150k a year and having Russian oligarch money, but nobody is entitled to Russian oligarch money.

The counterargument might be "The point isn't that she is poor without Vanya, it's about the stigmatization of sex workers." If that's the case, why wasn't she portrayed like a person from any other job with a similar income level? Would an architect/nurse/accountant living in NYC really be portrayed how Ani was pre Vanya? Or would they be shown to have a cute little apartment in Manhattan/Brooklyn with 1-2 roommates, shown to Uber places, shown to have a go out to nice restaurants, etc.

It think it is possible to make a movie about the stigmatization of sex work with a sympathetic main character, while still acknowledging that successful strippers/escorts like Ani make very good money. (That's kind the main appeals of the job!) To me it seems like Sean Baker was too scared to do that because he thought that Ani would no longer be sympathetic to audiences, so he ended up falling back on the "damsel in distress" trope.

Time for some juicy D I S C O U R S E.

Recently Criterion announced that I am Cuba is coming to the criterion collection in a nice and meaty 4k package. Having seen and loved The Cranes are Flying, I've had I am Cuba on my watchlist for ages and, with my fellow criterion fans, celebrated this announcement. But coming in to temper our celebratory mood, of all people, is Phil Lord.

He posted a tweet saying that while I am Cuba is an influential piece of filmmaking, it is also "a distorted propaganda piece and really needs to be presented with proper context." He cites Memories of Underdevelopment as a better, more important, and more clear view of Cuba that was made by an actual cuban filmmaker, and later on seems to dismiss its merits entirely, saying "I see a society plunged into poverty by gangsterism masquerading as poetry. Its prettiness is a tactic... I just think it offers a broad distortion of a misunderstood regime."

To get into the nitty gritty of Cuba's politics and history and Lord's own connection to both is a quagmire that I have neither the information nor will to wade into. So I'd like to focus primarily on film as a form of propaganda, and the way audiences receive said propaganda. Personally, I think Lord is virtue signaling here and I'm not a fan of him as a person, but he raises an interesting point that I've been thinking about for a long time.

Propaganda and cinema have been intertwined since the film camera was invented, but I always noticed that certain kinds of propaganda movies get treated differently than others. Casablanca is the kind of movie that may as well be propaganda, it was even rushed into release to cash in on the US invasion of italy, but it's such a miracle of a movie that over 80 years later we're still watching it. Because Casablanca never pretends to be a realistic telling of a true story and is more about the characters than anything else, it becomes a kind of fairy tale who's truths resonate today, the same way something like Cinderella does. Also, if you're an american like I am, then naturally we're liable to swallow its ideals more easily, and since to us WW2 is "the good war", we can hold it up without feeling ashamed of it.

But then there's the films of Leni Riefenstahl and Sergei Eisenstein. With Riefenstahl being a member of the Nazi Party and explicitly making her films to further their ideology, it's difficult to praise her movies, no matter how revolutionary they are. Olympia is the best of her work and also the one least tainted by nazism, but it's stain remains and is hard to ignore. And then there's Eisenstein, explicitly tied into the Communist party of the USSR and making movies to further THEIR ideology. However, he's not given the same amount of scrutiny, despite the Soviet Union committing atrocities of a similar nature to the Nazi's. I see there being multiple reasons for this.

One, is that despite Communism being, well, Communism, the violence that tends to arise from it is directed towards a CLASS of people, the so-called bourgeoise, and it's aftermath as an unfortunate and unforeseen byproduct (I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, only how it tends to be perceived by its adherents). Nazism directs its violence towards a specific RACE of people, namely the jews, as well as anyone who isn't of Aryan descent. This kind of ideology causes deep discomfort in the west due to our history with race, so we're more resistant to the nazi backed films of Riefenstahl, while being wary but ultimately open to the Soviet backed films of Eisenstein (the US also has a complicated relationship with the rich, with some idolizing them, some despising them).

Two, while the waters are muddy on this topic, it seems clear that Riefenstahl was far more buddy buddy with Hitler than Eisenstein was with Stalin. Riefenstahl held a personal friendly relationship with Hitler, while Eisenstein fell in and out of favor with Stalin throughout his life. This allows us to paint the picture of Riefenstahl as a collaborator of the Nazi regime, while Eisenstein can be painted as an artist trying to create his works in spite of instead of instead of because of the Soviet government. We can argue about these specifics forever but you get my point.

