MovieChat Forums > prayformojo
avatar

prayformojo (81)


Posts


Worst ending of all time? The film should have ended on this scene... What was Arno's story in this? (spoilers) Joker did what "Logan" and Marvel didn't have the balls to do... What was this actually about? homo-erotic undertones of the film / meaning of the ending (spoilers) Violence Porn Serious lack of realism... (spoilers) This was made on Netflix because.... View all posts >


Replies


Very much agree with the points OP made. They had all the potential in the world and threw it away by not respecting the original characters. All the films were made with this this completely unwarranted subtle tone of snark towards the original characters, seemingly intentionally rubbing them out one by one. Almost like someone had an axe to grind... There were a ton of Star Wars books, comics, and games to draw ideas and inspiration from, but instead someone thought that they could write it all up themselves by just getting enough idiots into one big committee room. All these films are textbooks examples of 'film by committee,' where a single visionary is NOT given free reign to develop the film they want. And what the committees ultimately produced was just an idiotic rehash of the original. It's kind of like bad fan-fiction when you look at the films objectively. What actually shocks me is just how bad they turned out when it such a softball hit to make something at least half-good. 2h38m of redux - he's a fucking whale, film doesn't lie: https://imgur.com/a/zdbdM4B Maybe it all turned out for the best - I like the film, but I don't understand why anyone would try to claim Brando didn't show up unexpectedly fat and out of shape. That was the primary motivation for changing the ending - they HAD to. One of the worst films of all time - laughably bad in every aspect. In many ways it almost destroys the series as you come away hating all of the characters. I'm glad they made another one after this to redeem themselves. Only good for serious Trek fans, or novelty value. Final cut is a half measure between original cut and Redux. Not as drawn out and long winded as Redux, but still including shortened versions of the extra material (such as a shortened version of the French plantation). I think it's a half measure that will please few. People will either want to stick with the original short version or will go all in for the longest version. Personally I love Redux, you really feel the descent into madness and hell and makes for one of the most "literary" films of all time. This has to be a troll of some kind. Have you ever watched Apocalypse Now? Brando is CLEARLY a land whale in the film. From what I have read / heard, the original scripted ending was entirely different, but Brando was too fat and out of shape to pull off the scenes as written. So Copolla adjusted and reshot the ending on the fly, dressing Brando in all black instead of military fatigues and focusing on closeup face shots to play down how fat he was. At the time, Brando's role was the highest paid acting gig ever. He was not paid that much to loaf around and read poetry, he was originally supposed to be doing a lot more. I think "woketards" come in all ages, otherwise I agree. Probably because they either forgot, or don't realize that real comedy ever existed (back when people were actually allowed to make jokes). Now all "jokes" must revolve around political topics and must only fall on the side of "wokeness." I think the real subtext of this film's popularity is that Hitler and Trump are interchangeable in the minds of the ultra-woke. The real history of WWII is brutal, complex, nuanced, and carries many lessons. All the idiots are learning from JoJo Rabbit is "Moustache man bad!!" just like "Orange man bad!!" These people like JoJo Rabbit not because of any aspects of filmmaking, but rather because it re-affirms for them that they are on the "right" side. I came here to say that same thing so I will just reply to this post. This is definitely in the top 5 of worst films ever made, based on effort put into it versus how bad the final product is. I even spent some time poking around trying to find some justification of why people think it's great, and just found idiots blathering about nothing, typically some mumbling about "class differences." - It is one of the ugliest movies I've ever seen. Everything looks ugly. Even the star actors look ugly. And this was watching the cleaned up version without the sepia. Imagine watching the shitty original. No wonder it got pulled. - The sound is so bad I had to turn on subtitles to understand anything. - The editing is god awful. I laughed out loud when in the opening credits it cycled though about 5 editors. I knew what I was in for: a jump-cut fest, and it did not disappoint. - The acting is ridiculous. Only Kristopherson pulls out a credible performance, but you still don't like or care about his character. - The plot is ridiculous and pointless. - The whole movie is a joke in many ways. One of my favorite quotes about Heaven's Gate is the guy who said there are not that many people in Casper, Wyoming TODAY let alone in the 1800s. Seriously, the shoulder to shoulder mobs in this film were unintentionally hilarious. It was obviously made by an Easterner who had zero sensibilities of the west, and what a western should entail. But let's be honest - Cimino was not a good filmmaker. Deer Hunter was a success in spite of him, not because of him. And Heaven's Gate proves it. I will finish with a Pauline Kael quote: “Heaven’s Gate” is a numbing shambles. It’s a movie you want to deface; you want to draw mustaches on it, because there’s no observation in it, no hint of anything resembling direct knowledge—or even intuition—of what people are about. It’s the work of a poseur who got caught out. Virtually no woman looks better with short hair than with long hair. There are only women that still look good with short hair, key word being "still." The only actress that comes to mind who still managed to be sexy with short hair was Charlize Theron, but she is still better looking with long hair. With short hair and no make up Scarlett looks like a man. The film seemed to acknowledge this by constantly having her dress up a man in costume. I think she is also playing a trans character in a coming film. Her beauty is quite overrated in my opinion, and is mostly a result of being in roles that heavy on makeup, airbrushing, and CGI (superhero films). What I would find to be more interesting thing to think about is why the deliberate choice of the filmmakers to make her look less sexy and more aggressive and male. If she were a feminine woman, it would have been a totally different film. Dern got a lot more screen time. As good as he was, Loitta's character was too small to be considered a supporting actor. Though I do question if the Dern performance was really Oscar worthy. It was basically the same character Dern always plays. PS: she will always be "Admiral Holdo" to me View all replies >