johntheholder
Joined Apr 2006
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.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings345
johntheholder's rating
Reviews35
johntheholder's rating
I should probably give this 9/10 , because of the low rating it has so to do it some justice.
It is a dreamy film , great atmosphere and the scenes are all 80s. Its about three close friends , one of them gets into trouble. How far will the others go to pull him out?
The characters are very believable regarding the circumstances, and they have a pulse , the script is good in that sense, you get to care about those main characters , especially the troubled one. The scenes and dialogues are great. Also it is a pleasure to watch despite the dramatic premise.
Rich young people creating problems for other rich young people and how they manage the situations that occur. The parents are in the background, they exist but dont really interfere.
Despite its abundantly clear that all those people have lots of money in their families, you dont really get a chance to say , "ah they are spoiled brats who cares"? You get pulled in the story and feel the seriousness of the troubles and sentiments of the main characters. What I m trying to say I guess is that the film is authentic , it doesnt try to play tricks on you.
I found it to be a very good film around the drug theme but also tackling issues of friendship vs couple , parent-children relations regarding serious issues and also coming of age themes or better , into young adults going into proper adulthood.
It is a dreamy film , great atmosphere and the scenes are all 80s. Its about three close friends , one of them gets into trouble. How far will the others go to pull him out?
The characters are very believable regarding the circumstances, and they have a pulse , the script is good in that sense, you get to care about those main characters , especially the troubled one. The scenes and dialogues are great. Also it is a pleasure to watch despite the dramatic premise.
Rich young people creating problems for other rich young people and how they manage the situations that occur. The parents are in the background, they exist but dont really interfere.
Despite its abundantly clear that all those people have lots of money in their families, you dont really get a chance to say , "ah they are spoiled brats who cares"? You get pulled in the story and feel the seriousness of the troubles and sentiments of the main characters. What I m trying to say I guess is that the film is authentic , it doesnt try to play tricks on you.
I found it to be a very good film around the drug theme but also tackling issues of friendship vs couple , parent-children relations regarding serious issues and also coming of age themes or better , into young adults going into proper adulthood.
Why watch it ?
First , to get it out of the way , it is an indie film , a low/medium budget production but we've seen so many indie gems and so many blockbuster flops that whether a movie is indie or a "hollywood" film doesn't prove a thing.
So what are you going to see in it ?
Answer:
1. You'll have the pleasure to watch some seriously fine acting from all cast , yes Simon Rex should get two claps more but the rest of them don't disappoint in the least and deserve credit.
2. As noted by others, great entertaining cinematography of a rathole village town somewhere in Texas.
3. A good story.
Now here's where I have to disagree from a bunch of other commentators.
The main character Mike I found him to be a good guy. He wants a better life for himself. He is naive and maybe narcissist and egocentric but who isn't? You cant be all altruistic if you 're down at the bottom. First you gotta arrive in a position where you can actually help others, but to do so you need to sort out your stuff first. He is an optimist and its part of the fun. We can't be all pessimistic. Sh**t happens as we all know. That said, he does try in his way to help others.
I don't know if I'm giving out spoilers and sorry for that , just watch the film, for me its easily top 3 of the year and among the top of the decade.
Mainly because of how perfect Simon Rex was in this role , his performance is just natural. And because of that ,the whole film gets a strong vibe of honesty. And lastly and most importantly, despite there's some sadness in it for sure, it is entertaining. A very easy and firm 9/10.
First , to get it out of the way , it is an indie film , a low/medium budget production but we've seen so many indie gems and so many blockbuster flops that whether a movie is indie or a "hollywood" film doesn't prove a thing.
So what are you going to see in it ?
Answer:
1. You'll have the pleasure to watch some seriously fine acting from all cast , yes Simon Rex should get two claps more but the rest of them don't disappoint in the least and deserve credit.
2. As noted by others, great entertaining cinematography of a rathole village town somewhere in Texas.
3. A good story.
Now here's where I have to disagree from a bunch of other commentators.
The main character Mike I found him to be a good guy. He wants a better life for himself. He is naive and maybe narcissist and egocentric but who isn't? You cant be all altruistic if you 're down at the bottom. First you gotta arrive in a position where you can actually help others, but to do so you need to sort out your stuff first. He is an optimist and its part of the fun. We can't be all pessimistic. Sh**t happens as we all know. That said, he does try in his way to help others.
I don't know if I'm giving out spoilers and sorry for that , just watch the film, for me its easily top 3 of the year and among the top of the decade.
Mainly because of how perfect Simon Rex was in this role , his performance is just natural. And because of that ,the whole film gets a strong vibe of honesty. And lastly and most importantly, despite there's some sadness in it for sure, it is entertaining. A very easy and firm 9/10.
I haven't even read the book so I am not an angry Dune book fan who can't believe what happened to the book's story.
No , this is just my impression after just watching the film, as a standalone thing.
It felt weak from the beginning.
