PCF at the Movies (3 Viewers)

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Went from seeing one of the absolute best movies of the year to one of the absolute worst.

Last night, Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk:


Some of the advance reviews of this movie contained praise that was off the charts. I can't imagine what they saw because it is one of the worst, most perplexingly bad movies I've seen in a long time. As best I can tell, the source of the problem is the script. The acting is abysmal as well, but it's difficult to distinguish a poor performance from a bad script. Sometimes it's just impossible to pull something good from something so bad. And the direction is stylized in a way that makes you think you should be getting something more from what you're seeing, that there's some kind of meaning apart from the superficial. But there isn't. There's no great theme, no implicit message, no subversive underbelly to an otherwise utterly boring movie.

The whole package - script, acting, direction - are so off-putting that I spent a lot of the movie wondering whether it was setting me up for some big reveal. Once I had languished for nearly two hours, however, I didn't care. I don't write movies off when I enjoy everything but the end, so there's no way I would give this one a pass after such garbage even if it were a setup for some kind of twist or reveal. But it isn't. It just ends as you'd expect.

If you have any interest at all in this movie, watch The Hurt Locker and Born on the Fourth of July instead. Both do everything this one wants to do much, much better.

But I guess it wasn't necessarily only the best and worst of times. It was also the meh of times. I also saw Loving:


This one has the rare honor of being excellent but unexceptional. The whole package is truly excellent: flawless script, great performances by all, top notch direction and cinematography, and perfect set and costume design. So what's the problem? I guess it's that I don't really see the point in the movie.

You could broadly classify this movie as a semi-biographical advocacy film, not that the biographical portions are too thorough (it's mostly an approximately 7 year segment of the lives of the subjects) or that the advocacy is too risky (anti-racism). Those are generally death knells for movies for me. Biographical movies tend to get too hung up on portraying the true story to be a real film apart from it and advocacy movies tend to let the film take a backseat role to the message and feel far too manipulative (and on top of it all, both are so, so often merely Oscar bait).

But I saw this because it was written and directed by one of the best filmmakers working today: Jeff Nichols (Take Shelter, Mud, Midnight Special). And he does as good a job with this story as he has with any other. He is certainly as competent in presenting material as he is insightful in forming characters and story. The trouble is that he comes up against the brick wall of reality just as all filmmakers do when they take on a true story. Frankly I just don't see much point to it. He could have done all the things he wanted to do here, hit all the themes, with a totally original story that would have allowed him to create characters outside the confines of what we know of these actual people.

As I said, though, there is much to enjoy. Joel Edgerton is a master of the slight performance in this one and all credit is due to Jeff Nichols for having the balls to write a script that relies so heavily on Edgerton's performance. Ruth Negga's role is less obviously demanding, but it does require that she find a way to demonstrate at once the learned helplessness she likely felt when under the thumb of the law and the resolve that she obviously had to reach out for help in battling the commonwealth of Virginia.
 
I missed this one when it was first released for some reason and just got around to it yesterday, 5 years later.


Mark Duplass is grieving the loss of his brother and still taking it quite hard after a year after his death. It doesn't help that he's still best friends with the woman his brother was with for a time before his death. He ends up having a drunken one night stand with the woman's sister who, so far everyone believed, was a lesbian. His feelings after the fling make clear to him that he's actually in love with his best friend, his brother's ex, and everyone is left to navigate the strange little love triangle in a cabin on an island off the coast of Washington state.

As with the best of so-called mumblecore, it was touching and real and funny. The strength of the movie is the combined skill of all the actors: Mark Duplass, Emily Blunt, and Rosemarie DeWitt. Any shortcoming in the performances is really exaggerated in these films since the bulk of the dialogue is improvised. If the actors don't have it together, the whole movie falls apart.

Fortunately everyone has it together here and it holds together quite well. It's sort of a conventional version of an Eric Rohmer film. It's primarily about the character relationships, but it's not afraid to have relatively straightforward tropes of American dramedy: music montage, slight melodrama, a traditional three-act structure. It's very easy to enjoy and at 88 minutes very digestible.

If you like this sort of thing, check out Eric Rohmer's Claire's Knee. Or I guess if you like Claire's Knee already and you're looking for something that you'll enjoy, but which will be palatable to someone who wants something a bit more typical of modern movies, this would be a great option.

