I wanted to like it for basically everything going for it - premise, Pattinson, Bong, sci-fi, “original” film - but came out pretty much as bitter as I have ever after a film. I’m not one to do it, but I was close to walking out on it.

There are some touches of what the film could have been, some moments maybe. But on the whole it felt like a train wreck where I’d bet that people knew on set that it just wasn’t going to work.

At some point I noticed there was a good amount of yelling from the actors (I’m wondering if that’s just me) and can’t help but suspect it was the director or actors trying to find energy in scenes that were struggling. Or maybe that happened in the edit. Then there’s Ruffulo and Collette’s satirical characters that just didn’t land and felt dumb and amateur (along with Poor Things, I’m thinking Ruffulo is just not good and “original” film makers would do well to stay away)

All up, I think it’s embarrassingly bad, or “objectively” bad. No real depth, no coherence or pacing or well directed momentum, much of the comedy doesn’t land, characters and plot often feel like afterthoughts, and it got boring too.

I think this movie review (from a pleasantly non-hype yt channel) says it better than I can.

What’s funny is I think a lot of people want this to be good. For the sake of original, fun, quirky, satirical films (and honestly, me too). But are stuck confronting a film that’s only making that situation worse not better and which represents the risks that studios need to accept not the successes they don’t understand).

Am I off here? I was pleased to find the review I linked as it seemed to match my thoughts.

EDIT - epilogue

And on the point about the fate of films … I saw this in the cinema (somewhat in support of original films) and dragged a friend too.

It was expensive. There was bad behaviour in the cinema (people taking photos with flash of each other!). And the film was bad, IMO, in a way that I feel people should have been more honest about (like I said, I think people wanted this to be good). Plus my friend doesn’t trust my choice in movies any more.

It’s really put me off going to the cinemas TBH. I’ll see how I end up feeling over time, but I think this might have been the straw that broke my back on the whole cinema thing. In part, sadly, because I don’t get how the film was that bad.

  • xyzzy@lemm.eeEnglish
    4·
    10 hours ago

    No. “Objectively bad,” lol. At least make an attempt to distinguish your opinion from objective reality about a subjective medium.

    I think it was pretty OK, not bad, a few odd pacing choices. The biggest flaw was how underdeveloped Kai was. She was set up in act 1, had a lot of screen time in act 2, then completely disappeared from existence for the entire last act except for one brief “oh yeah, here’s Kai” shot at the end.

    Some of the on-screen violence against the baby bugs was repugnant, but it was supposed to be, so I’ll forgive it.

    Otherwise I thought Pattinson did a great job realizing his characters and the overall plot worked pretty well as a movie, without being too simple or too complex.

    • Ilandar@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      1 hour ago

      The biggest flaw was how underdeveloped Kai was. She was set up in act 1, had a lot of screen time in act 2, then completely disappeared from existence for the entire last act except for one brief “oh yeah, here’s Kai” shot at the end.

      I totally forgot about this! I completely agree, it was so bizarre how much screen time and development her character received in the middle of the film for it to ultimately lead nowhere. I thought for sure she was going to be setup as either a new love interest (with a twist where his previous lover turns on him) or setup as a new villain but they did neither. She didn’t even influence the plot in a sidekick role, she was just totally absent following the riot scene. I wonder if something was cut because it seemed like big inconsistency.