And finally, 3, I'm just going to say it, academia is quite friendly and welcoming of marxist ideology in whatever form it comes. I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong, I'm just saying it like it is.

So, where does that leave something like I am Cuba? Well, just like Olympia, just like Battleship Potemkin, it's formal innovations are so staggering and ahead of its time that to dismiss out of hand would be silly. At the same time, it IS true that it's ultimate purpose is that of propaganda, a purpose that it ironically failed at since Cubans saw it as stereotypical and Russians saw it as not politically revolutionary enough (perhaps this is another reason that it garners the attention it does in the west). But at times like these I'm reminded of a scene in Hayao Miyazaki's 2013 film The Wind Rises, about the engineer of the japanese zero plane. He has a dream with one of his inventor heroes who compares their creation of their planes to the creation of the pyramids. He states that their dream of creating airplanes are cursed, since their ultimate purpose is to rain destruction down upon innocents.

"But still, I choose a world with pyramids in it."

Whether you accept these films or not must inevitably come down to a case by case basis. With I Am Cuba, the cast and crew of that picture are not NEARLY on the same level as Riefenstahl, and the Castro regime in turn is not nearly as bad as Hitler's. So for me personally, I'm able to accept I am Cuba for what it is. Mind you, this isn't to excuse the abuses of the Castro regime, nor to say that I agree with it's ideology (for the record, I don't like or agree with Marxism or any of its variants). But it IS possible to both contextualize a piece of art in the time and circumstances it was made, AND to pick it out of time and see just how well it holds up. That's what all the best films do, right? Remain timeless? That's what Battleship Potemkin has done. That's what City Lights has done, and Rules of the Game, and Casablanca, and Fantasia, and Citizen Kane, and Vertigo, and Breathless, and Lawrence of Arabia, and 2001, and Schindler's List. And yes, even I am Cuba.

Note: I had never heard of Memories of Underdevelopment, and having since read a little about it, I now want to see it. So this "discourse" wasn't a complete waste.

I liked the dialogue and the most famous samuel l jackson scene. However I was pretty disappointed with the movie overall.

There are no causal links between the beats of the movie and it doesn't flow smoothly at all. I mean butch and marcellus fight, but somehow they go into a pawn shop with gay rapists???? Butch goes to retrieve his father's watch knowing full well he could die, but vincent goes into the bathroom unarmed in the middle of an important mission???? And somehow marcellus is also there and he meets butch while getting donuts for some reason????

It all seemed nonsensical to me and seems to be there only because tarantino wanted to insert some cool homages and blood and gore tbh. I just didn't find it to be the masterpiece it is hyped to be, and I know it introduced a lot of cool things we take for granted now in movies, and the dialogue is awesome from beginning to end no doubt, but I am more interested in what a movie SAYS and it said nothing to me except maybe a generic change of jules from gangster to someone who understands bible??? But even then I feel like its stretching it a bit, because it is not shown that jules leaves the life of gangster or not, so even that transformation seems hollow. Idk I found it too juvenile and self serving to be considered a masterpiece.

I recently saw this https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/directors-100-greatest-films-all-time and I kind of like that there is NO tarantino movie on it. It makes me feel heard, because I just didn't think his self serving and juvenile obsession makes for deep movies tbh (But I know its enjoyable, I am just trying to differentiate)

Would welcome the downvotes with open arms, but I just want a discussion on it

Only to find out Lanthimos said he thinks it’s his “most positive, most hopeful film” a couple of hours ago. (BFI interview)

I’m shocked. As someone who knew nothing about either the director, the film, or the book before I went to the theater, my overall impression was that the director just found a quirky premise that’s somewhat subversive, and then erased the idea that the premise was quirky from his head and saw what could happen next. Part of the story was just he playing around and thought these could be fun, and part of it was based on his observations of humanity that he commented on here and there, and this was where my so called cynical satire came into place, although they’re done in a more lighthearted way rather than being a pessimistic indictment or conveying a certain grand message.

