cassandra123

Very disappointing. The characters were not compelling. The story strayed too far from the original poem. Matt Damon was stunningly miscast. It was way too long and regrettably kind of boring.

Totally overrated. Should have been called "woman experiences one space disaster after another". It became boring so quickly that me and my sci-fi obsessed son turned it off about half an hour in.

Brad Pitt comes across as a Golden Retriever that has taken too much Xanax, hard to believe that he has the ability to focus and function in dangerous situations. The father/son dimension made the movie more about an intra-family drama that needed to be resolved apparently, but that also didn't need to take place in space. Space was just the back drop. Apparently the movie is beautiful, which doesn't come across on the computer all that well, but that's why other ppl found it worth watching.

Yeah, it didn't interest me for one second. I had high hopes because Moon by the same director was rather excellent, but this is such a mess of old terrain that is not improved by the director's approach. From an official film critic who reviewed this movie, a particularly funny and memorable line: "Gyllenhaal is particularly unsuited to this role, his saucer eyes flashing from calm to crazed. For most of the film, he resembles a horse that has just smelled smoke in the adjoining stall." Haha

I just don't like Mark Ruffalo in any movie. He's a poor actor, and an example of failing upwards. How did he ever manage to score roles in "big" productions? Brand recognition? He was awful in Poor Things as well. Also, he's unattractive. Nothing wrong with it, but why do almost all US male actors have to be unattractive? Back to the film, the gore and disgust put me off right away. The severed hand flying by the spaceship, that's been done before. If you have absolutely nothing better to do and you only have Amazon Prime Video, sure, watch it.

It's been a while that I watched it, but I remember at the time thinking that a family movie made on a camcorder from the 80s was better than this. I suffered through it it because my son wanted to watch it, and promptly forgot it everything about it after it was over except for the giant burned bagel being some sort of portal to the universe, so funny, not, struck me as so lame, and because it deals with a gay daughter and was directed by two directors who apparently have ADHD, of course, the Academy loved it.

Perhaps because I just watched two similarly bleak crime movies – no sound track, lots of empty landscape – one set in an Austrian village, the other a more standard mystery set in a small Australian town, it was overkill for me, pun intended. Compared to to the films by other great French directors like Chabrol, Jean-Pierre Melville, Eric Rohmer (who also makes movies where seemingly nothing happens yet they are engaging), Claire Denis, watching this was like chewing on a wet rag. I want to make allowances, I watched it on a computer screen so perhaps the visual impact of the forest landscape, the rain, just didn't come through, but the whole death/sex connection has been treated in film so many times and so much better by other directors, that this movie just felt flat. I had no interest in the characters, almost all of whom were creeps, it was unbelievably slow for a story that could have been told in 10 minutes or less. This is yet another director who makes movies about the rural life or working class people, which begs the question why when these directors were never or are no longer working class or living in small town, these movies always become condescending, use the population as a base for their jokes enjoyed by middle class urban dwellers, and feel unauthentic. Who is the audience for this movie is a key question to ask, which gives you insight into the director's mind and intent of making the movie and if it's a particular population or group that provides entertainment for another population, then this is for me a suspicious motive right then and there.

By the standard of Superhero movies, this was fun and entertaining with a serious subtext. I have teenage boys and have to sit through Superhero movies all the time whether I like it or not, so that's my standard. For example, EEAAO was insufferable, other cartoon Superhero movies were a complete onslaught on the senses, the Joker with Joaquin Phoenix was a dreary slough, Superman 2025 was visually often stunning, there was a charming self-deprecating humor that alone made it fun to watch, this Superman was more vulnerable and the people who disliked it I guess prefer the fantasy of an eternally strong Superman who easily defeats everyone, it had anti-war, pro-immigrant, anti-billionaire messages, Luther perhaps representing Elon Musk, and Boravia representing Israel, these were all themes, I align with, so what's not to like?

This movie had no interest for me. The creative sets seemed to exist for their own sake not to support or add to the story. It was like a braggart proclaiming "look how cool these sets are, aren't they cool?, how creative my story, haven't I outdone myself this time?" The director is so in love with his movie, the acting, the scenes that he doesn't realize that the movie is a bunch of boring cliches in a sloppy wrapping.

This movie is fun, entertaining, and charming. This isn't supposed to be a profound movie, imho. But it does celebrate the stuntmen and women, and does so well. Other reviewers have said that it's boring or that Blunt's acting is bad. I thought that the on-screen chemistry between Blunt and Gosling is great, and Blunt's character is not a cardboard cutout of a woman, but a bit more complex. I guess perhaps folks don't like the love story or want a more stereotypical female character, but the love story is at the very center for this movie, and if you are not into love stories, you are not going to like it.

This movie isn't funny, charming, has no depth and the characters aren't interesting or compelling. If you find ppl screaming **** you at the top of their lungs for 10 minutes at a time funny, then it's funny. If you think that endless depressing sex scenes compelling, then this film is compelling. Anora the character had so little depth to her as a woman, her depiction was plain sexist. She's a prostitute from Brooklyn, and that's almost all we know about her. Getting married to a Russian oligarch is her ticket out. We don't learn anything else about her life, her family, why she ended up in sex work, nothing. Which audience is this movie supposed to target? Middle class audiences so they can laugh at a scrappy hooker? Just bizarre.