Posts by Mark White11

Joshua Smith5 said:Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery.

Rian Johnson hasn't made anything worth watching since >. These two flicks—basically Agatha Christie lite for the masses—have a few clever bits here and there, but that’s about it. They're easy enough to watch, sure, but you'll forget them five minutes after the credits roll. And those cameos by Hugh Grant and Ethan Hawke? Totally silly and felt completely unnecessary. Plus, that whole attempt at poking fun at tech moguls, influencers, and those weirdly intense social activists was just... honestly, majorly cringe.

I love how you used the word "cringe" there. Isn't it a bit cringe to be, what, over 40 years old, and using the same slang as YouTube kids and Facebook keyboard warriors? And apparently, now it's being picked up by pretentious forum dwellers too. All you need to add is the word "woke" to your review and you'll really hit that peak level of pretension...

And seriously, if you haven't liked a single one of his movies since >, and you clearly weren't a fan of >, why even bother watching the sequel? If a director lets you down once or twice, fine, whatever—but after four times? You gotta draw the line somewhere...

And oh yeah, considering > actually exists, saying > is his only good movie is just... uhm... cringe?

goldenhound32 said:Who was your favorite character from the second one?

Everyone

Benjamin Stewart53 said:EDIT: Either way, this movie is definitely better than New York City—which I’m guessing was also just made because the first Knives Out did so well.

First off, SPOILERS, for crying out loud!
Second of all, everything in this post is totally wrong and just misses the mark.

Glass Onion is easily a 7 for me—actually, let's go with an 8 because it was just so much fun. It’s over two hours long but honestly, the time just flies by 👍
The first one might be slightly better, but it's not even a close call

Jeffrey Howard79 said:Honestly, I think he actually did a better job than the original director.

Hell no.

Total movie fraud—it all falls apart just because of that one stupid line at the end.
It’s the exact same gimmick they pulled with Triangle of Sadness, which, honestly, was an even bigger scam than this flick.

Honestly, this is easily one of the biggest flops of the year—especially when you consider the massive talent behind the camera and in front of it.
I already spilled all my thoughts in my Impressions section, so I won't bore you by repeating everything here, but seriously... this movie is total trash.
Maybe Christian Bale is the only reason it isn't a complete zero, but even he can't save this.

What’s next, he's gonna claim that an IMDb score is some kind of holy grail that actually defines if a movie is good or not? 🙂

Timothy King said:This isn't an action flick; it's supposed to be a historical drama. And while a cliché can be executed brilliantly, this one really went overboard by throwing in that trope where a villainous twin shows up after twenty years. It's ridiculous. If we're talking about recent historical films that actually avoid clichés, I'd point to Dunkirk as a relatively fresh example.

Well, every single movie has a limited budget; I haven't heard of a production with an infinite bankroll. Of course they have to use technical tricks, but executing them successfully requires a level of skill that simply isn't present here—that's the real issue. Plenty of absolute masterpieces have been filmed with even less money.

And let's get one thing straight: it's not a "guy," it's a director. So what if she lacks funds? She also seems to lack the expertise of her male counterparts, whom she's clearly obsessed with, yet she expects us to applaud her "masterpiece" just because, my God, she's a woman making a film about women for women—not to mention leaning heavily on racial themes for extra credit. This isn't just a poorly made film; it's blatant emotional blackmail.

When I said you weren't a "big shot," I was talking about you—you're really not cutting it, are you?
Look, the movie isn't a masterpiece—not by a long shot—but it's definitely not the total garbage some people here are acting like it is...

bluebison8 said:Maybe you don't care if they completely rewrite the narrative in a "historical" epic, but most people actually do. Specifically, Black Americans, who were the intended audience for this film. It particularly offended them that they made a movie about the worst slave owners in history and then played dumb about it.
The film is a total crash and burn at the box office, and frankly, I hope we don't see more garbage like this in the future.

It's just great how you think the Box Office is the only way to judge if a movie actually worked.

Timothy King said:The movie is honestly quite poor; the plot follows the most tired cliché about a young novice—in this case, a woman who "breaks the rules" only to impress her superiors and climb the ranks... The leader is just another tough persona hiding a secret that turned her cold... it's all been done a million times before. Did anyone actually wonder how the story would end? Was there a single move made by any character that actually caught anyone off guard? It’s unbelievable that "The Woman King" includes a dark secret worthy of the most banal Mexican soap operas, especially in an era where even those shows have moved past such tropes.

