This filtered 80% of Cinemaphile, even though it is up there with Gattaca for best sci-fi movie
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
This filtered 80% of?
This filtered 80% of Cinemaphile, even though it is up there with Gattaca for best sci-fi movie
|
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Not a regular Cinemaphile poster, but it was shit.
Actually filtered. Some of the voice over ruminations were a little cringe, but it's still far more introspective than literally any other sci fi garbage in the last 20 years
>The concept is good, but the execution is bad
Tell me how it is was bad in its "execution". Unless ofc you're just regurgitating whatever you downloaded from a youtube review.
>whataboutery argument
that doesn’t change that it’s not up there with the greatest of all time
>it's still far more introspective
who gives a frick you fricking nerd, go watch Solaris if you want introspection and not this soulless Hollywood garbage
hmmm it appears that you have no romantic prospects in your life creating a rumination and need to identify with film. This is the ultimate form of cuckoldry because it is cuckoldry of the soul. You have let a corporate machine dictate to what counts as inspiration leading you to be a slave to another artists desires.
Literal fricking 70 IQ word salad. You're talking about romantic prospects when you can't get 5 matches on Tinder
using tinder is a maturation of you lack of ability to achieve adulthood in your own mind. The juxtaposition of "intellectual words" you sadly define hold a mirror upon ones self and competes with Ad Astra as a farce of film making.
If I were you, I'd wait to use thesaurus before I know the bare minimum of English grammar. Ignoring the obvious errors, "The juxtaposition of "intellectual words" you sadly define" is actual word salad without any meaning because you're desperately injecting words that sound smart to you but that you don't actually understand. Anyway
>using tinder is a maturation of you lack of ability to achieve adulthood in your own mind
mega cope about the fact you can't get more than 5 matches. it's ok to be ugly, but at least admit to it
I'm not even american so I barely know what a flyover state moron looks like, but the word alone makes you mutts seethe so I'll continue using it. And yes, your penis is smaller
ah the errors abound but alas ill let you ponder on what made me chuckle in your retort
fun fact: I am a professional film critic with an editorial column. you wont find me on Rotten tomato
nice b8
It's bad.
The concept is good, but the execution is bad, I'm sorry anon.
>filtered 80% of Cinemaphile
yeah
>even though it is up there with Gattaca for best sci-fi movie
one good movie seen does not a patrician make, I suppose
better than the reddit martian but still shit
This, it mogs interstellar and 2001 so hard it's not even funny
>be me
>expect an atmospheric space horror
>get a life-affirming humanist meditation
All in all a little disappointed but I liked it. I believe it was the positive message that ultimately made the mainstream corporate consumers seethe with confusion.
>life-affirming humanist meditation
Something we have little of for some reason. I don't get Hollywood
Hollywood is dominated by antihumanist israelites
>space monkeys
>moon pirates
>sending a guy to Mars and not just a recording
>fighting during space shutle launch
>guy's hr doesn't drop unless he thinks of his dada
>he flew towards Uranus for like 2 months but aged 2 years
>completly moronic father character with stupidest ending
>shielding against meteors
>using space atomic bomb to thrust spaceship
Yeah this movie filtered non-Black folk.
>>moon pirates
your IQ must be in the 80s if the message went over your head when they literally spell it out for you so even the most inattentive audience should be able to grip that the movie's message is that humans are inherently flawed, burdened with original sin
moronic father character with stupidest ending
there really is nothing else to say to this other than filtered. if you don't find the tale of someone extremely gifted desperately searching for some higher meaning than just brute humans intriguing, you're probably just fricking stupid
Hola based
Not him but no to all of that. It was shit. The guy falls out of space twice and survives ffs. It’s a poor man’s 2001
The film's message was that there's nothing out there to save us, only we can save ourselves but we're capable of it if we try. It spun the nihilistic wank of the modern day in an affirming way.
>movie's message is that humans are inherently flawed, burdened with original sin
against meteors
I lost my shit during that scene
It was kino. Pretty good Heart of Darkness adaptation in space.
It did look pretty nice. But the plot was moronic. Even more moronic than Interstellar.
>SPACE MONKEY
>MOON PIRATES
>RADIO DOESN'T EXIST
The only thing filtered here is your understanding of reality.
>Not him but no to all of that. It was shit. The guy falls out of space twice and survives
if you're so fricking low IQ that you can't rely on a little suspension of disbelief when watching fricking fiction, then probably the problem is entirely on you. your arguments are movie sins tier, and a desperate cope because you can't attack the actual substance and message of the movie
argument
not really?
Based knower
>a little suspension of disbelief
Brainlet. This movie didn't need to be set in space, but considering the director is a hipster he obviously needs his metaphors. Problem is, those metaphors don't work if you don't get the basis for them right. Same for Gravity. Another movies made for pseuds to jerk off over.
>not really
yes really
either it’s all sci fi movies ever or it’s just the best… of the last 20 years
and not actually THE best
you know what the BEST means right? It doesn’t mean, “well all these other movies a few years ago sucked so this movie magically becomes good” it means it’s good no matter what
Based.
>you can't attack the actual substance and message of the movie
The movie doesn't have any substance and the director/screenwriter is too pretentious to respect the audience and actually explore any themes/messages to the point they could resonate. That's why everyone only remembers the laughably dumb-dumb action shit and everything else is completely forgettable.
Cope, moron. The movie is bad and I just told you why. Sorry you're a midwit and had to have it pointed out to you how contrived a "weighty" movie featuring space monkeys and nonsequitur moon pirates ends up being.
What the frick was their problem?
The eternal russians
It's a bad movie that repeatedly spells out how smart and deep it thinks it is to the audience (complete with hitting you over the head with continuous voice-over). It's pretentiously overwrought to the point it's both condescending and masturbatory. Given the above, it's impossible to be filtered by it and only a complete moron afflicted by Dunning-Kruger can walk away from it feeling like others missed out on what the film was doing.
Space monkeys and moon pirates but the voice-over assures us it's thoughtful and exploring heavy themes. What about the father/son relationship though! Sorry but no, anon. If you liked it there's a high chance you're just dumb.
Nice word salad
>complete with hitting you over the head with continuous voice-over
You say that, but the average movier go is so fricking low IQ that they don't even get the muh moon pirates scene even after Brad drills it into your brain for the 4th time.
>It's pretentiously overwrought to the point it's both condescending and masturbatory.
yes, some of the voiceovers, especially the latter ones, definitely were that
>What about the father/son relationship though
your post was doing well until this. if you think the movie is actually an exploration of a father/son relationship before it is an exploration of humans inherent need for higher meaning, then you got filtered man
>This movie didn't need to be set in space
it absolutely does when, after 2500 years' worth of search, 'meaning' hasn't been found here on earth. that's the entire fricking point of the movie you mongoloid
low IQ gas store clerk worker
>but the average movier go is so fricking low IQ
So you're admitting that the movie was made for idiots.
>if you think the movie is actually an exploration of a father/son relationship before it is an exploration of humans inherent need for higher meaning
The movie is anchored by Pitt's relationship to his father and how he perceives his own persona/position relative to him. However, it's convoluted by the dumb shit about Pitt being cool under pressure (which is portrayed as him being emotionless). The necessity for higher meaning shit is pretentious cope--the movie couldn't even clearly pull off the aforementioned aspect that's supposed to be motivating Pitt let alone build it into a higher theme.
>you got filtered man
I'd say you got tricked into thinking the movie had a higher message but I can't really use the word "tricked" when the writing felt the need to assure the audience that's what it was doing over and over. You weren't tricked--you're just dumb.
>So you're admitting that the movie was made for idiots.
All movies with a budget above 5 millions have to cater to idiots, too, to return profits. Unfortunately, you sub 100 IQ mongrels make up a large part of the population
>The movie is anchored by Pitt's relationship to his father and how he perceives his own persona/position relative to him
It's not at all anchored by it, what the frick are you saying. It's literally just a pretext until Brad Pitt's character is explored more and the real search is unveiled. He's not searching for his father -- he's searching for the same thing that his father did. My god you actually got filtered
>All movies with a budget above 5 millions have to cater to idiots, too, to return profits.
This is pure undistilled cope. You're sliding about general profit motive so you can make an excuse for why the movie is bad without accepting that it's actually bad. Textbook cognitive dissonance.
>It's not at all anchored by it
It's literally the driving impetus of the movie, midwit. "No! The movie told me over and over it was deep and thoughtful so it's actually about being deep and thoughtful!" It's less than the sum of its parts. Simple as.
>He's not searching for his father -- he's searching for the same thing that his father did.
