• call_me_xale@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    That’s a quite a statement to make about a movie with near-universal critical acclaim and six Academy Awards (though I’ll admit those can be somewhat meaningless). What was your issue with it?

    • Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      I kind of already explained with ‘There and back again’, so I’ll take that point as read. But also, there’s no depth, substance, or narrative complexity to the plot, it exists only as a vehicle (pun very much intended) for chase sequences and 'splosions. And the constant action becomes a monotony because there’s no contrast to it. I mean, it was spectacular but it was also a vapid nothing of a film as empty as the gas tanks of all those vehicles never actually seemed to be.

    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      The plot was thin and no conclusion on the end, purely to keep suspension up for a maybe 2. part. And the likeable characters had as much holes and inconsistencies as the plot.

      Basically the fast food of cinema, but with some extra uncanny valley.

      But maybe it’s just that i’ve seen the original and the 2. part and am a bit distraught of what they’ve made out of it. Basically, “What if we took this and added more explosions and weird machines. And a desert cult! With some weird for effect!”.