...that IMDB ratings are not always reliable. A 7.6 for this lead balloon? The fact that it wasn't given a wide release says it all. If it had been a good movie, it would have played everywhere.
shareIt was average. The script is pretty much unoriginal. And the fight/shooting scenes are fairly laughable.
shareYour mad cause the majority of people don't agree with you? I remember the first time I got the internet too.
shareI'm mad that people still don't get that people are all different and like what they like with their own opinions...this was a great film btw. I rate it a 10 because I believe movies are overshadowed by other movies just because of politics, this one deserves a check out, eat my rating.
shareIf this didn't deserve a 7.6 than how did it get that score?
I've explained this once, and I'll explain it again: Every movie has haters and lovers. They either score it below or above it's actual righteous result. The people hating Christian Bale, Kurt Wimmer or Emily Watson (whom I mistook for Emma Watson) will score it for instance on a 3-5, just for them being involved. The lovers will score it 8-10 for the same reason. Assumed they are equal in number, that would average at about 6.5.
Then there's the people that look at the movie objectively. They take things as camerawork, plot, pace, lighting, dialogue etc into account and score the movie accordingly. People who rate named items low (because they feel it was executed poorly) make the average score (6.5 after the lovers/ haters scoring it) go down, because there is more low ratings to add to the average. The people who do the same, but feel it was executed rather well, will make the average go up.
Now guess what, the movie is at 7.6 scored over a full point higher than the lovers/ haters average, which means most people think it is executed pretty damn well, since an average doesn't go up or down that much with individual ratings of over 216,000 users.
In the end, any movie rated over 6.7 in your area of interest should do just fine as an enjoyable movie. To you.
how could it have gotton a wide release - its against an establishment the establishment would love to establish
shareIt’s at 7.5 now, which I think is reasonable. Personally, I rate it 7/10.
shareIt's watchable. It has lots of plot holes, or at least logical inconsistencies, the story is run-of-the-mill even with the supposed 'twists' (which do not add much in the end). It's drab, gloomy, dark, grey, colorless and visually boring. Motorcycle helmets? Come on. How lazy is that?
Also, people without emotions are more free to kill and have no remorse about it, so it would be more dangerous to make everyone into these sociopaths and psychopaths by emotion-eliminating. So it makes no sense.
How does admiring something elevated, like a beautiful piece of art or music, lead to wars? Isn't it worse to have bullets than emotions coming at ya?
The other silly points; the 'gun kata', as ridiculous as it is on many levels, is rendered even more goofy by the explanation. Probability?
I guess because of the silly premise, they couldn't use 'intuition', which would've been way more 'kung fu' and cool in my opinion. Like Shao-Lin monks, Zen masters, etc., with rigorous training and meditation and spiritual techniques, the clerics (the name almost seems like there was a spiritual component to it) could've learned to use intuitive prediction so efficiently, they would know where to shoot automatically - the way Bruce Lee used to fight. He was so beyond 'thinking' when fighting, that his body just 'hit by itself'.
But sure, go with 'probability' and that crappy 60fps-footage with 50% frames removed, so we don't even get to see smooth, motionblurred motion, but this jerky awfulness.
And so many people so emotions all the time and so openly, that -someone- should've reacted to at least -some- of it. But no.. the boss screams in anger, the other cleric SMILES (what a giveaway!) and so on and so forth, and no one thinks to question it..
Of course the ridiculous puppy-scene takes the cake. GROAN.
And why does the main actor look like Keanu Reeves? Did they really want to mimic "The Matrix" (1999) THAT bad? At least dress the clerics in white or something.. but no.
So basically, if you have seen "The Matrix" (1999) and know about 'Nineteen-Eighty-Four', and some other old books, there's basically nothing this movie offers you besides some nonsensical scenes, puppies and the action scenes, which are, as I mentioned, shot with high-speed camera, with frames removed, so we don't even get motion blur.
But 'cool' is what matters, I guess.. so keep dressing in black coats and capes and leather and whatnot, and have everything be as dark, gloomy, grey and colorless and possible, and expect to ride on other movies' coattails, and you get this kind of a result.
Some day colors will come back... even if the eighties never will, at least it will be something.
Many good points, though I don't agree with your view of the visual design. I think drab, gray and gloomy are good choices considering the film's main theme. It seems a good way of displaying a world where human emotion is banned by a tyrannical government.
I don't understand what effect is achieved by "60fps-footage with 50% frames removed". Is that a way of speeding up the film?
tl;dr
share