Posts by Samuel Ortiz3

Brandon Ortiz88 said:To me, Fantasy evolved from legends and epics—it doesn't matter whose rules you follow, really. The point is, if they wanted to change things up, they should have done it better.

Oh please, that was clearly written by some kid totally swept up in their own imagination. Honestly, even if they had thrown fighter jets into the story, who would actually care? The real issue lies with the producers—and I think we can all agree on that one. Instead of picking something with actual weight to adapt, like something by Martin... man, we might have seen some real Fantasy! This damn Hollywood machine just chases the dollar, coming up with these cheap marketing gimmicks to decide which titles to put on screen just to lure in the biggest crowd possible (in this case, everyone from hardcore fantasy fans to kids who are just there for the spectacle). It’s all about that "WOW!! A 15-year-old wrote a book!" angle. It’s just so transparently obvious.

Alright, if you really want my take... the movie is decent enough, strictly within the realm of Fantasy. It’s definitely not some life-changing masterpiece, but considering the source material it was based on, it turned out pretty satisfying—especially for the crowd that lives and breathes this genre. The directing is solid, though I will say the pacing gets a bit frantic in the second half—it picks up speed so fast it almost trips over itself—but honestly, it’s not a dealbreaker if you're just looking to enjoy the ride, even if it feels a little obvious. The plot is pretty naive, and the whole attempt at reaching a certain level of quality mostly shines through the special effects, which are absolutely top-tier. As for the cast, they're hit or miss. Malkovich doesn't quite land his mark here. Irons is actually very good, but you can tell he didn't go full throttle with his performance—though, maybe that’s a blessing in disguise? If he had gone overboard with the dramatic expressions, the whole thing might have felt way too pretentious. At its core, the movie is relatively "shallow"—kind of like a summer beach read—that could be a blast for some and a total drag for others, but all things considered, it’s a solid production with some genuinely great moments.

Austin Roberts8 said:Honestly, I couldn't care less what people on this forum think about me—especially if someone is actually taking internet forums seriously—but you clearly don't mind since you're just out here living your life. I'm just laying out my own opinion along with arguments from others that I happen to agree with. From where I'm sitting, it looks like you don't even have actual arguments; you're just spitting venom and throwing insults at me. If that's really all you've got, then maybe just walk away from this thread, because honestly, there's no point in continuing this.

Look, I *do* have arguments and I've laid them out—it just seems like you're choosing to ignore them. You made your points, sure, but in a lot of places, they just didn't land. But hey, that's just my two cents. If I went a little too hard there (and let's be real, I probably did with that last part), sorry! To each their own, right? Cheers!

Austin Roberts8 said:Either way, they know more about this than you do. When someone uses the phrase ''my personal impression,'' they're talking about an objective experience of the film. It's well-written. And honestly, if you start questioning the whole concept of art, who even counts as being "educated" enough to comment on it?

Well, clearly *you* are, since you're so sure of yourself, right?! 😬

So, you're some massive film expert compared to me?
Lucky you, though—at least you aren't using your actual first and last name instead of a handle. Imagine what people would think! 😬

Austin Roberts8 said:I see you’re still leaning heavily on insults as your main argument, but fine.
Since you clearly haven't sat through enough movies to grasp what actually makes a film well-directed—or even understand the basic concept of art—I’ll try to break down why this flick is just plain bad.
Direction—the predictability here is honestly staggering, and I don't just mean the plot points, but the camera angles and all those little details too. From that opening setup about how everything used to be great—which, let's be real, Jeremy was already droning on about before the movie even kicked off—to the actual events and those blatant teases for a sequel that everyone caught within the first five minutes. Honestly, it’s painfully obvious the guy behind the camera spent way too much time working on special effects instead of storytelling. Character dynamics are totally half-baked from start to finish. There’s zero emotional weight, and there's absolutely no moral to the story.
Acting—Jeremy Irons is basically carrying the whole thing on his back because you can tell he's trying, but he just can't overcome a desperate script and even worse direction. That Dragoness woman talks in such a monotone way, with zero vocal range, it’s like she’s just reading lines off a teleprompter. And don't even get me started on that little blue kid; it's way too obvious that the kid who wrote the book and got paid for the adaptation should have been playing the lead. Malkovich really lost all respect in my eyes—he shows up three times just to bark "death" and "punish" and other equally "surprising" garbage for a movie like this.
The production design looks more like war-torn Albania than some kind of dreamworld. And the logic gaps—like a horse being faster than a dragon—don't even need a mention.
It’s glaringly obvious this movie was based on a book by some naive kid who just poorly transplanted Star Wars into a Lord of the Rings setting. The character names are so pathetic and cliché they actually hurt.
My personal take? You couldn't have squeezed much more out of such a hopeless script. If they had just stuck to the rules of Dungeons & Dragons, it might have been a decent enough production, if nothing else, for the fans. But trying to invent an entirely new world when you aren't up to the task is just pathetic and fails miserably—not everyone can pull that off, and that's exactly why. It’s insanely hard. Not everyone is Tolkien. But hey, we live in a world where any piece of trash can be sold as gold if you market it right...

