It's a comedy that has no laughs.
The Mystery is too simple to consider.
The love story had very little emotion.
The action is fine but undercut by a character who can't really be hurt.
There were 7 people in the theater. Two left 40 minutes into the movie. One fell asleep. The rest watched silently. My Wife and Niece agree that it was boring and a mess of a plot.
I laughed out loud at least a few times and so did other members of my audience. If it didn't work for you, that is certainly fine, but your testimony about other people in your theater is negated by the film's 87% audience score on RT, 7.3 on IMDB, and A- Cinemascore.
While I will agree it isn't a perfect film--I thought the first half was markedly better than the second--I also think that it is overall an enjoyable and original film that feels like something fresh on a movie landscape where so many movies just feel like other movies we've all seen before, many of which executed the same concept better.
I didn't find it to original. People are too eager to like a movie because all studios are promoting are remakes, sequels, and prequels. Even this is a remake of a TV show. All the trailers before are sequels Furiosa, Planet of the Apes, and Beetlejuice *yuck to all three* and its wearing thin. It may have high scores, but the box-office shows it doesn't have much draw.
It should have been a Netflix release. Especially with such a terrible second half.
In regard to originality, I have to say that it's the only action-rom-com-love-letter-to-stunt-performers that I've ever seen. I literally can't think of another movie that's quite like it.
And while people are saying it's a remake of a TV show . . . is it really? Is the Fall Guy TV show actually much at all like this movie?
"action-rom-com-love-letter-to-stunt-performers"
That's a sales pitch used by the studio and aped by people looking for originality. It's not original and a better example is romancing g the stone.
And yes, it is a remake.
As for the reviews, critic specific, they are all saying the studio note of the "on screen chemistry." It was there but didn't make up for the film being convoluted, simplistic, boring, and unfunny.
Sorry, I gave it a 4/10. I'm sticking to that rating.
I've seen the movie and my description is exactly what the movie is. I'm not sure where you're coming up with Romancing the Stone. Romancing the Stone is much closer to Indiana Jones than it is to this film, and Indy is nothing like Fall Guy. That is a strange comparison to make, except for the fact that both could be classified as action-comedies where a male lead and his female co-star do stuff together.
An action comedy romance with big stunts?
Yeah, no comparison between the two. Especially in the acting. Romancing the stone has a far better romance and story with action sequences that don't rely on lame jokes that fail.
Even the positive reviews show that the film is a jumbled mess that hinges on studio buzz words and ad campaigns. Your description is exactly what the director and Gosling said the movie was when they introduced it.
The movie is crap that shines because everything's else we see focused on in previews is Twisters, ape flick, Deadpool, and Beetlejuice,
If that's how the director and Gosling described the movie then I have to say that they succeeded. Because that was exactly my impression of the film.
I think that it's the emphasis on stunts and being a stuntman that sets this film apart from others. There aren't a lot of films where the lead character is not only a stunt performer, but you get something of a behind-the-scenes view (albeit a fictionalized and highly-stylized one) of what those guys do and what it's like to work in that corner of the film industry.
The film also largely eschews CGI for practical effects, which I appreciated.
Also, you say that the jokes fail, but I will point out that, at least in the first half of the film--which I thought was overall superior to the second half--I laughed out loud a handful of times and so did other people in my theater.
Nope. It may be a love letter, but was tantamount to roses are red, violets are blue.
It sucked. My wife thought it sucked. My niece though it sucked. The two teens who left 40 minutes in thought it sucked. My opinion won't change because you reiterate the claptrap they push.
I don't expect to change your opinion. But it is an objective fact that the majority of opinion are contrary to yours. This can be measured through means like the RT audience score, the IMDB score and the CinemaScore.
You and your brood may have disliked it, but that doesn't mean that most people did. Or, for that matter, that it's a bad film.
Lol. It is a crap movie and more reviews are coming out showing the cracks. Plus it's flopping at the box office because ot doesn't appeal to most people.
So go ahead and cling to your positive reviews. In one month, nobody will remember or care about this trash. That's the funniest part.