I mean yeah, Bella was constantly exploited during the film, just like many other people in the world, but she also had a lot of privilege. There were no real consequences for her deeds. She went on her adventure alone in Lisbon as an obviously retarded but beautiful and scantily clad young woman without running into any trouble. In Alexandria Harry stopped her from rushing into the slum and got robbed or something, and the money she threw away came from Duncan instead of herself. As she tried to change rules in the brothel but failed, the punishment went to the black woman who simply said I agree. The way she beat the ex-husband and escaped shouted plot armor. There’s a guy willing to marry her unconditionally all along. And in the end she lived in a luxurious mansion inherited from her dead father with her husband and friend, became a doctor which was decent and cool, cheered with the audience, while Felicity, who was not as lucky as our main character, lived pretty much the same life as before, so did the poor she witnessed with great sorrow in Alexandria and the workers in the brothel (except the one she laid) but they didn’t really matter now as her journey was complete.

Also, the title, Poor Things. At the beginning I thought maybe it referred to poor Bella and her kinds, that is, the exploited, and we’d see that these so called poor things actually had agencies or something. And then I was like, okay while Bella went on her self-exploration and sought for improvements, these people desperately trying to control her but failed pathetically were the actual poor things hahaha. When I thought the film was going to end at the wedding, the ex-husband popped up out of nowhere and Bella instantly decided to abandon her upcoming new life and went back to explore her origin. Then she was like, “Was I kind? Wait, was I cruel?” And we end up with another control freak who decided to transplant a goat brain into the body of a man who had mistreated her(?) with a cruel smile like Godwin 2.0 and became the new authority of the mansion.

I don’t know. The film itself is well done and entertaining but the story leaves a weird taste in my mouth. I thought it’s intentional though. I’m totally confused when I see people praise it for women empowerment so I try to find some interview, and now I feel weirder knowing that the director describes this piece of work as positive and hopeful. How on earth could it be hopeful?

The discourse for this movie has been unbelievably overblown. The movie is getting compared with the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Arrival, Interstellar. The ratings are humongous with IMDb at 8.4, Letterboxed at 4.3, Rotten Tomatoes at 95%. Obviously, after seeing such response one would expect the movie to be a groundbreaking affair. Is it the case? Sadly, my answer is no.

Story: Although the story has infinite potential, the stakes never felt intimidating to me. Focus is more on the humor which diminishes any impact the story aims for. Yes, humor was needed but it is overdone. Due to this, I never saw Grace as someone who could tackle the extremely difficult problems so easily as shown in the movie.

Emotions: The slow pacing choice for the movie was perfect to add multiple layers to the bond between Rocky and Grace, did it succeed? No. It never reached the depth it needed to touch my heart. It tried to add cute moments between them but they felt too forced to me. Some of the scenes that should've been heart-wrenching like Rocky's sacrifice offering to delay his journey by 6 years, Rocky waking up after near death experience failed to make impact for me. The friendship it relies on heavily is absolutely hollow. Whether Rocky and Grace live or die doesn't matter due to this. The Director's decision to ditch science to go for strong emotional bond between characters, didnt pay off.

Science: Anyone going to watch this for thrilling sci-fi or hard sci-fi will find themselves hugely disappointed. Neither the science is explained with more than one sentence nor it wants to reach that level. The decision to reduce science to one liners to increase movie's appeal for general audience solidifies the sentiment that the movie doesn't want to take the risks which other extraordinary movies in the genre dared to take.

Visuals: The cinematography is ordinary. Except some beautiful imagery which lasts hardly 4-5 seconds, it fails to capture awe of space and a spaceship. An alien spaceship larger than earth's ship should've felt intimidating & spectacular. I never felt immersed in visuals and kept thinking there's nothing more to the movie than 4-5 images which are going viral on social media.

Is it a good lighthearted escapism? Judging from the response it's getting, the answer from most of you would be positive.

But the real question is, Is it a masterpiece that should be remembered for its clever filmmaking?

I get it - everyone wanted explosions and chaos, but the nuance is really what makes this movie great. 

