badscene

Stunning cinematography, sets and 60's Fellini / Hitchcock vibes aside, this adaptation is style over substance encapsulated. Despite it's 8 hour runtime, this series does not use this advantage to in any way deepen its story or characters. It's leads are also egregiously miscast down ballot, with one exception in the Italian detective.

Ripley looks great, but I just couldn't get past how flat and underdeveloped every dynamic felt in the face of the amount of screen time devoted to hypnotic 60 second shots of vintage elevators going up and down and other beautiful but ultimately useless aesthetic dominant filler. Also, the lack of homo-erotic subtext and chemistry felt like a necessary seasoning notably absent from this dish.

Despite its flaws, it's still very good and well worth watching, though I don't think it compares to the tight, star-studded, all killer-no filler approach to Minghella's 1999 film.

The finale's ridiculous disguise scene alone should disqualify this adaptation from discussions of "greatness" by anyone with a fully functional frontal cortex.

It's a 6.5 for me; but if I were to judge solely on aesthetics, it'd be nearly a 9/10.

Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood--- All up there with my favorite films of all time... But Batman is another story.

I saw Batman in theaters as a toddler and hated it in '89. I watched it again last night, and yeah, it's far from great.

It's messy, dated and trades in Burton's signature style for generic noir aesthetics; trench coats and fedoras abound. The script is bad, poorly structured and meandering without ever committing to a clear, conventionally featured protagonist. Character motivations are muddled and feel un-tethered to anything but the script's free-for-all chaos.

The film's attempted blending of dark and brooding with comic accurate aesthetics does not work cohesively. Despite some great looking Burton-esque architecture done via miniatures and an impressive batmobile design, the sets are mostly bland, and you can actually feel the restraint Burton was forced to exhibit on behest of WB studio interference.

The casting feels phoned in. The hair and wardrobe are flat. And Kim Basinger makes for an exceptionally bland leading lady who brings absolutely nothing to the table short of her looks.

We get whole minutes of screen-time of Basinger spouting inane dialogue, none of which speaks to support her alleged "artistic brilliance" and serves nothing more than to make her character appear likable as a love interest to Keaton. Screentime that would be FAR better utilized in detailing Joker's transformation, a crucial plot element, which is rushed, under-focused, lacks important insight and happens off-screen.

Well made but possibly the most overrated film in modern history.

The performances vary from at worst, weak-- to at best, inconsistent- the casting was uninspired (cough Matt Damon) The bomb scene was a tease. And the film manages to somehow be simultaneously under-edited and over-edited. It would have seriously benefitted from a good 45-60 mins cut from its runtime.

Oppenheimer feels like the kind of movie only a Hollywood cash-cow auteur surrounded by Yes men could make.

More focus on the bomb, its victims, and the science behind it would have made for a more interesting film. This is 3 hours of (mostly) Mccarthyist witch hunt politics and name actors attempting to elevate completely average performances with transformation make-up and prosthetics.