rhardy-390-701341
Joined Jun 2012
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews17
rhardy-390-701341's rating
The movie was well worth an HBOMax watch. It would not have been, to me, worth a ticket price for each of the family.
The action was rigid on all but scenes involving Subzero (oddly) as well as the acting B movie level. I think Kano stole the show, per unique, fullness, and captivating in the performance. Seriously were it not for Kano this would be a 3 as far as I can see it.
The action was rigid on all but scenes involving Subzero (oddly) as well as the acting B movie level. I think Kano stole the show, per unique, fullness, and captivating in the performance. Seriously were it not for Kano this would be a 3 as far as I can see it.
The "try too hard to be different" approach. It was drawn out to the point of nasuem. THIS LITERALLY could have been a "short" by editing out the run on portion. Halfway through the movie it feels like it should be near the end, sadly it is not.
This falls into that category of "High rating because different" as far as I can tell. The level of interest falls along the lines of Franco's :The Disaster artist". Now, if you liked that dumpster fire, then sure, you MAY very well like this. But as far as plot, it's figured out about 2 minutes after box 2 and you're left thinking "Did Philip K Dick wright these on an Acid Trip while having his worst psychosis episode, then bury it in a garage, only to be discovered by Garret Shanley, and transferred to screen" I mean, it tries SO HARD to be cutting edge sciFi, as to be a B movie with A cinematography and actors.
No spoilers as what is considered the "plot" is a spoiler. What is portrayed as the synopsis...is the 90% of the movie.
So, up to you. If it's on a service you own, no skin off your back, but do not be expecting award quality anything,....regardless of the inflated 5.8 review for a solid 3.2 movie.
This falls into that category of "High rating because different" as far as I can tell. The level of interest falls along the lines of Franco's :The Disaster artist". Now, if you liked that dumpster fire, then sure, you MAY very well like this. But as far as plot, it's figured out about 2 minutes after box 2 and you're left thinking "Did Philip K Dick wright these on an Acid Trip while having his worst psychosis episode, then bury it in a garage, only to be discovered by Garret Shanley, and transferred to screen" I mean, it tries SO HARD to be cutting edge sciFi, as to be a B movie with A cinematography and actors.
No spoilers as what is considered the "plot" is a spoiler. What is portrayed as the synopsis...is the 90% of the movie.
So, up to you. If it's on a service you own, no skin off your back, but do not be expecting award quality anything,....regardless of the inflated 5.8 review for a solid 3.2 movie.
The movie is visceral. It's is convoluted, confusing, and often visual effects are used to represent emotion, which can lead to confusion and dislike.
I think a strobing effect WAS a poor option based on what emotion it does convey. Annoyance, not confusion or outrage. I seriously think had there not been the strobe light scenes, the rating would be a full star higher, as odd as that sounds.
The movie is put forth in a manner that hides the time period more often than not. Eliminate horses and, until the end, you could be watching a movie about a poverty stricken family today. I think, while that was an attempt to be more avant guarde, it managed to detract from the spirit of the story, hurting it overall.
The movie portrays ned as a nut. I assume that was the writers direction based on the contents of the Jerilderie letter. However, there exists actual samples of Ned's handwriting, and it is thought that he did not actually write it.
I feel "meat" to make for a better meal was left out. I feel that a "future scene" showing that The Kelly gang was the words 1st full feature film in 1906. That it inspired people to rise up in some areas. I find this would be a more fitting legacy to portray than a crazy man hanging, with remarks stemming from poetry...which seem all too contrived.
I would not recommend the movie simply because it is visceral and visually caustic. I think the story is one of the world's most amazing outlaw stories, far surpassing many of our outlaw stories here in the US in scope and accomplishment, but I feel this movie is simply a shallow adaptation of a single letter, folk stories, with a LOT of creative manipulation
The "truth" was far too distilled in this movie in an attempt to make it "more" artistic. I think the historical FACTS give more flavor and those being altered or removed is simply not a meal worth eating.
The fact he was the 3rd of 12 is relevant to the story. His last words were unknown, albeit a reporter THERE thought he said "it comes to this at last" which I would have given more weight to than popular historical myth...and the court room curse....why leave that out? It embodies defiance and circumstance, rolled up into a FACT that reads more like legend. TO ME it is the SECOND most critical part of the after effects of his choices, just slightly behind the iron suit.
I think a strobing effect WAS a poor option based on what emotion it does convey. Annoyance, not confusion or outrage. I seriously think had there not been the strobe light scenes, the rating would be a full star higher, as odd as that sounds.
The movie is put forth in a manner that hides the time period more often than not. Eliminate horses and, until the end, you could be watching a movie about a poverty stricken family today. I think, while that was an attempt to be more avant guarde, it managed to detract from the spirit of the story, hurting it overall.
The movie portrays ned as a nut. I assume that was the writers direction based on the contents of the Jerilderie letter. However, there exists actual samples of Ned's handwriting, and it is thought that he did not actually write it.
I feel "meat" to make for a better meal was left out. I feel that a "future scene" showing that The Kelly gang was the words 1st full feature film in 1906. That it inspired people to rise up in some areas. I find this would be a more fitting legacy to portray than a crazy man hanging, with remarks stemming from poetry...which seem all too contrived.
I would not recommend the movie simply because it is visceral and visually caustic. I think the story is one of the world's most amazing outlaw stories, far surpassing many of our outlaw stories here in the US in scope and accomplishment, but I feel this movie is simply a shallow adaptation of a single letter, folk stories, with a LOT of creative manipulation
The "truth" was far too distilled in this movie in an attempt to make it "more" artistic. I think the historical FACTS give more flavor and those being altered or removed is simply not a meal worth eating.
The fact he was the 3rd of 12 is relevant to the story. His last words were unknown, albeit a reporter THERE thought he said "it comes to this at last" which I would have given more weight to than popular historical myth...and the court room curse....why leave that out? It embodies defiance and circumstance, rolled up into a FACT that reads more like legend. TO ME it is the SECOND most critical part of the after effects of his choices, just slightly behind the iron suit.
Recently taken polls
2 total polls taken