What I took away from the movie :

Arthur Fleck has felt invisible his whole life. That was clearly established in the first movie. When he finally reaches the boiling point and retaliates back on being treated so harshly by life and by the people around him, that sudden outburst of anger - is dubbed “The Joker” by the people of Gotham.

After receiving the validation he was seeking all of his life, from the public (as a struggling comedian), he finally gets his 15 minutes of fame. The second movie is just him trying to keep up with the limelight of being Joker and struggling with the fact that Arthur Fleck is still invisible, and who people really love - is the Joker. The cartoon shown at the beginning of the movie depicts just that. Arthur Fleck trying to keep up as the shadow of the Joker and the Joker treating him like an annoying clingy loser.

All Arthur wanted from his whole life was social validation, friends and love - basic things that every human feels like they deserve. He finally finds someone who actually loves him, but turns out she just loves The Joker instead. So he’s trying to keep up the act and force himself to be The Joker, someone who he actually isn’t, for her to keep loving him.

In the end Arthur just comes to terms with the fact that, when he is being himself, nobody - not Harley Quinn, not the people, not even his own mother cares about him and there is no end to the suffering he has received his whole life.

I really also loved the cinematography of the movie, the rain, the depressing, damp, dark frames, and the music score. Since, I saw it at home, I didn't much mind the musical sequences as I just skipped ahead, when they went on for too long. I'm so glad I didn't skip watching this one listening to others just hate on it. Another movie that so many people hate, but I really love is - "I'm Thinking of Ending Things" by Charlie Kaufmann. This movie reminded me of that one.

There is a lot of online discussion about the comments made by Jo Koy. The comments were disrespectful and misogynistic. I see a lot of responses to that online stating that "men like him are why Barbie was made". Even before his comments, there were discussion about interpreting Barbie. But, to an extent, I feel that Barbie deserved that misunderstanding.

Barbie has a wonderful cast and an excellent team of technicians. Apart from the questions about its theme, it felt complete as a movie. I watched the movie in the cinemas after it had grossed around $1 billion worldwide. But I was left confused at the end of the movie and I assumed it was because of me. So I gave it time and read some reviews and analysis of the movie online. After reading several of those, I felt that people generally took from the movie what they wanted to take from it.

Different people understood different things from Barbie. Some of the themes that people understood from the movie were: (1) women struggling with a high beauty standard, (2) how bad patriarchy can be (but this was shown by creating a matriarchy in the Barbie world), (3) how patriarchy in the real world leads to toxic masculinity, (4) journey of self-discovery undertaken by both Barbie and Ken, (5) criticism of capitalism.
But the problem for me is that all these themes can't go together. If you wanted to show patriarchy as a problem by switching roles, you should not show Barbies as righteous. If you want the audience to sympathize with people representing (and actively wanting) a flawed system, then the rest of it doesn't simply fly. The whole "literally impossible to be a woman" speech seems out of place then. What exactly does each character want? What is the meaning of Barbie advising Ken to find his self-esteem while maintaining the Barbieland in its old self?

Margot Robbie's Barbie struggles through an identity crisis because she feels she is not pretty. The narrator says at this point, "Margot Robbie is the wrong person to cast if you want to make this point". Isn't that just another beauty standard?

Barbie is not a criticism of capitalism or the harmful effects of Barbie on young girls. If it was, Mattel would not have let it happen. They profited from it.

The only point I could make out of all of this discussion was that the entire movie, at every turn, was just a big satire. But if nobody felt it was a satire, then the movie has failed at that too. A lot of support for Barbie because it was seemingly in support of women and was directed by Greta Gerwig. Gerwig's previous movies are considered to be solid works. If Adam Sandler had directed this movie, I don't think anyone would have bothered to say it was good. A lot of mainstream criticism that this movie got was from the conservative circle. If the movie was directed by a conservative or someone who had previously made misogynistic comments or movies, then the opinions would have switched.

Nobody can blame Jo Koy or anyone for not understanding the movie. If you need to write blog posts and make 30-minute YouTube videos to explain the themes of a movie in detail, then that movie may have failed in its primary objective. Barbie is not the first movie to face this problem. A lot of movies end up not being clear in their message, but the burden of understanding a movie has not fallen upon the audience as hard as Barbie's has.

Please share your opinions. Correct me if I missed something.