The storyline with Jared Leto (also the weakest aspect) goes nowhere. I think it falls apart in the end. Visually great but pointless. It felt like a waste of time.
Heavy spoilers ahead for anyone who is, for some reason, in this thread having not seen it
Obviously you're 100% entitled to feel however you feel about the movie, but I am a little confused by this. Wallace (Leto's character) was the driving force behind basically the entire film. K got accidentally wrapped up in Wallace's attempt to find the replicant child. That's what Dave Bautista's character was hiding at the start, it's why Luv went to capture Deckard, and learning about it is what ultimately motivated K to go rescue Deckard in the end.
I watched the original before the sequel just so I could follow the story after hearing so many people recommend the sequel. My thoughts on the original are it has an awesome vibe and cool music, but the story didn't capture me because I didn't know what characters I should be rooting for. Add that to the overall depressive nature of the directing, and it bored me.
The sequel took all of what I thought was cool about the original - that unique vibe and music and art - and put it into a fresh story, with clearer characters that evolve throughout the story, a plot with heaps of important characters that makes you think about something besides only "Is the main character a replicant?" Plenty of small characters that are interesting and essential to the plot, and not throwaways. The original felt like it set up the entire fabric of the sequel, but man does the sequel create a beautiful final product.
Some of the shots give a Dune vibe, nice to see this so many years before the first Dune movie.
It’s was only four years before Dune pt 1 and the film Villeneuve did just before Dune. I haven’t seen it since the release either but my memory has always been that there’s a good amount of vibe share between the films. In fact it’s probably reasonable to speculate that Dune wouldn’t be what it is without Villeneuve doing Blade Runner first.
More than that, Blade Runner’s lack of big commercial success is why Dune was done as a stand alone film at first that ends unfinished. The studios didn’t trust that Vilkeneuve could make a profitable film. So instead of doing it lord of the rings style, they’ve waited to see the success of each film separately.
And I bet this lack of success influenced some of Villeneuve’s directorial decisions too. The differences in the general portrayal of women seems quite stark and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was somewhat conscious. I also feel like you can see Villeneuve trying not to make the Dune films too long and boring, which was a complaint of blade runner 2049.
Here are some handwritten reviews from 20 individuals who have had the privilege of watching the film:
Peter Travers, Rolling Stone: “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes is a worthy successor to the franchise. Ball’s direction is assured, and the performances are top-notch.” (3.5/4 stars)
A.O. Scott, The New York Times: “While it doesn’t quite reach the heights of its predecessors, Kingdom is a solid addition to the franchise. The CGI work is stunning, as always.” (3/5 stars)
David Ehrlich, IndieWire: “Ball’s film is a mess, but it’s a fascinating mess. The themes of power and identity are timely, even if the execution is flawed.” (C+)
Richard Roeper, Chicago Sun-Times: “Kingdom is a fun, if forgettable, entry in the franchise. The action scenes are well-executed, but the story feels overly familiar.” (3/4 stars)
Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle: “The film’s biggest problem is its lack of ambition. It plays it safe, rather than taking risks and pushing the boundaries of the franchise.” (2.5/4 stars)
Alonso Duralde, The Wrap: “The cast is game, but the script lets them down. Kingdom feels like a placeholder until the next installment.” (2.5/5 stars)
Todd McCarthy, The Hollywood Reporter: “Ball’s direction is competent, but the film lacks the emotional resonance of its predecessors. It’s a shallow, if entertaining, ride.” (3/5 stars)
Scott Mendelson, Forbes: “Kingdom is a well-made, if unremarkable, blockbuster. It will please fans of the franchise, but won’t win over any new converts.” (3/5 stars)
Jocelyn Noveck, Associated Press: “The film’s themes of power and identity are timely, but the execution is clumsy. The CGI work is impressive, as always.” (2.5/4 stars)
