You know what?
I think the poster says it all:
Look at how awful that poster is. What is this, 2001? Come on! You could have designed a better poster, I'm sure!
But that's just the tip of the iceberg; heck it's not even a tip OF the tip!
Let's break this down:
1. Screenplay: What the flip
2. Characters: What the flap
3. Story-line: Why even bother
4. Direction: At this point I fell asleep
So yeah.
No but let me elaborate, right? The story-line was alright, I think, but it was really badly conveyed. I was confused for a bit because I myself wasn't sure who was bad or good; the story-line was mediocre at best, but the story-telling itself was just...like I can't even find the right word.
There's this bit in the end when the lead's once-best-friend-who's-now-a-bad-guy suddenly turns good and dies "a hero's death" which was GOD AWFUL because the transition was terribly done. The way the dialogues were written seemed very inconsistent with the kind of characters that were initially established; I feel like the screenplay writers themselves got tired of this BS story they were weaving and gave up. Actually, the movie could have been MUCH better told if there wasn't so much unnecessary dialogue involved. One of the subplots, for example, was the good guys trying to figure out what the WMD they were fighting against was. It was called 'Rainmaker' but no one knew why or even what it did.
This was suddenly conveyed just before the jet-plane climax and it took them like 10 seconds to tell us, and it was SUCH a let down! You see what I mean? It was too far-fetched, too hyped up, and there was SO much dialogue. The editing could have been MUCH better in those terms. It was a 110 minute movie, and I think all of it could have been well conveyed in 50 minutes, max. The only good thing I think was seeing the guy from A Walk to Remember in it, and that also was spectacularly destroyed thanks to how awful EVERYTHING was.
I was so BORED.
It was so boring, just WRITING about it is making me feel bored all over again.
The acting wasn't too awful, so there's that I guess. It wasn't amazing, but God DAMN, a good script is what makes it or wrecks it; I highly doubt Benedict Cumberbatch would have the cult fan following he has if it wasn't for the brilliancy of Sherlock, for example.
The cinematography was nothing to be amazed of, but I guess that wasn't too shabby either.
Oh wait, I think I got it.
It lacked substance. It lacked "soul."
Yep.
See? I can be a critic too!
But that's just the tip of the iceberg; heck it's not even a tip OF the tip!
Let's break this down:
1. Screenplay: What the flip
2. Characters: What the flap
3. Story-line: Why even bother
4. Direction: At this point I fell asleep
So yeah.
No but let me elaborate, right? The story-line was alright, I think, but it was really badly conveyed. I was confused for a bit because I myself wasn't sure who was bad or good; the story-line was mediocre at best, but the story-telling itself was just...like I can't even find the right word.
There's this bit in the end when the lead's once-best-friend-who's-now-a-bad-guy suddenly turns good and dies "a hero's death" which was GOD AWFUL because the transition was terribly done. The way the dialogues were written seemed very inconsistent with the kind of characters that were initially established; I feel like the screenplay writers themselves got tired of this BS story they were weaving and gave up. Actually, the movie could have been MUCH better told if there wasn't so much unnecessary dialogue involved. One of the subplots, for example, was the good guys trying to figure out what the WMD they were fighting against was. It was called 'Rainmaker' but no one knew why or even what it did.
This was suddenly conveyed just before the jet-plane climax and it took them like 10 seconds to tell us, and it was SUCH a let down! You see what I mean? It was too far-fetched, too hyped up, and there was SO much dialogue. The editing could have been MUCH better in those terms. It was a 110 minute movie, and I think all of it could have been well conveyed in 50 minutes, max. The only good thing I think was seeing the guy from A Walk to Remember in it, and that also was spectacularly destroyed thanks to how awful EVERYTHING was.
I was so BORED.
It was so boring, just WRITING about it is making me feel bored all over again.
The acting wasn't too awful, so there's that I guess. It wasn't amazing, but God DAMN, a good script is what makes it or wrecks it; I highly doubt Benedict Cumberbatch would have the cult fan following he has if it wasn't for the brilliancy of Sherlock, for example.
The cinematography was nothing to be amazed of, but I guess that wasn't too shabby either.
Oh wait, I think I got it.
It lacked substance. It lacked "soul."
Yep.
See? I can be a critic too!
No comments:
Post a Comment