MovieChat Forums > Kurt > Replies
Kurt's Replies
The movie COULD have been made about how the isolation and religious extremism resulted in their belief that their daughter was a witch, due to a failed harvest. They show the crops at some point, and it does indeed seem infected with something, so ergot could be an explanation. However, there doesn't have to be ergot, fanaticism and hunger could explain what happens. They excuse everything which happens as the result of sin or lack of faith - and witchcraft. Whatever the cause, it resulted in the girl herself believing that she was a witch, causing the deaths of everyone, because she (and they) snapped due to hunger (and perhaps ergot, but definitely hunger).
However, It seems the movie says that she was in fact a witch who made a pact with the devil.
At least, the movie shows the witch independently of the people. It shows that the goat killed the father.
This show deliberately ignores Guthrum, he was a much more significant person and part of real, documented history. I can only assume that the now dead Guthrum is a different person, otherwise Hirst has written himself into a corner and everything from now on must be pure fantasy.
I though the irony of dying from a bee sting was kind of funny, you can see the way he looks at it as if he already knows his fate is sealed; it's the irony of fate. It ties perfectly in to the quasi-philosophical discussion about fate and free will in the show.
Leg and arm bone definitely grows, ribcage as well.
Sure, there are many intertwining plots, but not what I consider a real coherent story, apart from the formulaic plot it has. This is especially the case when compared with the comic books, a lot of the same stuff happens, in the same way even, but the connecting story is totally different.
Whoever wrote the movie story made it into a generic story very much stereotypical of the way such movies are written today (as avatar and such) with generic bad guys and good and bad people, as well as generic über-good noble savage aliens. TOTALLY unlike the comics.
By the way, the alien planet looks like a Dali painting, with all those giant conchs. It's basically a fully CGI movie in the alien planet sequence.
Yes, as I have seen it now, I can say that not only do they not look like the characters they represent, their acting is also awful, sadly. Even the short sequence with Rutger Hauer is awful.
The plot is very different. It has some sequences and characters in common, but they are all different in the movie, perhaps except the three who sell info. Many of the same things happen, but in a different context. The nature of the albino looking aliens is totally different in the book, not even remotely similar, so this is made up by Besson.
Putting Rihanna in the movie like that ensures that it will be dated. It's really out of place in the movie.
I don't think a movie version has to follow any particular book, but this is just not a very good representation of Valerian & Laureline, despite the visual similarity (which does not include the leading characters).
Very much like Han Solo, but drawn more like the typical tall, dark and handsome - with square jaw. Laureline is a redhead with cattish almond eyes.
https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/valerian-comic-book-luc-besson.jpg
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2017/07/COVER_Valerian_TheCompleteCollection_V1/lead_960.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/fi/thumb/1/14/Valerian_ja_Laureline.jpg/500px-Valerian_ja_Laureline.jpg
I watched the movie anyway, despite what I wrote, out of curiosity, and I have to admit it was well made. It did look somewhat like the comics and the CGI was occasionally really good. However, it also has almost no story and no character background, with generally really shallow characters and overlong pointless sequences (just like in Fifth Element) the action sequences just go on and on.
As I have read a lot of the comics including the first, I found it odd that there was no reference to the background of the woman, who originally came from the Middle Ages in France (in the comics). Instead they were represented as a couple almost fresh out of some kind of academy, which they referenced as if they went there together(!). The two main characters were very unlike the comics and they were kind of annoying, in my opinion. The banter between then fell flat, while it is actually humorous in the books. You get to know the characters MUCH better in the comics. In the comics, time travel is an important aspect, completely lost in the movie.
I can't really understand how this could be made with that kind of a budget. I believe it's the most expensive non-US movie ever made. Surely some effort could be made with the actual story? As it is, it becomes an in medias res introduction to the characters. I can understand that spending too much time on the characters would be annoying as well, as has happened in some other cartoon based live action movies, but at least some kind of context or something, something which is not annoying narration, would be nice. Also, the intro sequence with some avatar like aliens goes on and on and on and on, I thought it would never end, and NOTHING interesting happens there for most of the sequence. Even when something important takes place at the end of this mini-avatar, it is also overdone and overlong and it's even partially repeated later in the movie.
Ps. the Rihanna bit was ALSO overlong and really annoying. I suspect this is the equivalent to the Fifth Elements alien opera sequence. In fact, this movie should be called Fifth Element II. They couldn't even give it a decent title, even the title is overlong.
pps. apparently it is actually somewhat similar at first glance to Ambassador of the Shadows, the Valérian and Laureline album, but it is also very different.
I think she sometimes remind me a lot of Alicia Vikander, but only when she has dark hair. I noticed that in the movie "The Wolfman". I think they have same eye and lip shape. Obviously not the same eye colour, as Alicia has brown eyes. Still, she's a bit of a chameleon, so sometimes she looks completely different. She mostly looks like Vikander in moving pictures, she's not obviously similar in most of her pictures via google.
It was too much like a tv movie. The sci fi element was just a MacGuffin it lead nowhere at all. It wasn't needed in the movie. I think it would've been better without it.
