Cli-Fi
John J. Falco
I saw it yesterday... Stunning visuals. I'd strongly recommend you see it in 3D. Some of the best use of 3D I've seen, even without many 3D-focused set pieces. The world Besson's built is just that magnificent... better than Avatar, hands down. Aaaaaaand that's where the positive comments stop, I'm afraid.
I don't usually wander into this corner of the forum, but I felt such an overall disappointment after seeing this movie that I cannot contain it within myself. Gotta bleed the misery before I explode. Come, wallow in my sorrow, share my pain.
I found myself literally cringing in my seat while watching this, which is a first for me--and I've watched plenty of awful movies in my lifetime. Not the action scenes, those were alright (even good-great if seeing them in 3D). It was the quiet moments I felt embarrassed for. Specially the dialogue. It was meandering, without much movie-long coherence or thematic relevance, juvenile but not funny, lacking wit on par with the worst B movies, full of non-sequiturs and empty small talk. It didn't feel like production spent a moment's thought on the dialogue--it seemed like a small child wrote it, basing it on unbelievably worn cliches. I don't think the movie would hurt in any way if it was a silent film. This, and other factors, also leads to non of the characters being likeable or even relatable.
There is zero character development. This is in part because the movie rarely slows down and is too enamoured with its visual exploits. In the end the whole thing feels incredibly superficial, but it could also be because the MCs are just inherently not interesting. Simply, it doesn't give you time to care, and given the content, it doesn't give you a reason to want to, as the plot itself is pretty simplistic, and full of holes. It has most likely been crippled in post-production, as it feels at times they have edited out nexus scenes that could make sense of some parts of the movie (although everything is kinda dumbed down anyway, so it's not that obvious maybe, except for those who have some knowledge on basic storytelling).
The acting was also subpar. Most of it was both underacted and overacted. Simultaneously. Really. I don't even know how that is possible. The smallest dull remarks pass as clever and draw exaggerated, sometimes even illogical reactions from other characters. And the more "poignant" scenes (and that's stretching the term, as there's nothing even remotely emotionally impactful) fall off thanks to a combination of bad dialogue, underachieving acting, bad use of pace, and the mishandling of thematic coherence, plucking unrelated elements out of thin air not previously explored, but suddenly placed at the forefront for only a minute, to never be discussed of again after the scene is over.
I'll leave it at that. I feel a bit better now, but this has been a much bigger disappointment than Batman vs Superman, and that's saying something. Sadly, my next movie will be The Dark Tower, and I hear it also is not great, which will finish off my broken heart.So much potential wasted lately! Maybe Dunkirk will wash away this bad aftertaste....
Yeah the reviews for Valerian kinda said the same thing. I am not surprised. It means no sequels or franchise opportunities. Too bad, because it's so hard to get a space epic off the ground. Jupiter Ascending failed in the same way. So did Passengers, but that movie wasn't such an epic as the other two. Even the Expanse is having trouble, but syfy loves it and it's their baby. I don't know what this means for the future of the space opera industry.
Can't we have another Star Wars? Or was that just one-off dumb-luck? No one can beat George Lucas? No one?