Oh and another bonus: I realized while watching this that if anyone ever has to play Mark Newhouse in a movie, Mark Duplass is a lock for that role.

0L5u01a.png
 
Saw Bleed for This last night.


Good, not great, but I have a soft spot for boxing movies. Better than last year's Southpaw, but not nearly as good as Creed.

The performances are on the same level as the film: good, not great. This was something of a chance for Aaron Eckhart to climb out of the weird hole he's had lately of being in garbage movies (I, Frankenstein, Olympus Has Fallen, London Has Fallen). The movie really only lets him fly so high, but he does as well as one could expect with the part. I didn't even recognize the mother (Katey Sagal) and the manager (Ted Levine) until halfway through the movie, but that's more to the wigs and makeup than the performances. I'm still waiting for Miles Teller to take a part that doesn't include him being a badass and this one isn't it.

Probably the best thing about it is the art direction. I love seeing the 80s era clothes and houses and cars and interiors. They were spectacular. I'm house hunting at the moment and this made me want to find a house from that era and change nothing. Naturally it reminded me of my house and my relatives' and friends' houses from when I was a kid. Same with the cars and the clothes. Less so with the music. They used mostly period-appropriate tracks, but relied heavily on a couple of remixed delta blues songs that are intended more to set the mood than reflect the period. They do capture a certain feel, but they take you out of the reality of the film.

It was directed by Ben Younger who was first noticed for Boiler Room and this movie is almost exactly on the level of Boiler Room. Lots of things going for it, and while they really don't coalesce into something great, it's a fun watch and the pace is very good. I didn't find it dragging at any point.

Recommended if you want a good sports movie and certainly better than the average Netflix/cable offering if you just want to plop on the couch for a couple hours.
 
Also saw Nocturnal Animals this past weekend.


This was one of the biggest disappointments of the year for me. I was really looking forward to it, not because I so loved Tom Ford's last movie, A Single Man (which I did), but because this movie looked so promising on its own. But it was so utterly full of itself from the first frame it was impossible to love and very hard to like. Amy Adams and Jake Gyllenhaal prove that they can turn in what are superficially good performances, but which fall apart on any scrutiny whatsoever. The one bright spot is Michael Shannon, who proves that he will pull through and be damn near great no matter what you give him.

This movie may be the best example of the opening credits completely accurately showing you what you're in for. The movie opens with closeups and full body shots of fully nude obese women dancing and gyrating in slow motion with their eyes gazing directly into the camera. The movie's score plays over the top of the footage and the whole thing continues on for literally at least 2 solid minutes which might sound like nothing, but is an eternity as you sit there thinking, "What the fuck is going on here?" Eventually it pulls back and reveals that the films of dancing fat women are parts of a new art installation by Amy Adams that also incorporates the same women in the film lying as if dead in real life around the space as she sits there looking dramatically morose for no immediately understandable reason. Now imagine the level of self-absorption it must take to put that at the front of your movie and stretch it across two full hours of overacting and melodrama. It is excruciating.

In case anyone wants to know the actual story, it's very simple: Amy Adams receives a manuscript titled "Nocturnal Animals" in the mail from her exhusband who she hasn't spoken to in nearly 20 years (honestly I should have known how full of itself this movie was from the title alone). As she reads it, the events from the novel play as a story within the story of the film and we see it cut back to give us a backstory of Amy Adams' and Jake Gyllenhaal's failed marriage and Amy Adams' subsequent loveless relationship. It's all very somber and carries on for a painstakingly long time. The story within the story is about ten times more interesting and features Jake Gyllenhaal having to confront men who raped and murdered his wife and daughter. I'm sure this is supposed to seem somehow deep and revealing, but all the manuscript story does is serve to show how fucking dull the actual story in the movie is.

That's all I've got. I've written far too much about this garbage. If you have relatives you hate over for the holidays and they want to go see a movie, send them to this one.
 
Re: Michael Shannon...he had a great interview with Maron on WTF last week.

It's currently in my queue! I've fallen off with WTF, but I always listen when he has someone on that I really like and Michael Shannon is 100% in that category. One of the great current actors imo.
 
It's currently in my queue! I've fallen off with WTF, but I always listen when he has someone on that I really like and Michael Shannon is 100% in that category. One of the great current actors imo.
WTF has had a few really good ones the last couple weeks. Shep Gordon and Lin-Manuel Miranda were both excellent also.
 