The blatant, shameless preaching regarding female bravery, Black rights, and various other social agendas is staggering—it possesses the ideological subtlety of Stalinist propaganda or those overly nationalistic American war films from the nineties. There is absolutely zero artistic merit here; it's impossible to connect with such caricatured filmmaking, let alone feel anything at all. For much of the runtime, Viola Davis simply pulls a forced, scowling expression reminiscent of 50 Cent on an album cover. What I wouldn't normally forgive in this context is the glaring lack of budget for what is supposed to be a historical epic, specifically seen in the low number of extras and the cramped framing. We don't get those sweeping battle shots like you'd see in Braveheart, nor the massive crowds found in the Colosseum in Gladiator.

I can't get behind the argument that historical accuracy doesn't matter. When dealing with subjects as heavy as slavery, historical truth is incredibly important.

Nah. ☕

The guy's main gripe is that the movie had a tight budget and used camera tricks to make things look bigger than they actually were—can you believe that?

Seriously though, name me one action flick from the last 30 years that didn't rely on some tired old cliché.

bluebison8 said:This movie is a massive box office disaster, and you’re living proof of why. You seem to be the only one willing to throw money down the drain. The rest of us? We'd rather just sit back and laugh at their attempt to make a film where "Hitler saves Jews instead of killing them" while simultaneously "defeating the Russians without any losses."

Honestly, you're the only failure in this whole thread. Like, what are you even doing? Just rambling on and acting like a history professor to prove some point?
If someone makes a movie where Hitler saves Jews, I don't give a damn about historical accuracy. Seriously, who cares?
A movie is just a movie—I judge it on its own merits.

nimblemarlin6 said:Just started watching. It kicks off with the opening narration.
Set in 19th-century Africa—the Dahomey kingdom going up against another group...
It bugged me a bit that the intro feels so "American"—you know, all that talk about freedom and liberty.
I mean, were people in the Dahomey kingdom back in the 1820s really rocking American vibes and clinging to Christian moral standards?
Whatever, not my point.
The narration keeps going, and there’s this quote, roughly: "The only defense for the Dahomey kingdom is a regiment of warrior women." Hmm. Okay... I think they also mention they're some of the greatest fighters the world has ever seen. Right... seriously?

First scene: nighttime. You see a group of Black warriors sitting around a fire with spears—clearly meant to be African warriors.
Then, out of nowhere, these stern-looking women emerge from the tall grass, dressed like they stepped straight out of "300."
They charge the warriors and just absolutely wipe them out with this insane level of skill—without taking a single hit themselves.

I don't doubt the movie is well-made—it clearly has high production values—but watching it requires a massive amount of, what's the term, "suspension of disbelief."

Look, don't just watch ten minutes of a movie and call it a day—try to actually follow the story, okay? Because honestly, they definitely took casualties. Later on, the king and his council are literally calling a war meeting because they lost so many soldiers in such a tiny skirmish—they're basically asking how they're supposed to stand a chance against an army three times their size later.

Unlike some of the "genius" commenters on here, I actually sat through the whole thing. I'm not sweating the historical accuracy because, newsflash, this isn't a documentary! But as far as movies go, it’s solid in a lot of ways. And seriously, major props to Viola Davis—she was doing her own stunts at nearly 60! Plus, it feels like there's hardly any CGI used; everything looks pretty practical.
I mean, if the warriors weren't women, it probably wouldn't be quite as striking—it would just be your average action flick. But the way it's done really makes it stand out.

I honestly don't get why everyone is freaking out about the movie or that NC-17 rating—I was fully expecting it to be some non-stop, graphic assault for like 60% of the runtime, but instead, it’s just a handful of nudity and sex scenes. I guess the censors just couldn't handle that scene where she's performing oral on JFK.

Otherwise, the whole thing is kind of a mess. It feels like one of those horror flicks where they just torture the main character for the entire duration, but it drags on way too long and isn't actually interesting enough to hold my attention for a full 160 minutes.
Scarlett Johansson is really great, but honestly, the best parts of the movie are the direction, the editing, and the cinematography. Technically speaking, the film is phenomenal, but unfortunately, that's not enough to save it.

It's not a total disaster, but it's definitely below average—just an incredibly exhausting watch. Such a shame.