I see Oscar Isaac and I 'm not buying it , I 'm not into the story , I feel like I am watching an amateur stage act. I see Jason Momoa and still I am not in the story , I think of Aquaman , I am not in Dune. I see Josh Brolin , noting here that I like this actor , and think of his performance in "No country for old men" to be great, but I have to say , I see him in Dune , set supposedly in a date far into the future , and I am not buying it , I see him and he is the same guy from No country , he is a Texas sheriff or some sort of that spirit , he isn't a Sci fi character , he can't be a Dune character. Now about Rebecca Ferguson I have to mention the director and his thing with mothers. What is it with this guy and he has to have the mothers to be characters to feel sorry for , characters who cry throughout the whole film. (see "Incendies" where the mother also just cries in the whole film , that's her role.) so irritating , so frustrating , and no I am not a mother , I am a guy. The only good aspect of her character was that as a face , as a presence , I did buy her character being in Dune as the mother , even despite the whole crying business.
The only other actor who I saw to fit in Dune and I had no trouble with was Javier Bardem , whom I also like as an actor ( being in No country for old men is coincidental , I 'm not prejudiced , I liked him in Almodovar's films greatly and even in Woody Allen's "Vicky Cristina Barcelona". It's just that seeing him in Dune , my mind wasn't resisting , saying , no he can't be in Dune , he is just acting like it did with most of the other casting.
Lastly the main actor Timothee Chalamet , he wasn't bad , but nothing great either.
Other wrong things about the film:
Very bad , awkward dialogue. Nothing good said in the whole 2 hours and 30 minutes. But what's good? No it isn't that , it's that like the actors casted , the dialogue also feels wrong , more than that , it certainly is wrong (and sloppy and amateur).
Story wise , in a film that runs at 2 and a half hours , there must be some sort of record here , for least character exposition. We see them appear , ok. Who are they , what are they about ? No not much of that.
Direction was mediocre at best. And since they think of Villeneuve as " a name " among directors , let us do compare the direction of " Dune part one " to Stanley Kubrick's " 2001 A Space Odyssey" , to Tarkovsky's "Solaris", to the Wachowski's "the Matrix" and even to Andrew Niccol's " Gattaca". It isn't nowhere near their caliber. And to name some other films from books how about Peter Jackson's "Lord of the rings" or even the Harry Potter films. No , "Dune part one " can't compare to those either , falls short , too short.
The whole production is sloppy , the sets are amateur , the whole film is amateur looking , it doesn't look like what a positively good director should make as a Sci fi picture or even as a film no matter the genre , no matter that it comes from a book.
To conclude , it is watchable but mediocre ,nothing more than that.
No , this is just my impression after just watching the film, as a standalone thing.
It felt weak from the beginning.
I see Oscar Isaac and I 'm not buying it , I 'm not into the story , I feel like I am watching an amateur stage act. I see Jason Momoa and still I am not in the story , I think of Aquaman , I am not in Dune. I see Josh Brolin , noting here that I like this actor , and think of his performance in "No country for old men" to be great, but I have to say , I see him in Dune , set supposedly in a date far into the future , and I am not buying it , I see him and he is the same guy from No country , he is a Texas sheriff or some sort of that spirit , he isn't a Sci fi character , he can't be a Dune character. Now about Rebecca Ferguson I have to mention the director and his thing with mothers. What is it with this guy and he has to have the mothers to be characters to feel sorry for , characters who cry throughout the whole film. (see "Incendies" where the mother also just cries in the whole film , that's her role.) so irritating , so frustrating , and no I am not a mother , I am a guy. The only good aspect of her character was that as a face , as a presence , I did buy her character being in Dune as the mother , even despite the whole crying business.
The only other actor who I saw to fit in Dune and I had no trouble with was Javier Bardem , whom I also like as an actor ( being in No country for old men is coincidental , I 'm not prejudiced , I liked him in Almodovar's films greatly and even in Woody Allen's "Vicky Cristina Barcelona". It's just that seeing him in Dune , my mind wasn't resisting , saying , no he can't be in Dune , he is just acting like it did with most of the other casting.
Lastly the main actor Timothee Chalamet , he wasn't bad , but nothing great either.
Other wrong things about the film:
Very bad , awkward dialogue. Nothing good said in the whole 2 hours and 30 minutes. But what's good? No it isn't that , it's that like the actors casted , the dialogue also feels wrong , more than that , it certainly is wrong (and sloppy and amateur).
Story wise , in a film that runs at 2 and a half hours , there must be some sort of record here , for least character exposition. We see them appear , ok. Who are they , what are they about ? No not much of that.
Direction was mediocre at best. And since they think of Villeneuve as " a name " among directors , let us do compare the direction of " Dune part one " to Stanley Kubrick's " 2001 A Space Odyssey" , to Tarkovsky's "Solaris", to the Wachowski's "the Matrix" and even to Andrew Niccol's " Gattaca". It isn't nowhere near their caliber. And to name some other films from books how about Peter Jackson's "Lord of the rings" or even the Harry Potter films. No , "Dune part one " can't compare to those either , falls short , too short.
The whole production is sloppy , the sets are amateur , the whole film is amateur looking , it doesn't look like what a positively good director should make as a Sci fi picture or even as a film no matter the genre , no matter that it comes from a book.
To conclude , it is watchable but mediocre ,nothing more than that.