William Bibbiani, IGN: “Kingdom is a fun, if flawed, addition to the franchise. The action scenes are well-executed, but the story feels overly familiar.” (7/10)
David Fear, Rolling Stone: “Ball’s film is a mess, but it’s a fascinating mess. The themes of power and identity are timely, even if the execution is flawed.” (3.5/4 stars)
Sara Stewart, New York Post: “The cast is game, but the script lets them down. Kingdom feels like a placeholder until the next installment.” (2.5/4 stars)
Chris Nashawaty, Entertainment Weekly: “The film’s biggest problem is its lack of ambition. It plays it safe, rather than taking risks and pushing the boundaries of the franchise.” (B-)
Leah Greenblatt, Entertainment Weekly: “Kingdom is a well-made, if unremarkable, blockbuster. It will please fans of the franchise, but won’t win over any new converts.” (B-)
Tim Grierson, Screen International: “Ball’s direction is competent, but the film lacks the emotional resonance of its predecessors. It’s a shallow, if entertaining, ride.” (3/5 stars)
John DeFore, The Hollywood Reporter: “The cast is game, but the script lets them down. Kingdom feels like a placeholder until the next installment.” (2.5/5 stars)
Brian Truitt, USA Today: “Kingdom is a fun, if flawed, addition to the franchise. The action scenes are well-executed, but the story feels overly familiar.” (3/4 stars)
Barry Hertz, The Globe and Mail: “The film’s themes of power and identity are timely, but the execution is clumsy. The CGI work is impressive, as always.” (2.5/4 stars)
Kyle Smith, National Review: “Ball’s film is a mess, but it’s a fascinating mess. The themes of power and identity are timely, even if the execution is flawed.” (3/5 stars
I thought it was good, but it wasn't great. Not even in the same neighborhood of quality or groundbreakishness as the original, which continues to be in my top 5 movies ever made.
Interesting. IMO BR2049 is a super rare case where the sequel can arguably be considered an equal or better film than the original. Sure, the original set the theme and tone, and the sequel just built on it; but the execution is what separates 2049 from other sequels to classic films.
It's completely unrealistic when I first saw it. Great fantasy but so impossible it's more like a piece of pulp fiction on film.
Any woman that beautiful in a post apocalyptic world would never exist. They would be raped, enslaved, bought and sold like a prize within months of the world breaking down.
Whenever I see or read scenarios like this I'm constantly reminded by a quote by Kurt Vonnegut, a veteran of the second world war who wrote some great books about war including 'Slaughter House Five' ..... he said ... "In war there are only two types of women, those that have been raped and those that will be raped"
When the world breaks down and there is no law and order any more, the women are usually the first to suffer.
This is why I thought this film was unrealistic with such a beautiful model actor as the lead.
Because we all know Mad Max is a very realistic & authentic representation of post apocalyptic scenarios. It's basically a documentary with how accurate and real it is.
You actually have to be a dumb cunt to hate Skyler, I remember hating her when I first watched BB, because she was the bitch wife messimg with badass Walter, now that I rewatched it as I am older and damn, walter is a proper cunt the whole way through and she is trying navigate a really fucked up situation, I just felt bad for her the whole way through
Nah man, I hated Walter from the get go and still hated Skylar. Basically the only characters I liked ended up in Better Call Saul, outside of Hank and Jessie
Studios think this is a good idea? Listen, the Necromomongers had a cool aesthetic, but that's about the only thing the Riddick universe has to offer. Vinny D needs another set of IP that's not Riddick or Fast and Furious
No, the studios probably don't think it's a good idea.
Vin Diesel really loves Riddick. It's his passion project. Universal was willing to let the franchise die after two films but he wasn't, so he did a cameo in Tokyo Drift in exchange for the rights to the franchise. Then he independently raised funds for the third film and fronted a bunch of his own money, going so far as to mortgage his house to keep the production afloat.
I'm sure it's the same with this fourth film. The series was never all that profitable so the studios wouldn't push to make another one. It's gotta be Vin Diesel pushing to have it made because he personally deeply cares about the franchise.
movies
Active