WTF has had a few really good ones the last couple weeks. Shep Gordon and Lin-Manuel Miranda were both excellent also.

The Lin-Manuel Miranda episode was the first I'd listened to since Kristen Wiig from back in August. Great episode, but I wish I had started listening to Hamilton before I listened to the interview. Might relisten now that I've been rocking Hamilton hard nonstop for a week.
 
The Lin-Manuel Miranda episode was the first I'd listened to since Kristen Wiig from back in August. Great episode, but I wish I had started listening to Hamilton before I listened to the interview. Might relisten now that I've been rocking Hamilton hard nonstop for a week.
I may have to do the same after I finally get around to listening to Hamilton.
 
I may have to do the same after I finally get around to listening to Hamilton.

This is the first track of the musical as performed by LMM at the White House something like 6 years before the show debuted. I'm not sure whether I like this or the final version better, but it really, really pulls you into the story.

 
This one is from a few years ago now and I can understand to a degree why it's pretty much entirely overlooked by most, but it's a really fun movie.

Premium Rush:


It's a pretty classic formula: depict a semi-esoteric subculture (NYC bike messengers) and use that subculture as the background for a crime drama/thriller. And that's pretty much all there it to it, but it's well done. Michael Shannon is the villain and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the protagonist and both see the movie for what it is: a fun time and an opportunity to make it a little more than it is.

Great bike/bike and bike/car chase scenes and the movie does a good job of explaining in subtle ways how a bike messenger has to see traffic to navigate the streets.

Plus it's only 90 minutes. Not on Netflix anymore, but it's worth renting for $2.99 somewhere or...getting...somewhere.
 
Kept hearing how amazing Moonlight is and I was not disappointed...

I would be shocked if Mahershala Ali (Remy from House of Cards) isn't nominated for best supporting actor. He is stunning. So are many others, but he stands out among even the other great performances.

Really glad to see that Mahershala Ali won Best Supporting Actor in the New York Film Critics Circle awards this morning (currently being announced on Twitter at the moment, Best Supporting was one of the first announced). Very much deserved. The guy was beyond good.

Is Moonlight in the top five movies of the year? No, maybe not even top ten, but there are some great things about it and one of the greatest is Ali's performance.
 
It's a pretty classic formula: depict a semi-esoteric subculture (NYC bike messengers) and use that subculture as the background for a crime drama/thriller.

When I wrote this about Premium Rush I was thinking also about Rounders which follows the same broad formula, only inserting underground poker players for bike messengers. Watched it against last night for the hundredth time and it's still so good. I love all the overly stereotyped characters. Malkovich's accent isn't even good, but he commits so fully to it that the character works. Martin Landau's Professor Petrovsky isn't nearly as much of a caricature as Malkovich, but he's still played pretty heavy as the cerebral Jewish professor. At some points it's almost Billy Crystal-level Jewish impression. But it's Martin Landau. I'm sure they were thrilled to land him for the role and he's a giant, so they probably let him do whatever he wanted as they should.

It's hard to detach myself from the poker elements obviously, but when I do I still think the movie stands up as a film apart from the subject matter. What a huge coup it was for them to land Matt Damon and Ed Norton before they were known by everyone as great actors. Probably got a sick deal on their salaries for the movie. The whole cast is just insane when you figure it was not a huge budget movie: Damon, Norton, Malkovich, Turturro, Landau. Even the tertiary characters are played by real actors: Famke Janssen and Gretchen Mol. We even get a little cameo by Lenny Clarke.

I will say that the writing is just a bit cringeworthy at times. It was Koppelman and Levien's first script, though, so it's not a big deal. Still, that scene where Mike is late to his study group has one of the most awful exchanges at the beginning when the other group members are discussing their strategy for moot court:

STUDENT 1: I think the most important thing is to be respectful to the judges, but not obsequious.
JO: Now wait a minute. Make sure to be deferential.
MIKE: Gene Marinacci won't buy deferential.​

I guess we've all had our "overly reliant on a thesaurus" moments, but that's pretty pretty pretty bad.
 
So glad to have started my weekend on a high note with Edge of Seventeen last night.