What part of "The movie is anchored by Pitt's relationship to his father and how he perceives his own persona/position relative to him" did you not understand. I take back "midwit," you're just a moron. That aspect of the movie is supposed to underscore the themes the movie was going for (i.e. the pretentious cope you keep repeating instead of answering to criticism because you're too stupid to understand why it doesn't work). You have to keep sliding into nonsense and continuously strawman the criticism ("No! You missed the higher message and you're saying the relationship is the whole idea!" (I'm didn't and I'm not, moron)) because you're too stupid to answer to it.
>You're sliding about general profit motive so you can make an excuse for why the movie is bad without accepting that it's actually bad
No, I'm excusing the moments where the movie literally beats its message over the head of its audience so that even low IQ mongrels like you can follow. It's an unfortunate necessity, but thankfully it isn't the entire movie
>It's literally the driving impetus of the movie
It just isn't lol. Already by the time he's reached the moon, it's very clearly spelt out that he's searching for meaning in humans, not his father. He pretty much nailed the acting when he actually meets tommy lee jones, and it isn't as much disappointment as it is acceptance of what he already knew, that this meeting isn't going to prescribe the meaning he's searching for. Next time I recommend actually paying attention to the movie instead of watching it on your break from your mcdonald's shift
>A student of the Red Letter Media I presume
never watched them in my life. stop coping about the fact that you got filtered by invoking ecelebs
>wall of text
Are you moderator of /r/rightcantmeme?
>No, I'm excusing the moments where the movie literally beats its message over the head
No, you're making excuses for the fact the movie can't carry forth its ideas and ignoring the fact it comes off as pretentious. Instead of addressing that you say "MOVIES NEED TO MAKE MONEY THO!" and then assert the movie is stupid because I myself am stupid (without realizing the irony that you're the one who likes it and is thereby who it was made for, kek).
>It just isn't lol
I think you're too dumb to understand what the words "anchor" and "impetus" mean. You're minimizing the aspect that relationship plays in the film while acting like I'm trying to assert it's the only aspect to it. Basically, you just ignore criticism of it and keep begging the question that the film is actually deep and meaningful (outside the context of criticism because you're too dumb to respond to it).
> He pretty much nailed the acting when he actually meets tommy lee jones, and it isn't as much disappointment as it is acceptance of what he already knew, that this meeting isn't going to prescribe the meaning he's searching for
See. You're literally describing that Pitt's IMPETUS in the film is directed towards his search and that his perceived relationship to his father ANCHORS the plot as well as theme. No shit, moron. I'm telling you why it doesn't work. You just beg the question that it does and strawman the criticism being made as if it solely relates to basic plot mechanics and isn't indicative of how bad the film holds together.
You've admitted this movie was made for idiots. You're an idiot.
>movie can't carry forth its ideas and ignoring the fact it comes off as pretentious.
No, literally every modern movie has to do this in an age where it is all about maximising profits before it is about the arts. You're asking for a movie that can't be made in the 21st century
No, I am saying it isn't as much an anchor as you make it out to be, and that while it might be the initial drive for his search, it very quickly detoriates into the same realisation (about humans) that his father had and loses its momentum. You're either being disingenious because you're too commited to your intial point or an actual moron when you say it is the driving impetus of the movie
>See. You're literally describing that Pitt's IMPETUS in the film is directed towards his search and that his perceived relationship to his father ANCHORS the plot as well as theme
What kind of surface fricking reading comprehension is that. The absolute state of your IQ. At that point, it has nothing to do with his relationship with his father, but rather his relationship with, basically, humanity, for all their faults. Brad pitt can accept our faults, tommy lee jones can't. At this point, it has fricking nothing to do with whatever father/son dynamic you're trying to inject in the movie
>You're asking for a movie that can't be made in the 21st century
No. I'm pointing out the movie is low-brow but pretends to have a higher meaning which it fails at. You're making excuses for why it is stupid by blaming profit motive and mass audience appeal (a generic slide) and have literally nothing to say about the criticisms. I can easily just say that the movie is still bad in that it's a product of that environment but I'd rather not accept your slide and point out the fact you're ignoring the actual criticism and making excuses.
