Last movie you saw... Pinned
8521 replies · 1546468 views
Not that I expected much but good lord this was bad and cringey.
Loved both.
Loved it. Marvelous acting of Jude Law + Alicia Vikander 
A little late, but as I promised @Jade Bahr
Well, it doesn't reach the original, but still far from bad. This is like a more blockbusterish remake of the original, where the emphasis was on action rather than plot and philosophy. Absolutely unnecessary, yet enjoyable. @Cult Icon
Pros:
1. It was entertaining. I didn't feel like it was going on for 2.5 hours.
2. The visuals are fine enough. There are some obvious CGI, but in general everything looks "real".
3. No bad acting.
4. Denzel Washington is magnificent. Total show stealer.
5. Paul Mescal is beautiful and so fcking hot + a lot of shirtless sweaty muscular men (including Mr. Mescal himself).
6. Great fights.
Cons:
1. A weaker plot and dialogues.
2. Paul was great overall, but he lacked the intensity of Russell Crowe. And maybe rage? Also, his character, as well as all the characters except Denzel's, were underwritten and underdeveloped.
Overall, I liked it. Although I didn't have high expectations. This is a good action movie, especially compared to conveyor action movies overusing CGI. I understand the disappointment in Gladiator II, but harsh criticism is not justified imo.
15 hours ago, Lilja K said:
Well, it doesn't reach the original, but still far from bad. This is like a more blockbusterish remake of the original, where the emphasis was on action rather than plot and philosophy. Absolutely unnecessary, yet enjoyable. @Cult Icon
Overall, I liked it. Although I didn't have high expectations. This is a good action movie, especially compared to conveyor action movies overusing CGI. I understand the disappointment in Gladiator II, but harsh criticism is not justified imo.
Nice review and good points. I think critics ( pro, online, youtube etc) see it as a juicy target, as they can compare it to how good the original was, complain about its historical inaccuracies, etc. But overall the whole point is to watch something interesting/spectacle like for 2 hrs and it doesn't need to be a masterpiece. The plot is the way it is probably because investors in the project don't want to take risks, and rather have a sure thing that isn't mind-blowing kind of like the star wars re-boot.
I saw a bit of "Indiana Jones and the Great circle" which is a game-interactive movie that has a lot of motion capture by actors. The whole thing is crazily derivative of the original trilogy, and just re-uses modified tropes from it that are often too obvious. Even in the licensed game they don't want to take risks with franchise.
On 12/8/2024 at 7:49 AM, Cult Icon said:Nice review and good points. I think critics ( pro, online, youtube etc) see it as a juicy target, as they can compare it to how good the original was, complain about its historical inaccuracies, etc. But overall the whole point is to watch something interesting/spectacle like for 2 hrs and it doesn't need to be a masterpiece. The plot is the way it is probably because investors in the project don't want to take risks, and rather have a sure thing that isn't mind-blowing kind of like the star wars re-boot.
Thanks! Comparison with the original was inevitable, but to be fair, sequels rarely reach the same level, let alone surpass the original. You have named the main task of blockbusters. And Gladiator II coped with this task perfectly.
Kinda disturbing but greatly acted.
Mid at best.
Smile 2 was a total mindf*** holy s***.
On 12/29/2024 at 5:31 AM, Matt! said:
Smile 2 was a total mindf*** holy s***.
Can't wait to watch 
Okay-ish. Liked the original better.
Solid.
5 minutes ago, Matt! said:
The movie was sooooo gooooooooooooood!
Seriously Naomi Scott deserves more credit for her performance. She was freakin AMAZING