Nobody is insulting you. If that's how you're choosing to take it, my bad. I'm just commenting on your statements in my own way. Feel free to feel insulted if it makes you happy (clearly, you prefer viewing my comments as attacks, otherwise you wouldn't react this way). Oh, and by the way, according to your little "review," you've somehow proven you're the true expert on the concept of art, unlike me, right? 😬 So, was what you wrote actually objective or subjective? (I mean, putting "predictability" under "direction," when the plot should really be sticking to the book... it's a bit fuzzy), oh great master of cinema?

Austin Roberts8 said:Look, I don't need some fancy degree in film studies to tell the difference between a masterpiece and a total flop. That’s why movies are art—just like everything else. A self-taught artist is just as valid as someone who spent years in a classroom. But honestly, I think I'm closer to being a film scholar than you are, because if you're claiming Star Wars is fantasy... well, you basically said it all yourself.

Right, then why even bother going to film school if we already know some random guy off the street can be just as talented as a grad? It's a bit of a paradox, isn't it? I'm looking at this objectively—the movie is good. You're looking at it objectively—the movie is bad. So, who's actually right here? When I brought up Star Wars, I was digging into the actual core essence of what "fantasy" means—not just slapping a genre label on a box—and that's where the whole thing is built, which is just a fact! In the context of what I was trying to lay out for you, it’s pretty clear you were just having a hard time wrapping your head around it.

Austin Roberts8 said:Look, you’re talking nonsense (to put it in your terms). If you actually bothered to read what I wrote, you’d see I’m talking about the subjective versus objective experience of a movie. There’s zero contradiction there. Objectively? Yeah, the movie is straight-up garbage. Subjectively? It can be whatever—that’s just taste. Personally, there were maybe two lines in the whole thing I actually liked, which is barely enough to save it for me. So, to ME, it isn't total trash. Charles Taylor10 explained even better than I did why the movie is objectively bad, but hey, if she doesn't care, that's fine. That’s what I was getting at, but you just twisted it to suit your own narrative and started throwing insults.

And as for fantasy—man, please, go read up on what fantasy actually is. Maybe hop on an American fantasy forum and do some homework before you start insulting people and spouting nonsense about something you clearly know nothing about. To you, I bet Harry Potter counts as fantasy. Newsflash: it's not.

Some people here take the word "objective" way too seriously. Seriously, what does "objectively bad" even mean? By what criteria? I say the directing is decent; you say it’s bad. You say the acting is terrible; I say it’s passable. We could go back and forth on this forever. Are you some trained film scholar or a professional critic who knows every single metric used to judge a quality film? (And let’s be real, knowing that stuff takes years of study, which is totally fair, right?) If you are—and I highly doubt it—then my bad. I’m not, so I’m not going to insist that a movie is "objectively" this or that, good or bad. Honestly, arguing that way feels pretty childish to me.

Regarding that last point, I still have to call out the narrow-mindedness! Did Tolkien write his book following some rigid set of rules? Sure, literary ones, but besides that... not really! It drives me crazy that some group of people decided to invent these specific foundations that define our modern idea of fantasy. Am I supposed to, as a "true" fantasy fan, just swallow that? Like, I have to accept these templates exist and follow them? Is Harry Potter fantasy? Yes, it is, just like Star Wars and everything else. This movie wasn't marketed as a fantasy based on Dungeons & Dragons, so it doesn't have to stick to those specific tropes. You might belong to a circle that only tolerates fantasy if it hits certain checkboxes, but I get what fantasy is, and I'm not so closed-minded that I'd claim a movie is bad just because its story doesn't fit your arbitrary little criteria. It’s pure absurdity. If you paid even a shred of attention to the fact that the book this movie is based on was written by a 15-year-old kid fueled by nothing but pure enthusiasm and love, you'd realize that damn "rules" don't matter—what matters is how a kid's imagination works (clearly under a huge influence from Tolkien here).