>I am saying it isn't as much an anchor as you make it out to be
Frick you're moronic. I'm not making it out to be the entirety of the film and you're projecting that strawman, moron. Again, you just act like I'm saying the entire film is about a man's search for his father when I've actually given specific reasons as to why that mechanic doesn't work on any level (i.e. not in and of itself and not in the context of the higher themes the movie fail at). I'm not simply reducing the movie to its plot, moron. That's why you're doing so you can brush the actual criticism aside. I don't think you're disingenuous--I think you're the type of idiot that needs things continuously spelled out to them and therefore is part of the exact base audience for which Ad Astra was made.
>You're either being disingenious because you're too commited to your intial point
Holy projection. You haven't directly addressed the criticisms and just keep asserting that I missed the higher themes and sperg out about them instead of pointing out why I'm potentially wrong by adding anything to the discussion. You just assert that everyone is filtered by a stupid movie that literally tells the audience exactly what it wants them to think about it and beg the question that it was successful when it comes to the ideas (it tries to) present.
>What kind of surface fricking reading comprehension
I was paraphrasing you. Frick you're REALLY dumb.
The thing that makes it lame is the fact that his father and his dumb experiment is somehow the reaosn the world will end.
Why didnt they just make it a natural phenomenon?
Gattaca sucks balls, what are you talking about?
>voiceover
and DROPPED
i fricking HATE handholding and characters have to dub themselves telling the audience what they are thinking and feeling.
We got eyes homie we can SEE through your actions and emotions
I don't mind voice-overs. Gives the movie a different feel. You can go watch any Terrence Malick movie if you want shots of tall grass and minimal speaking
Some of Terrence Malick's voiceovers come off as cringy and they're evidence that he's a fairly pretentious filmmaker. However, Malick carries his movies forth with personal honesty and openness so the techniques he employs in his storytelling (including voiceover) don't come off as pandering or condescending to the audience. Malick doesn't care if the audience is filtered by his work and doesn't feel the need to fall back on contrivances to spell out what he is trying to do and say.
It's likely that Ad Astra is influenced by him but can't pull off any of his clarity and simply feels the need to tell the audience what it thinks it's doing at every turn.
Terrence Malick directed ad astra under a pseudonym
and film is shit and exposed anyone immediately as a redditor who likes it
Reddit hates this movie
found the redditor
James Gray fan here. I thought this movie was extremely bad, got really disappointed
I actually drove 2 hours to see this in IMAX and I left wanting my shekels back. It was a shiny turd at best. Nothing about the entire plot made any sense. If you genuinely think this shit was kino I feel pity for you.
Apparently space-glowBlack folk can teleport, didn't you know??
I was going to comment on the fact that he literally got away with everything, no matter how bad, only to go full circle and end up back where he started, but then I remembered he was a space-glowBlack person and glowBlack folk always get away with it.
>low IQ flyover state moron who has to drive 2 hours just to get to his nearest IMAX is filtered by a movie that demands its viewers to have a measly +110 IQ
no one is surprised anon
>he doesn't live in based rural areas
Can't wait until the hungry Black folk tear you apart. Liking this drivel doesn't make you enlightened. Quite the opposite actually.
I don't even live in muttamerica. Thank the gods
>is proud of being even more irrelevant
>I'm a proud mutt!
Good for you lmao
>you wont find me on Rotten tomato
No fricking shit
>ah the errors abound but alas ill let you ponder on what made me chuckle in your retort
Yes, the truth is you really can't write English, and I hope whatever film reviews it is that you write, they're in your own native language
True, and that's a pretty valid criticism of the movie that I see a lot. I still feel like that the desperate search of higher, "inhuman" meaning couldn't really be shown in any other setting than a sci fi one tho
A student of the Red Letter Media I presume, tell me what Ad Astra inspires in you that even a plebian novel like an Asimov couldn't do better?
pretty good indeed
I'll check it out, but is it pozzed?
sounds moronic wtf
>obsessed with muh dik
>literally uses "flyoverstate" as an insult
Ah, yes, you've convinced us all now. I see the error of my ways oh you brilliant one! lmao you pathetic fricking weasel of a numale
It's good but I hesitate to rank it among "best sci-fi". There aren't really any science elements, it's set in space and on other planets but none of it strives for any kind of accuracy or realistic depiction of the future.
It's more like a long fever dream where the space elements are an afterthought
plebs thinking fricking Gattaca is in the realm of Metropolis are fricking stupid.
I liked it but I see the criticism it faces.. well. I was very excited for the film in 2019 but well things got bad then and of course later.
why is it so hard to believe moon pirates would exist?
What would a space pirate eat and where would he live and how would he get to moon and how would he get moon car and moon weapon? What would israelites gain from this?
the moon is shared by multiple nations.
some poorer ones or ones who are corrupt would have their territories used by other nefarious nations or house pirates. like what happens in real life.
the moon is a highly transported location, sleeper agents could easily travel there.
there motives are simple sabotage.
In the universe the film creates it makes no sense but that doesn't really matter (one can insert headcanon to rectify it or simply ignore it). Yeah it's dumb but it could be forgivable if the director didn't have so many pretensions regarding what he was actually doing. Hitting the audience over the head over and over and over about how deep his movie supposedly is through bad voiceover, then digressing into nonsensical action to keep them awake, simply stands out and therefore is an obvious point to mock. Ironically, the digressions to thoughtless action sequences are the best parts of the film--this underscores how much of a failure the film is thematically when it comes to its pretense.
Do not let Cinemaphile meme you into watching this film. I did and I deeply regret it.
This movie unironically reformed me as a person and inspired me to take imitative and handle my family issues head on.
It was clearly flawed. The voiceover thing was inconsistent in quality, with some monologue clearly feeling unnecessary.
The space monkey scene was great actually, my expections were subversed, 10/10 movie.
I had nice visuals but it doesn't even come close to Gattaca
I'd put it somewhere between The Island and Interstellar (Pretty Mediocre)
I liked it. I think it had particularly good special effects. The actors seemed inspired to do well, specially Donald Sutherland. Some really kino scenes.
magnificent ost and overall feeling of emptiness, a great watch
My favourite film is The Tree of Life so don't tell me that I can't handle a life affirming whatever.
This movie was crap and very disappointing, I wanted it to be apocalypse now in space but it was executed poorly. The main issues were bad writing for Brads voice over, stupid plot, and completely moronic physics especially near the end. The visuals and music and the idea behingd it was great.
You must have a very poor grasp of newtonian physics if you like it. That end scene was like watching a drama and then characters start walking on the ceiling. I'm ok with the absurd but it needs to be intentional, in this case it was just very poor execution.
Also the main plot issue wasn't moon pirates but was him getting on that ship and leaving by himself and whatnot. The director was aiming for realism and to tell a specific story. That is why the unbelievable physics and stupid plot ruins the film.
2001, Solaris, Interstelar-ending, and even Gravity are better.
The film had great potential though.
whats so difficult about leaving by himself?
the crew is only needed to keep you from going insane. he has dedicated his whole life to this field. none of the mechanisms are difficult its a floating can with nothing to hit for millions and miles
>what a lack of bullying does to a mf
op deserves to be bullied
OP have you ever seen Apocalypse Now?
Yes
I could never feel bullied by someone who's 5'8
i actually watched both this and Gattaca on Saturday. Gattaca was kino, this was not
Moon Mercs
Yeah I liked it alot but maybe because me and my dad have a strained relationship.
It was boring and had some of the ugliest and low-budget set designs I've ever seen in a 50+million dollar movie.
Why was the Mars base just a bunch of fricking cinder blocks?
Normies and morons went into it expecting spaceships, action and laser guns because that's all they think of Sci-fi as.
I really enjoyed that this film displayed just how lonely it would be to explore the vast expance of space.
>space monkeys
>moon pirates
>one-note main character defined by a singular trait
It had all the components of being the type of generic low-brow movie audiences expected while also being insufferably pretentious. That's why it's terrible.
how many traits are you defined by?
Depends on who you ask. Brad Pitt's character is the same for everyone.
This
.
Withdrawn. You can expand on it by writing a character sketch but it will boil down to that aspect (e.g. you can say he's "calm" like the dumb shit at the beginning with his heart monitor--the movie hits you over the head with everything--but it will all come back to him just basically being withdrawn). Sure, it services the movie thematically (one note characters can work in some contexts) but in Ad Astra it ends up convoluting other aspects of the film and is one of the reasons nothing resonates (except the space monkeys and moon pirates).
Why do morons only talk about the monkey and pirates? It's something I noticed every time this film is discussed.
>one-note main character defined by a singular trait
name it
Whiteness
What do you call these Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now styles of stories? You know, the 'guy has to travel far to confront a character, the whole time the more they think on the end goal the more it reveals about themselves' type of story? I really enjoy them.
Bildungsroman. Ad Astra is moronic though.
>dude i'm only pretending to be moronic