What a wonderful, charming movie, and with a voice that is utterly lacking in "teen" movies nowadays. There is so much saccharine garbage out there and even those that do try to capture real teen life ring so false because studio executives seem intent on treating teens as innocent little flowers instead of showing them for the foulmouthed monsters they are. That's not to say they're bad. They're just not particularly good. It's telling that James L. Brook got this into production. The man who hired Matt Groening to create The Simpsons is a likely culprit for finding the grimy side of teenagers.

The script could have been written by Diablo Cody on anti-depressants that were only half working. The dialogue is sharp and funny and not Gilmore Girls-level cringeworthy in its precociousness. Hailee Steinfeld is certainly better in this than anything she's done before and Woody Harrelson is very funny, though I can see their interactions perhaps crossing the line into overly-written territory.

The ending is a little more pat than the movie that preceded it, but in a way it earns the emotional resolution. It shared the New York Critics Circle's Best First Film award (with Krisha which I have also wanted to see, but have missed until now), so I'm glad it's getting some recognition and just now when I googled it I see that it has 95% on Rotten Tomatoes which is by no means dispositive of its quality, but is a good indicator that it's getting its deserved due.
 
Two really excellent looking teaser trailers...the Logan one especially. Using Hurt for the music is absolutely pitch perfect and sets the tone beautifully. Can't wait for both of these.



I just saw this trailer for the first time. I can't wait for GG2
 
When I wrote this about Premium Rush I was thinking also about Rounders which follows the same broad formula, only inserting underground poker players for bike messengers. Watched it against last night for the hundredth time and it's still so good. I love all the overly stereotyped characters. Malkovich's accent isn't even good, but he commits so fully to it that the character works. Martin Landau's Professor Petrovsky isn't nearly as much of a caricature as Malkovich, but he's still played pretty heavy as the cerebral Jewish professor.

 
I wish they would have made a Rounders 2. Such a good movie!

They started to, but then realized they could either make Rounders 2 or make one of the worst gambling movies of all time and damn if they didn't shoot for the moon.

 
They started to, but then realized they could either make Rounders 2 or make one of the worst gambling movies of all time and damn if they didn't shoot for the moon.


God yeah that was awful. Such a disappointing movie
 
Recent movies seen:

Arrival: Thought provoking and well crafted with a great eerie soundtrack and another excellent performance by Amy Adams. I hope it can overcome the Sci-Fi genre stigma at the awards. The best Sci-fi movie of the decade so far for me.
9/10

Fantastic beasts: Excellent first act, 2nd act felt a bit crammed in to set up future anthology films. Visually stylish and manages to capture much of that nostalgia without being exploitative.
7/10

Hacksaw Ridge: Very Private-Ryan esque in a good way. Visceral and relentless this movie is what war movies should be, a great return for Mel Gibson. Andrew Garfield showing some serious acting chops. 8/10
 
Arrival: Thought provoking and well crafted with a great eerie soundtrack and another excellent performance by Amy Adams. I hope it can overcome the Sci-Fi genre stigma at the awards. The best Sci-fi movie of the decade so far for me.
9/10

Haven't read too many reviews (professional or otherwise), but just in talking to people I'm glad the opinion seems to be turning in favor of this movie. When it first came out it seemed like I was hearing a lot of people say they were underwhelmed. I've seen in the theater twice and I could watch it again right now. Not my top sci-fi film of the decade, but I can understand why it would be in the discussion and it's likely in my top 5. It's only gotten better the more I reflect on it.
 
Another post:

The founder:

Pretty solid biopic with a strong performance by Keaton. Closest comparison would be The Social Network, but with a weaker cast, score and cinematography (to be fair, its hard to top FIncher)

7.5/10


La-La Land:

Absolutely gorgeous cinematography, bold use of color, with the city of Los Angeles cast in a mysterious, yet inviting light. Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling have practically sizzling chemistry together. The movie is very whimsical with show stopping musical set pieces, but countered by some very grounding bittersweet moments. It definitely recalls past musicals like the Umbrellas of Cherbourg/ Singing in the Rain, but it makes them its own.