Just because they call it a love letter to stunt performers before the movie, doesn't mean it actually is. It was a paint by numbers action comedy that was too light on the comedy and action. Even the stunts were very vanilla, minus the truck through the city scene, which I did like. The movie was too long and nothing new. I didn't hate it, but my wife did. It was simply very middle of the road.
shareThe very fact that the lead character is a stunt guy and that much of the story revolves around working in that profession is pretty unique. I think that by doing that alone, Leitch accomplished his goal. But I know that he also eschewed CGI for practical effects as well.
shareYup, it sucked. It isn't clever, it isn't funny, even the action is goofy, and watching Gosling and Blunt say this dialogue is embarrassing. This was a terrible, incoherent script and I think most people were able to see that just from the story presented in the trailer. I have no idea why so many critics gushed over this thing and I hope its failure at the box office is a lesson that such lazy, innocuous work isn't going to bring people to the theater no matter how much you spice up a trailer.
If anyone's interested, I reviewed the movie on my youtube channel. Appreciate any feedback. Trying to improve -https://youtu.be/RiW7E7bOJ3I
I think 'professional' critics are gushing over for several reasons, one they love Ryan for his previous stuff (esp Ken doll in Barbie which they are still going la la over), and they love Emily as one half the Hollywood power couple Kranzenski, also in this version of TFG Jody is now Colts boss and orders him around so theres the female empowerment thing/the subdued loser 'white straight male', there appears to be that kooky zany type humour between the leads slot of critics get off on, ATJ is in it and I think he's a big hit with all the lefty film critics too (who have all but appointed him as the next Bond) also Hannah Waddingham who again is big with critics
share🤦🏾
shareHe's not fully wrong. A little too focused on the woke but definitely correct on the Gosling /Blunt appreciation. I don't really see it myself but they all seem to love those two even if it doesn't work in this.
shareWAY TOO FOCUSED...I CAN GET WHAT YOU AND HE(MINUS THE BULLSHIT) ARE SAYING...THIS HONESTLY FEELS LIKE SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE HIT HBOMAX OR SOMETHING...I DON'T THINK IT BEING GREAT COULD HAVE EVEN PUT IT INTO THE BLACK....THAT SAID...WHEN I CAN WATCH IT FROM MY COUCH...I WILL CHECK IT OUT...LOOKS LIKE FUN TO ME...BUT...YOU HAVE SCHOOLED ME BEFORE...FUCKING LISA FRANKENSTEIN.
shareIt's better that that, but Only a bit.
shareIt does have laughs. I don’t believe two people left the theater 40 minutes in. That’s about $40 down the drain. Maybe $50. I don’t believe anybody fell asleep in it. It’s way too noisy and full of stunts. They would have had to have taken something or hadn’t had any sleep for days. Seven in the theatre. Welcome to the new world after Covid. I don’t understand undercut by a character who can’t get hurt. He breaks his back in this. This is a movie within a movie. And this is also just a movie. Is he supposed to get hurt for real? I wish there was a Nice Guys sequel. I’d rather watch that than this movie. That’s where we are with nothing but remakes of 70s TV or remakes of anything. But this is not a bad movie at all. And the second half is much better than the first; everything comes together. Sydney also looks great.
shareIt tried to have laughs. None were returned. Yes, two people left the theater which was actually $22. Yes, my wife fell asleep.
The movie sucked.
This movie is an homage to the stuntmen. The director (I liked Bullet Train too) was once a stuntman, so there is precision to every stunt and there are many. All the stunts are old school and practical - using real people, not AI or CGI. The movie sucked for you and maybe the other 6 people in your theater. Apparently, you all sat together for you to know what each other was doing. But where I was - and the tickets were twice that of yours - it was about 3/4 full and everybody liked it. Everybody laughed at the same places. There were mostly chuckles, some guffaws, but generally everyone seemed amused and left the theater happy. This does revolve around a murder mystery in beautiful Sydney. And by looking at the 30 minutes of previews before this movie, more movies of Quiet, more Marvel movies are what’s next this summer, although one looks interesting, Josh Hartnett in Trap.
It a bad movie in a sea of bad movies. I'm glad it's failing at the box office.
share