I haven't seen anything yet. It’s like trying to explain the nuances of a classic film to someone who only watches thirty-second clips on their phone; you can provide all the context in the world, but if they aren't willing to sit through the slow build, the payoff won't mean a thing to them.Roger Deakins is the one calling the shots for the cinematography in his role as director of photography, and if you bother to scroll down past the Camera and Electrical Department, you'll see just how massive the crew of camera operators and lighting technicians actually is. At the end of the day, the person in charge of the cinematography—or the visual language of the film, as some prefer to put it—is the one truly responsible for the entire aesthetic look of the movie.
I’m still stuck on a massive plot hole, much like what was pointing out... SPOILER (highlight)... It turns out Cancer Man isn't actually a real entity, just a figment of the kid's imagination. He conjured him up after seeing his Mom's medical paperwork labeled 'cancer,' essentially turning the monster into a distorted reflection of his terminally ill mother right before she passed away. But that leaves us with a glaring issue: if Cancer Man is purely psychological, how do we account for the actual victims appearing in the real world?
I didn't exactly walk away a fan... It feels like they tried to grab everything at once—drama, psychological horror, fantasy, supernatural elements—and because they bit off more than they could chew, the whole thing ends up feeling thin and uninspired. Personally, I would have preferred if they leaned harder into the psychological thriller aspect or just stuck to the fantasy elements without throwing in all that paranormal nonsense.
They were clearly trying to ride the wave of "Babadook," but they ended up miles away from that vibe. Plus, the ending leaves this massive plot hole that makes the script feel totally illogical, and there were moments where those tired clichés about a deceased son really grated on my nerves. I’d give it a six out of ten.
It actually would have been interesting to see how this script turned out if it had been handled by someone like Thor 😁
P. S. They did the best they could with the ending given how much they lost their way, but they just couldn't patch up that one glaring inconsistency (which is probably the same one we're thinking of 😁 )
A truly stunning piece of cinema. It serves as a masterclass in high-end CGI, showcasing how seamlessly technical effects can be woven directly into the heart of a narrative. 👍
briskhound2 said:Just a little bit of constructive feedback—maybe try mentioning the movie title a bit less in your review. You brought up "Clash of the Titans" like twenty times... basically once in every single sentence.
Here are my thoughts, and honestly, they aren't great. 😁
"Clash of the Titans" is the kind of movie that felt doomed from the moment that first trailer dropped. Right from the jump, it was painfully obvious that the entire thing was built on a foundation of CGI, prioritizing visual spectacle over everything else. I went into this fantasy action adventure set in ancient Egypt with incredibly low expectations, if any at all. My main motivation for picking up "Clash of the Titans" was a genuine love for historical epics. While the genre itself makes it clear that this isn't quite that kind of film, the setting of Egypt and the blending of Egyptian and Greek mythology caught my interest. Since "Clash of the Titans" is clearly aiming to be a mythological blockbuster, you really have to calibrate your expectations before the opening credits even roll. In my case, even that wasn't enough to help. "Clash of the Titans" starts out epic, but it ends up being an epic failure.
It’s not really about Eddie being the issue; the real problem lies with an audience that seems to prioritize those types of transformative roles over more "ordinary" performances. That said, I wouldn't go so far as to say Leo is doing the exact same thing
I honestly feel like Redmayne is overrated. Just because he snagged an Oscar for playing someone with a chronic illness doesn't automatically make him a top-tier actor. Honestly, aiming for an Oscar this year by playing a transgender character feels like a really cheap move on his part.
Let him play someone who isn't sick, disabled, or gay, and then we can actually judge what kind of actor he is.
Exactly. Brooklyn is primarily a coming-of-age story where romance serves as just one small ingredient. The production design and costuming are top-tier, lending a certain warmth to the whole experience, and the lead actress is absolutely stellar 👍 It’s a mistake to view Brooklyn through the narrow lens of a romance, because that isn't what this movie is trying to be.
The story itself is pretty mediocre—it feels half-baked and never quite finds its footing. While the costume design and makeup are top-tier, Eddie is a bit much; that forced smile he carries through the whole movie gets grating after a while. On the other hand, Alicia Vikander delivers another solid performance, building on the momentum she had after Ex Machina. Ultimately, the film feels lukewarm and unpolished. It’ll probably limp to a decent opening weekend, but compared to Joy, it’s easily the weakest contender in the Oscar race.