A stunning sophomore effort. 9.5/10
 
Another post:

The founder:

Pretty solid biopic with a strong performance by Keaton. Closest comparison would be The Social Network, but with a weaker cast, score and cinematography (to be fair, its hard to top FIncher)

7.5/10


La-La Land:

Absolutely gorgeous cinematography, bold use of color, with the city of Los Angeles cast in a mysterious, yet inviting light. Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling have practically sizzling chemistry together. The movie is very whimsical with show stopping musical set pieces, but countered by some very grounding bittersweet moments. It definitely recalls past musicals like the Umbrellas of Cherbourg/ Singing in the Rain, but it makes them its own.

A stunning sophomore effort. 9.5/10

A bit jealous you guys got these down under before those of us in the First World, but I then again we don't have to worry about kangaroos strangling our dogs, so I'll call it a wash.

Your review is about what I expect from the The Founder. I'm normally not a fan of biopics at all, but when they're given specific context they can be much better than when they try to track someone's entire story. And Michael Keaton has been on a run lately, so I expect good things.

I'm torn on La La Land. The previews look very saccharine to me and I can barely stand Emma Stone. Despite all that, I adored Whiplash, so I will be there for anything Damien Chazelle does until he lets me down.

This weekend's openings in the US aren't nearly as interesting as yours: Office Christmas Party and Miss Sloane. Though I still have to get to Manchester By The Sea which I wasn't in the mood for this past weekend.
 
Good one last night. Elle directed by Paul Verhoeven.


Extremely good. Great even. Maybe among the very best of the year. Almost makes me rethink my opinions of many of the genre films I saw this year that I believed transcended their respective classifications to become something greater.

It's billed as a psychological thriller and it certainly is that, but there is a lot packed in here and the main character is played to deep perfection by Isabelle Huppert. The character's backstory is so refined and textured that while some of the film presents as a whodunnit, it's impossible to dismiss the deeper questions presented.

If you approach this as a whodunnit, you will be pretty thrown because a third of the film will seem an epilogue after the culprit is identified. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that that's sort of the point, though. The tension that doesn't dissipate after you learn the rest of the story because you become so uneasy about the actions of the main character who has had your deep sympathies over the course of the previous hour.

I couldn't possibly give up the joy of seeing thoroughly grimy genre movies with little intended deeper narrative, but seeing something like Elle makes me glad for people like Paul Verhoeven and Isabelle Huppert who aspire to undergird the superficial with the consequential. I can't imagine any movie this year causing a more interesting (though potentially contentious) discussion. Certainly more appropriate for a tenth date than a first.
 
Saw two notable movies this weekend: Miss Sloane and Manchester By the Sea.


I almost skipped this one and wouldn't have missed anything if I had. Jessica Chastain does her best, but there's so little here for her to work with to make this anything more than an annoying issue-driven movie. With her character's traits and the oblique allusions to her backstory, you expect some resolution or at least explanation of her upbringing. But you get nothing about her or anyone else - with one exception - that gives you any deeper glimpse into their motivations.

You could be generous and say it's a movie about transactional corruption, but really it seems just like an excuse to spout gun control arguments and in annoyingly Sorkin-inspired dialogue (which is even more obvious given the casting of The Newsroom alumni). Which would be annoying but tolerable if the plot were otherwise well-constructed, but the various reveals at the end of the movie require that the audience be left in the dark about most everything that has been going on.

The end further requires the audience to simply accept that Jessica Chastain's character could predict literally every single action of her putative opponents. I guess an advocate for the movie would point out that her foresight is exactly what should be highlighted given the film's intention show her as a master manipulator, but it goes a bridge (probably several bridges) too far in my view.

Given the nature of flaws of the movie I couldn't help but think of one of my least favorite movies that also feature great actors (here, Jessica Chastain, Sam Waterston, John Lithgow; there, Kevin Spacey, Kate Winslet, Laura Linney): The Life of David Gale. That piece of garbage did pretty much the same thing: disguised an issue-driven film as a suspense thriller and then blindsided the audience with an ending they could have never seen coming due to the explicit deception of the film.

I'd much sooner recommend Miss Sloane than David Gale, but neither are worth watching.


I liked this one quite a bit. I get a little worried when movies like this get the universal praise that it's getting. It's problematic to go in with huge expectations when the strengths of a movie are its realism and subtlety. But it lingers with you and in a very good way. A couple days from the viewing I'm still right there with the characters.

And that's all due to the writing and acting which are literally perfect at every moment. Casey Affleck is getting a lot of attention and rightfully so, but Kyle Chandler is also excellent. Nothing is overplayed and no performance is embellished, which is notable considering the opportunities for embellishment and overdramatization that were available given the characters and the story.

