ohharg

Pretty good. However... It lacks a unique story and unique characters, I guess. It feels too much like and too close to the previous film. The actors do a great job, so it's not on them. It's just... the story is about roughly the same people, the same place, similar motivations--but without the infamous Mad Max.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I tried to like it because Seinfeld. But the plot, the jokes, and Amy Schumer... Why would anybody put Schumer in their film? Netflix advertised the film with her face in my region. I am unsure if Netflix is aware how unpopular Schumer is. But Schumer aside, as critics and viewers pointed out, this film is like a wet and slow fart. Not worth your time. We gave up soon (and there has been nicely written company history films in recent years).

Compared to the Dune films, we all should give an extra point, 1/10, for Netflix's poor legal team forcing Netflix to create part two after the lackluster release of part one because the film series itself is a poorly made mess. Dunes shows why. Many Rebel Moon scenes make me feel embarrassed for Netflix. It is hard to watch. How did this pass Netflix's quality checks? The characters, their motivations, the main plot, and some scenes (without spoilers) are so poorly written and developed that I hardly believe professionals reviewed it. Netflix has probably grown too fast in recent years. Netflix, please fire your internal managers and directors responsible for this mess. Not okay.

I hate to say it, but this is a badly written film. It seems the characters are blunt and have no motivations. The factions... are just there, blowing up stuff, and since the characters do not care about the factions or the war details, I, as a viewer, did not care either from some point on, but I also did not have great characters arcs and developments to hold on to. It's kind of meh eventually. The whole film is like watching an Emmerich natural disaster film, or World War Z. War and politics are not Garland's strengths. Just think how we talk about real wars. Ukraine with Russia, NATO, or even China? Or think about the Hamas-Israel War, how the public forces you to pick a side or to argue about each side, especially death, hunger, aid, and presidents. It is impossible to escape major political questions in a real war, especially if you are part of it as an American because it is about you and everyone surrounding you. Garland is better suited for simple stories such as 28 Days Later, Sunshine, Ex Machina, or even Annihilation, where you do not need to think about the other side because the other side is a natural disaster like in World War Z or an Emmerich film, or an AI revolution that appears like a natural disaster, that it makes it clear that everyone is on their own and sometimes, yes, sometimes we work together for that cute little child... But for a film about the American Civil War, this is sadly a missed opportunity.

They probably had good original intentions, but the writing and the execution ****. Marriage was usually the most boring, annoying part of Disney films. The actual rescue of someone from prison or a dungeon -- whether a princess, a goblin, or any child -- is probably the no. 1 trope of storytelling in the history of storytelling. I am convinced that the film script could have been saved by a more skilled writer who would have given Elodie a meaningful reason to escape. Think of the plethora of films about prisoners escaping prison, even prison camps, right? Usually, a child, the family, the partner, give them strength while they struggle. Here, however, it is all about a young girl, a horrible family with crazy rituals which makes the whole film even crazier, and then a wedding? Urgs. It sounds cheesy. It made the film cheesy, sometimes crazily badly written, like some what-if Disney fanfiction.