Yep. I didn’t realise he did that. It’s fortune that I must have missed that when I first heard this review before I saw the film. Normally he is very careful with spoilers.
It's called a movie REVIEW. It's supposed to review and critique all parts of the movie. People have been brain washed by hack reviewers that just give summaries.
@@zebunker No I think you'll find you can review a movie without giving spoilers, and for the movies you cannot do that then you do 2 separate reviews. A Non-Spoiler review and a Spoiler Review. Look at John Campea, Chris Stuckmann, Jeremy Jahns, Reelblend Podcast, Kristian Harloff. I could go on and on. Those are just a few youtubers who very carefully post non-spoiler reviews and spoiler reviews for the same film. None of them resort to quick summaries as a substitute for thorough detailed reviews.
I really loved the part of the movie where you really don't know what's going on. Later when you get the twist it's a little disappointing (I always feel that way when a mystery is solved by a scientific explanation) but still a very good film. Sam Rockwell is really good!
It's great writing. What an opportunity to deal with character arc by getting to compare and contrast unraveling, ill, but kinder and more self-aware Sam to angry, spit-polished, angry, violent and driven Sam by putting them in the same room at the same time . As antagonist and protagonist should, they complete one another. It is only through A synthesis of Sams 1 and 2 that Sam 3 and all subsequent Sams will be saved and hopefully ending the evil practice. This story also treads in Bladerunner territory by asking what makes us human. Are all Sams equal? Do they each have their own unique soul? Can they be free agents?
The film’s well acted, well directed, well written, stylish, intriguing & is A favourably modern comparison to 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). (86%) (4.5/5 stars) (positive)
The only plot hole was not having direct communication with earth. That would make anyone suspicious. All you need is a high gain antenna such as the astronauts had.
I thought it wasn't really an issue - I assume there's a lot of people on the moon and whoever is there would be expected to mainly just contact the company themselves. I was a bit unsure about a couple other things but this worked.
there was direct communication, It's just Sam was denied to use it and was lied to. We see a life feed long before that station was destroyed. The plot hole I see is Gerty telling Sam the truth eventually and helping him to bring that whole system of clones down, which should go against his programming.
Gives the plot away!
Yep. I didn’t realise he did that. It’s fortune that I must have missed that when I first heard this review before I saw the film. Normally he is very careful with spoilers.
It's called a movie REVIEW. It's supposed to review and critique all parts of the movie. People have been brain washed by hack reviewers that just give summaries.
@@zebunker No I think you'll find you can review a movie without giving spoilers, and for the movies you cannot do that then you do 2 separate reviews. A Non-Spoiler review and a Spoiler Review. Look at John Campea, Chris Stuckmann, Jeremy Jahns, Reelblend Podcast, Kristian Harloff. I could go on and on. Those are just a few youtubers who very carefully post non-spoiler reviews and spoiler reviews for the same film. None of them resort to quick summaries as a substitute for thorough detailed reviews.
I really loved the part of the movie where you really don't know what's going on. Later when you get the twist it's a little disappointing (I always feel that way when a mystery is solved by a scientific explanation) but still a very good film. Sam Rockwell is really good!
It's great writing. What an opportunity to deal with character arc by getting to compare and contrast unraveling, ill, but kinder and more self-aware Sam to angry, spit-polished, angry, violent and driven Sam by putting them in the same room at the same time . As antagonist and protagonist should, they complete one another. It is only through A synthesis of Sams 1 and 2 that Sam 3 and all subsequent Sams will be saved and hopefully ending the evil practice. This story also treads in Bladerunner territory by asking what makes us human. Are all Sams equal? Do they each have their own unique soul? Can they be free agents?
The film’s well acted, well directed, well written, stylish, intriguing & is A favourably modern comparison to 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). (86%) (4.5/5 stars) (positive)
Bro, what are you doing?
This channel needs to come back
It was Joan Baez not Joni Mitchell.
and Bruce Dern wasn't cast adrift alone. he killed off the crew!!
Fantastic film.
The only plot hole was not having direct communication with earth. That would make anyone suspicious. All you need is a high gain antenna such as the astronauts had.
on the dark side of the moon?
I thought it wasn't really an issue - I assume there's a lot of people on the moon and whoever is there would be expected to mainly just contact the company themselves.
I was a bit unsure about a couple other things but this worked.
there was direct communication, It's just Sam was denied to use it and was lied to. We see a life feed long before that station was destroyed.
The plot hole I see is Gerty telling Sam the truth eventually and helping him to bring that whole system of clones down, which should go against his programming.
too many spoilers, in my opinion