Austin Roberts8 said:Look, you can't argue with taste. But honestly? Anyone who thinks this movie is actually good clearly doesn't know anything about cinema, because objectively speaking, this is one of the worst films out this year. As a piece of Fantasy, it’s total garbage since it ignores all those D&D rules. Even as a new fantasy world, it fails miserably for all those same reasons—which is why some people have already realized the whole thing is absolute junk. It would have worked best as a campy trash flick that pokes fun at itself, but instead, it tries to be dead serious, which is an absolute disaster. If you actually like this movie, there isn't much left to say about your understanding of film. Sorry, but that's just how it is. Try to be objective here. You might subjectively enjoy a specific line, a dragon, the music, or whatever, but objectively? This movie is just plain bad.

My God, what a load of nonsense you're spewing. First, you claim that "taste is subjective," and then immediately pivot to trying to convince everyone else they're wrong if they think the movie is good. That is incredibly contradictory, man. And what on earth are these "rules" you're talking about?? Seriously, what rules even exist? Fantasy? The whole point of the genre is to lean into imagination—it’s totally absurd to suggest there are rigid rules for designing an unreal world, characters, or plots... everything! That is literally the entire purpose of F A N T A S Y!🙄 Coffee shop D&D rules?! Man, I swear, I hate that narrow-mindedness so much. It's the exact same kind of gatekeeping you see in the music scene (especially with those hardcore metalheads).

Honestly, the movie isn't bad at all. I mean, it’s definitely not Lord of the Rings, but if I had to guess—and I'll say this loosely—it feels like a weird mashup between the Narnia chronicles (which are totally for kids) and Lord of the Rings (which, let's face it, is probably the least "for kids" thing out there). While looking at the whole Lord of the Rings saga, it can feel a bit too self-important sometimes, but this movie actually sits better with me when it comes to, you know, having some actual weight to it. Still, we're talking about Fantasy here! It’s pretty goofy, sure, but above all, it’s fun, well-acted (thanks to Jeremy Irons), and directed well enough that it just works. My gripes? The resistance movement led by that black motherfucker looks way too much like some tribal group from an old documentary. And my biggest issue, hands down: that awful pop song during the end credits. Just... yikes!!! They really should have composed something that actually fit the vibe, especially for the US market (or even the UK).

I honestly don't know what you guys are freaking out about. The movie is actually pretty solid—and it’s super interesting just because the whole thing plays out in real time.

Michael Newman50 said:Google actually gives you decent answers 👍

And about that thing you mentioned...

Ethan Perez28 said:Man, I’m just sitting here jamming out to "Operation Ground and Pound"... such a killer track.
Man, that is just straight-up terrible. 😲

So, I finally made the switch over to Modest Mouse—it’s happening. 🙂

Thanks for actually giving me a straight answer for once. 🙂

quiettrucker80 said:That’s because you aren't starting threads about those obscure power metal bands that literally nobody listens to except you.

Alright then, buddy—which bands am I actually "allowed" to talk about according to your rules? Maybe I just want to find out what they're about, you know? You got a problem with that? And how do you even know they play power metal anyway... unless you're secretly listening to them too, huh? Or are you just being a total bigot?😬

quiettrucker80 said:Samuel Ortiz3, have you checked out www.cmar-net.org yet?🙂

I mean, what's the big deal? Why should I?

So, has anyone here actually sat down and listened to these guys?

I mean, seriously, why are you even bothering with the checkout line when there are so many terrible options out there? This one is actually one of the better ones—and let's be real, those are pretty much unicorns at this point.

Man, those guys actually had some real insight back in the day—like, actual substance. But this stuff we’re seeing now? Give me a break!!!

dobaj said:I know this movie is pretty old school...

Man, old school is an understatement! 🧐

steelviper6 said:It even features some big-name actors... like John Malkovich... ☕

Long live Americans in Hollywood movies!!! 😬

kobayasi said:In an ocean of terrible movies—at least if you ask me—that have been made since we gained independence, this is definitely one of the better ones. It's nothing groundbreaking, just a solid watch.

Yeah, I'm with you there. It's a pretty decent little flick.