It seems that people who have seen the other Rocky movies had a less enjoyable time watching this one. They say it reuses plot points from the previous films with only minor changes. While these people still enjoyed the movie, they felt like this story was weighed down since it didn't reinvent old tropes. As someone who has not seen the other Rocky movies, this was not a problem for me. That doesn't mean the movie is devoid of problems, but the familiarity problem was nonexistent.
What did come off as problematic, was the story construction and camera placement. The story felt like an attempt to accurately represent these characters instead of being definitive. This probably has to do with Sylvester Stallone writing the screenplay since he did not for the first movie. It beats you over the head with dialogue that is repeated over and over again which just gets tiring. The camera placement was also pretty average compared to the first movie. It mostly just copies the first installment and doesn't do anything inspired.
But this movie isn't down for the count. People were clapping and laughing with this movie till the very end. It does take a while for the movie to find its groove, but when it does, it pulls you in. I have to praise the movie for being able to create moments of tension. The movie makes you invested in the main character's journey, even if you think you know how it ends. It doesn't always fire on all cylinders, but when it does, be prepared to be brought to the edge of your seat.
Creed 2 also has one of the best training montages I have ever seen. It might look like all the ones that came before, but it takes out all the campiness. In its place, stands very emotional, dramatic scenes of incredible strength. It communicates to the audience that this isn't a journey of growth but a fight for survival.
Creed 2 is definitely worth seeing in theaters. I hope you get to experience an atmosphere of people laughing and holding their breath as I did. I don't know if I want another movie, but if there were to be another installment, take Stallone off the writing team.
No more sons fighting each other please
The rest of it fell into a few different categories. There were large stretches of runtime that bored me out of my mind. Creatively bankrupt ideas or just uncompelling plot points littered this movie. If I wasn't being bored to death, I was cringing at how many references the movie tried to show off. I don't want to see Miranda Sings react to being disconnected from the internet, I don't want to see a cameo by Fortnite, or how to make money online by being an internet celebrity. And the most damaging thing about this movie came down to it simply not having a good story.
Some people will say that movies for children shouldn't be complex, that they need to be easy for kids to understand. Pixar is a pretty good example of how this sentiment is wrong, along with Disney Animations' previous movies like Zootopia. Having characters run around for an hour and a half doing nothing but showing off all the ways websites were turned into places, isn't a plot. There is barely a story in the movie to criticize. The end of it makes you wait for something important to happen, and even then, it was an homage to a different movie.
Ralph Breaks the Internet doesn't use its runtime to build its characters up. In place of that, it has its characters react to things in a very ‘internet’ way. Whether it's Ralph doing a hot pepper challenge, Vanellope watching a "Which Princess Would Be Your Best Friend" quiz, or dealing with hateful online comments. It seems like content that would literally be made on the internet, not in a Hollywood Production.
When the movie does get around to developing its characters, it does so both hastily and obviously. The movie never lets characters sit with their emotions; it never lets the audience brood with them. Instead, there always has to be an immediate response to everything that happens. Plus, the way the main problem manifests itself is such a movie cliche at this point and it wasn’t even done in an interesting way. Having a bunch of small things group together and form one big monster is something I do not want to see more of.
I was looking forward to enjoying Ralph Breaks the Internet because I liked the first movie so much. A better version of "The Emoji Movie" was what I was expecting, but in the end, I only got a marginally better movie. I guess if you have kids you could take them to see this movie since one in my theater never stopped talking. Overall, this movie was a pretty big let down and the worst movie Disney Animations has made since transitioning to 3D animation.
Being hip with the kids is cool, right?
anyone thought it would be okay to rip off plot points, scenes, action set pieces, and editing styles wholesale. When the movie wasn't ripping off Skyfall, it was trying to be The Dark Knight; while it was focused on being a worse Guy Ritchie movie, it made all of its characters one dimensional. There is no shortage of tropes or cliches that this movie uses to achieve mediocrity.
This is a point of contention for me with this movie. There is a scene really early on that depicts one of the Crusades. It has a small team of archers trying to infiltrate a city and they eventually fall into an ambush. It’s directed like a modern day military movie; complete with being pinned down by enemy fire, moving through hallways, and general modern military tactics. That is not how wars were fought in the 11th century. They didn't have small archer squads go into a city that could call for catapult support and rain rocks from the sky. The addition of a fancy party at a casino didn't rub me the right way either. There were too many modern tropes that didn't belong in a medieval time period.
This is not a movie you should see, full stop. It honestly offers nothing new or fun to the audience. You would have a much better time seeing the movie it takes all of its style queues from, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. But just like that movie, it tries to set up a franchise that will never see the light of day. Like I said before, none of the modern fairy tale movies are that good; though Robin Hood is in a league of its own at the very bottom of the list.
"I’ve been robbed of my time and money" - Anonymous
The easiest way to talk about the movie is the story. The Fantastic Beasts series is a backdrop for the first wizard war alluded to in the original Harry Potter saga. Instead of making that the focus, J.K. Rowling decided that pretending the series is about magic animals was a good idea. So the movie splits its attention with animals, love stories, queerbaiting, and war, doing none of them justice. Plus, in an attempt to bring back fans, this movie has included characters from the original set of stories that are extraneous and add nothing.
One moment you are with the characters from the first movie, then you jump to Grindelwald for ten seconds, but don't forget a flashback that isn't needed, ending on new characters that aren't important. The movie wants to be taken seriously, trying to have moments that will take your breath away while also being a character drama. This falls flat because the magical moments are mundane, not really eliciting any childlike wonder. The serious moments miss the mark as well, due to the characters' actions not being indicative of their motivations. In addition to these hindrances, you have the story being too circumstantial. It felt like someone saying, "You know what would be cool", and not having a plan for it.
I guess negative reviews won't keep people away though, as the rotten tomato score has proved. Some might argue that the story is all planned out, that I just need to have faith in the three movies to come. I would shoot back with, that is never the case; things change, and that is not how movies work. This isn't television, books, or any other serialized content, this is movies. Being a movie means you tell a story, and The Crimes of Grindelwald failed in telling a compelling one.
The actors do a fine job acting, its just all the creative people's fault this movie is bad
However, the movie runs into a few problems on its way to grow the Grinch's heart three sizes. It takes detours that don't help portray the lesson trying to be taught by the original story. The Grinch, written by Dr. Seuss, was about a green-haired person who hated Christmas and overcame that hatred when he found out that the holiday was about caring for one another instead of gifts. This movie decided that they needed to add a backstory for the Grinch which overall made him less mean. There are multiple instances where the Grinch is nice, which makes his change seem inevitable. They also add a subplot for Cindy-Lou to have a bigger part in the story but make her motivations too mature. A ten-year-old would not ask Santa for their parent to become happy; that would be too unrealistic in a movie with a Christmas tree the size of a mountain.
If the Grinch is just a lonely person, why wouldn't he change at the end of the story? If he is nice all the time, why wouldn't he give the stolen presents back? The movie hinders itself by making a ton of gags in place of substance. So I had fun watching this movie because of all the silly jokes, but I can't overlook how the story didn't feel right. I could never buy all the "bad" things the Grinch did because he was never terrible. The movie "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" from 1966 is the better animated movie for adapting a classic right. Sure, it has too much motion blur and its not as good as the 30-minute tv-movie from 1966, but at least its almost Christmas season.
"It wont make your heart grow three sizes" - Anonymous
The portrayal of these characters feel authentic and the story is very engaging, but their depiction could be better. There are a lot of hard cuts that restrict the flow of the movie and make it hard to connect with characters. The use of time jumps is jarring and makes it difficult for the audience to grasp the intimacy of the relationships that they have with one another. It feels like the movie sprints through events for the first half and gradually slows down to the Live Aid event. If the movie were a Queen biopic, it would have ended when they got signed to IEM, allowing the audience to see more of the band’s creative process. But this Freddie Mercury movie has iconic songs drizzled throughout it and ends on a high note.
I wanted to like the movie more than I did. I enjoyed getting to learn about Queen’s history and Freddie's life. It came down to having to squeeze too many important events into the movie which created the rush that hurt my experience watching it. None of these criticisms take away from the real-life events that happened, so when I say that Bohemian Rhapsody is middle of the road movie, I’m only talking about the movie. If you connect to the story on a deep level or are a huge fan of the band, poor editing choices and story structure aren’t going to dissuade you from watching the movie. So with that assessment, I could have waited to watch this at home on a streaming service, but the weekend box office tells a different story.
A guy peed himself in the theater when I saw this movie... guess it was that good