I wonder if people who didn't go through an experience like this as a teenager will accept that the kid's response is an accurate depiction. I could see that being a point of contention for some, but as someone who did, I found a lot in Lucas Hedges' performance to identify with, though 20 years removed. I also wonder if others will see it as an uplifting movie. I didn't, but I imagine some will see strength in the film's recognition that life simply moves on regardless of what came before.

I think the longer people sit with this one, the better they will recognize it tobe. Just writing these few thoughts I'm liking the movie more and more. I guess in addition to the potential problem of overhyping, a movie like this can suffer because it's so easy to simply sit through it and walk out. There is no concrete conflict that you wait to resolve or are asked to respond to as a viewer, so it's really on you whether to engage.
 
Saw Rogue One last night. My thoughts below include spoilers, so caveat emptor.


As an overall statement I'd say it's fun, very good in some discreet moments, but overall not great and maybe barely good.

First the good: the prologue and first act are better than good, actually. And so many small details that were not only fun, but occasionally revealing about the full Star Warns universe. Lots of fun and full of solid performances and it sets up a plot that is deserving of a full length Star Wars film. I suppose the quality of the performances was true throughout. You can't necessarily be surprised given the cast includes Mads Mikkelsen, Forest Whitaker, and Ben Mendelsohn, but it's wonderful nonetheless.

And the CGI locations were truly beautiful. Paired with the eye for substantive detail and the competent framing, aesthetically the movie is a huge pleasure to watch for 90% or more of its runtime.

Unfortunately, the acting and other elements suffered from the distractions of...

The bad: the length and the human CGI recreations. People think "epic" films have to be 2+ hours these days and according to the Disney marketing department, I'm sure all Star Wars movies are, by definition, "epic." This is one of the flaws inherent in the Disney process: marketing gets as much of a say as creative. So to some degree I understand, but it doesn't make it any less wrong or make me wish less that they'd not have given into the push. This story did not require 2 hours and 13 minutes.

But couldn't they have put something more interesting in the movie than a slightly incoherent filler battle scene to drain the third act? I actually got excited when they were gearing up to start the big sneak into Imperial territory and thought it would reinvigorate the movie after a lackluster second act, but it was muddied at best and way overlong.

Finally, the ugly: those CGI humans. What. The. Fuck. Totally unforgivably bad. Why? They are nowhere near good enough to warrant their inclusion. Yes, I like the idea of bringing Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher back. But these fucking things look like a bad video game. Horrific. And for no real purpose. They could have easily gotten around such a focus on Peter Cushing. If they had dropped him into a couple of scenes without a ton of facetime, I could have dealt with it. Still would have wondered why they'd bother, but I wouldn't have been totally and completely distracted by him. Here, it's awful. And they absolutely spoil the otherwise excellent epilogue and beautiful tie into the opening of A New Hope by ending the film on Carrie Fishers jump, digital face. Unreal.

After all that, I can't say I disliked the movie as a whole. I'll probably even go see it again in theaters. Felicity Jones was good, Diego Luna was okay. Maybe I'll get over the length as I understand more deeply the turns of the battle and maybe I'll grow somewhat more accustomed to the CGI performances. I doubt it, but maybe.

EDIT: Meant to say something before about the opportunity presented by these one-off movies. I love that we can now see stories about characters that don't have to survive the film and for whom we don't have to build giant backstories and epic futures. I didn't feel the movie really did much with that opportunity, though. Sure, the protagonists get vaporized in the end, but the movie itself is virtually identical structurally to every other Star Wars movie. There are no chances taken, not real envelope pushing as to character or mission. I was hoping these movies would be little bite size chunks of fun set in the universe, but not beholden to the production and story legacies of the franchise. And you could still do the little epilogue tie in to A New Hope as they did, but leave the rest of the movie as a self-contained unit.

Oh and sadly the score was truly mediocre.
 
Last edited:
They could have easily gotten around such a focus on Peter Cushing.


Agreed on all points, but this is the biggest one for me. We're close, but we're still in the uncanny valley with these CGI humans. It definitely was not obvious when they brought back Gold Leader and Red Leader in the same fashion because the cut scenes were so quick. The more time you spend with one, the less you like it.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom