I'm really unsure whether or not people will feel that this sequel is better or
worse than the first film, but I'm scoring it less for the simple reason of tedium induced by the combined ill - spirited momentum of both films.
Not exact matches
Saudi Arabia publicly screened its
first movie in more
than 30 years over the weekend, but moviegoers were subjected to one of 2017's
worst films.
Final Verdict: Thunderdome gets a
bad rap, but it is far more
than the
first two
films intelligent in places.
But feel -
bad films reigned supreme for the fest's
first week: By the time Cannes hit the halfway point, audiences had been subjected to beaucoup examples of horrific violence, human - rights violations, pedophilia and more exploitation of women
than you could shake a rape whistle at.
The
first sequence in The Darjeeling Limited suggests a far
worse film than Anderson actually delivers.
How was it even possible to make a
film that was even
worse than the
first two embarassing Fantastic Four
films?
The
film's most successful elements felt cribbed from the
first film and the pacing left me more
than a little bit sleepy; I also felt legitimately
bad for Rose Byrne, who is basically given nothing to do aside from trip over baby toys and get smacked in the head a lot.
At the end, some vastly overreaching tripe posing as a moral backbone is unleashed, making an already excruciating
film downright intolerable, It does answer the question on many people's minds about whether Schneider (Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo, 50
First Dates) or Spade could actually make
worse films than they already have.
Roberts
first feature as writer / director is no better or
worse than Ryan Gosling's, just
films on a different scale, but both have a talented eye (and ear) for filmmaking and I think their second features will be even stronger.
Though it's unclear if the men framing Mills in this movie are connected to the
bad guys from the
first two
films, the real draw of «Taken 3» (other
than the action, of course) is its «Fugitive» - like storyline, which finally gives Liam Neeson a worthy co-star in Forest Whitaker.
Call it The Hollywood Law of Diminishing Returns, but the theory suggests that the
first film in a series is always its best, with each successive release being
worse than the former.
That's not a
bad thing, the picture is far more substantive
than most teen relationship
films, but it could probably use just a smidgeon of levity here and there after the
first act.
Any movie like this made for the most part since the 1980s would talk the talk about showing the changes, but not show it, show it
badly and / or be more sexually oppressed
than not, but Russell has zero trouble from this
first film he had control over himself dealing with all kinds of human sexuality, yet that freedom is incidental to character study, capturing the story and bringing it to life as he does so well here.
And still it comes, the annual Woody Allen
film, and the debate starts again (at least among the few people who still watch them) as to whether the latest is
worse than the previous, or slightly better, or merely the same depressing evidence of a director who seems to have forgotten why he made
films in the
first place.
While the
first film was surprisingly warm and endearing, the sequel did nothing more
than badly rehash the events and themes of the original but it omits most of the elements that allowed Pie to succeed.
The Buzz: Not too terribly excited about this one, but it does look better
than what promises to be Leonardo DiCaprio's
first bad film since The Man in the Iron Mask.
It's bigger,
badder and bloodier
than the
first film, with action that puts American blockbusters to shame.
Unlike Sean Baker, who found great success in his 2015 street drama Tangerine, interestingly among the
first few feature
films to dabble in Apple, Soderbergh's implementation tends to draw attention to style and like the
worst of found - footage (which this
film mercifully isn't), ends up more as a gimmick
than the product of creative budgeting.