Christian Myers said:Just finished watching this, and honestly? I'm pretty disappointed. The movie drags—it’s actually quite boring, especially during that first half hour. I was almost ready to turn it off. The one saving grace is Ethan Hawke; he really held his own here. Everything else felt tedious, predictable, and just plain silly. For instance—SPOILER—how did Hawke not realize the kid had ripped those window bars out? Or how he managed to smash through a thick wall right next to the fridge? And don't even get me started on the logic: in a city gripped by mass kidnappings, nobody even steps outside when the kid is screaming for help during the escape? Just flip a light switch, people! Between that, the scene with the brother getting axed, the sister leading the police to the wrong location, and the ending with Hawke’s character—where the kid somehow holds his own against a massive, buff grown man—it was all so predictable. Overall, it was a tough watch. 4/10

Dude, you clearly haven't seen Star Wars. The kid had the high ground, so obviously he could take him down. 😁

Gregory Brown94 said:The scenes where Stormbreaker acts jealous are actually brilliant. I think people are missing the point, which really just shows how much attention to detail the MCU puts in. Stormbreaker's handle is actually part of Groot's body—there are scenes where Thor picks up the axe he supposedly "buried," and you can see the roots growing. That one scene alone is genius; the axe is basically sentient and "alive," kind of like Dr. Strange's cloak.

Mjolnir, on the other hand, senses Jane because Thor gave the Hammer a spell similar to Odin's from the first movie during those flashback scenes.

Only if you catch the joke with the Eternals can they be "digestible." They’re basically just a group of fancy robots, as Kingo put it. A movie featuring twelve Terminators who can't evolve ends up with flat emotions on some level, so there's no empathy or real human connection. That's why the plot and pacing suffer, but personally, I thought the Eternals were interesting and actually enjoyed the film. Zhao knew what she was doing, so she leaned into visuals that blew me away; the IMAX scenes are pure eye candy.

What bothers me overall is how little Arishem is mentioned in other MCU films; that sense of danger he created is gone. That scene in New York City is terrifying—you feel like this being could destroy Earth at any second, yet he just leaves. And after that, there are no references to Tiamut's fossilized body in the Pacific Ocean or any mention of Arishem's visit in other movies or series. I'm curious if Black Panther 2 will mention Tiamut's body or the Exit, since that affects all the Atlanteans who will be fighting Wakanda in the sequel.

To tie this back to Thor so I'm not going off-topic: let's say Thor 4 showed Eternity, which is connected to whatever gave Galactus his power—someone who could potentially start eating worlds, which might disrupt the plans of the Celestials or even Arishem...

Dr. Strange showed a universe where Reed might have taken over the World Forge...

Look, you're just stating things I already know, and honestly, your "explanation" doesn't make the joke any less lame or pathetic. You throw the word "genius" around way too easily—there's nothing genius about it, especially when they repeat the same gag five different times.

briskhound2 said:Only the fact that it’s by his son is the connection, since he writes with basically the exact same style...😁

Oh man, I totally blanked on the fact that Joe Hill is his son. It makes so much sense now!

I honestly don't buy the argument that they over-explained the Grabber. There was plenty of subtext there for us to piece together ourselves—plus, the whole mystery surrounding why the phone works the way it does just fits the vibe and the premise perfectly for me.

The kids are awesome, especially the sister—she absolutely crushed it! And Hawke? He’s just great, so creepy and unsettling. Overall, the movie is solid and definitely worth a watch.

Okay, now for the gripes. There are some major logic holes here. First and most importantly: if one kid goes missing in the same neighborhood or suburb, fine—parents might still let their kids run wild, especially since it's set in the 70s. But if two or three kids disappear the exact same way in the same area? No way. Parents would be freaking out. They wouldn't even let them walk home from school alone; they'd be walking in groups or having an adult shadow them. It just doesn't track.

And second—this guy snatching kids in broad daylight in the single most suspicious van ever made, and somehow *nobody* ever sees anything? It feels a little ridiculous when you think about it.

neonfox65 said:Watched it. Not bad. It's not a masterpiece, but it's far from the worst. Out of the last five horror movies I've seen, I'd say this is probably the best. At the start, it kind of reminds you of It.

That's exactly how I felt too! At first, it totally gave off those Stephen King vibes—I actually thought it was based on one of his stories, but turns out it isn't.

bluerider3 said:I wasn't actually planning on watching it, but after a comment like that—calling it one of the best films ever made—I feel like I have to. That's a massive statement, especially coming from someone here who watches so many movies and really knows their stuff across every era.

It doesn't have to mean anything specific, though—I totally get people when a movie just doesn't click for them.
It’s just that there were so many things I could relate to in this one... it honestly hit me on a completely different level.

Just for context, the last recent film I gave a perfect 10/10 was Mad Max: Fury Road.

Ugh, man, this was just rough. It felt like Christian Bale was starring in a completely different movie—his acting is way too intense for such a total mess.
That whole love triangle involving the hammer, the axe, and Thor is hands down the worst thing I've seen in the Marvel Cinematic Universe so far. 👎

Just watched this for the second time. Honestly? I cried even harder than I did the first time around. It’s officially cemented itself as one of my absolute favorite films of all time.