It's like two different stories -
Two people who have to stay close, else one of them kills everything within a given radius, after they have been hit by some extraterrestrial whatever. That's ALL there is to that story, there's nothing else.
Two people with amnesia traveled together in a car before an accident occurred, which gave them this amnesia. Slowly they recover their memory in glimpses and eventually realise that one of them is a serial killer intent on killing the other. He approached her on a bridge where she was about to commit suicide, but it turns out he killed her twin sister as well and that he stalked herself, waiting for this moment of opportunity. After the accident the person has changed and is shocked at how he was in the past.
The latter story is much more interesting than the first, which is gimmicky. Perhaps the sci fi story would have been good if they focused more on that part, but as it is it went nowhere. Pity, I thought the beginning was interesting, but really the "other story" took over at some point. Not completely bad, I don't mind the slowness, but it's like the movie really didn't have much of a point, and it became a sixth sense "twist" type of movie.
That way you can find similarities between just about all superhero movies, as much of that is generic tropes. Does that make the movie generic? I guess so, but it's an old school superhero story relatively close to the comics. The actual story and plot is completely different, it's not even remotely similar. The connection between the god and Diana and the choices she has to make, are completely different themes compared to Captain America.
It has SOME elements which are similar, such as juxtaposing modern and old views of women, but in WW it's much more of a major theme often played for laughs, especially as it's the naivete of the ancient being, Diana, which represents the modern woman's views in WWI - she's an Amazon (sort of) after all.
Diana, an ancient magical being lives on an island which is protected from view by magic, where people live extremely long lives. An escaped British spy crash on the beach of this place; then they are attacked by the Germans. They fight and they win. Diana follows him and then the story starts with the WWI stuff and the villain - who is not at all the true villain, because that is the GOD Ares, who is revealed to be someone else than what she assumed. Turns out she is a demigod and that she has powers which she learn to unleash only when she confronts Ares, whom she destroys. Turns out that humans have the capability to do all the things she imagined was caused entirely by Ares, but humans also have the capacity for good and love. That is NOTHING like the story of Captain America, they are not similar at all.
So, does the movies have some themes in common, some themes which are common in modern superhero movies, YES. Does that make WW a version of CA, no not at all, the stories are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
Take one example, they both use a shield - well guess what, they use the shields they used in the bloody comics.
Good point. I saw it back then in the seventies, and before this movie, there was nothing whatsoever like it. It was, in fact, a revolutionary movie, and the first time this kind of resources was put forth for this kind of juvenile cartoon stuff (no matter what you think, superheroes was and is, KIDS stuff). Sure, modern interpretations try to make the stories adult, but they are still superhero stories, and so they are children's fantasy stories, because the concept of superheroes* is laughably stupid.
That's also the reason why the movies differ so much from the comics - it's a different medium and it is supposed to be for the people who read those stories as KIDS, not for the miniscule brigade of adult fans, who take them serious as adults. A 100% true to the origin movie would just be ridiculous.
The Superman movie does not take itself too seriously, it's only sorta serious when it's about the Lane/Kent relation, the rest is not. The Avengers movie also has a similar vibe, it also doesn't take itself too seriously and play up the comedy and even self-reference. So why didn't people complain? It's the most successful of all of the movies, but probably the least "serious" of all of the new superhero movies (apart from Deadpool).
*in the traditional sense, obviously not counting non-traditional different approaches which aren't real superheroes like Kick-Ass, Super, Watchmen and similar movies.
I know you have replied and changed your mind, but actually regardless of how she is as an actress, she did look near perfect for the role. They even enhanced her apparent breasts size. First of all, she is relatively tall and she does look imposing compared with some of the other people in the movie. She didn't look like a thin stick like it seemed like she looked before. Her arms are a bit thin, but she has superpowers, so what difference does her arm muscle make anyway?
I found that the movie did have some problems, but Gal Gadot fit her character very well.
It's nothing like Captain America, WTF? Other than both have a war setting, what is the similarity?
I was surprised how bad it was, I didn't expect that at all. It's just a bunch of "good" villains walking through the streets, that's most of the movie- apart from endless flashbacks. Some people like Robbie, but I just thought she resembled Tank Girl (movie version) in a bad way.
If you look at the trailer, it seems that all the somewhat passable CGI was made for the trailer, the effects in the rest of the movie looks unfinished and really awful. It's basically a movie about two people running around in a forest, doing nothing in particular. The guy just stand around with his mouth agape almost the entire friggin movie! The story is just laughable, especially the ending, it's a facepalm moment. It almost counts as a deus ex. On top of that, there's a constant annoying narration. I would imagine that this movie started off as an idea, rather than a solid script, and that the script was made as they went along or something like that. Really amateurish filmmaking.
In any case, it seems like two completely different movies - a special effects part with big explosions, which ranges from passable to horrible, and a long low budget looking middle part consisting mostly of two people running through the woods. I feel that if somehow they had cut back a bit on those effect shots it would've been better, even though it would still be bad. Filmmakers must also learn than constant overlong narration is NOT GOOD, it just ANNOYING.
ps
I was a bit baffled when they approached an obviously European castle ruin, it's just seemed out of place. I suppose it was filmed somewhere in Europe?