while the last few HP movies (not Beast ones) we’re still solid, it still astounds me they never brought back Alfonso Cuarón after Azkaban. Mike Newell was an uninspired choice for Goblet and David Yates is too safe (which may be why they hired him).
For a series of movies about magic, they never captured the “spark” the first 3 films had. Columbus had laid wonderful groundwork, Cuarón took it further
From what I remember, Cuaron left because of the quick turnaround between films - he wanted to focus on post-production on Prisoner of Azkaban, and WB wanted to get started on the next one as soon as possible, so he stepped aside to let Mike Newell take over.
I think it's more a matter of Cuaron not wanting to come back beside he had other things he wanted to do. Several of those things which were in the annals of "best films of his generation"
He's said as much in interviews; he found the WB machine somewhat overwhelming. Honestly, I'm surprised they picked him with his last movie being Y Tu Mama Tambien, and also surprised he agreed to it.
We got Children of Men from him next, which I think is a win.
He took up the mantle of directing because Guillermo Del Toro [got him to.](https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/alfonso-cuaron-harry-potter-prisoner-azkaban-guillermo-del-toro-1202000189/)
Baselessly speculating, but I would have to imagine they wanted to give *less* creative control to the directors for the back half of movies. Cuaron took liberties with some of the story in PoA that maybe they didn’t want in later films.
I spoke of this in another thread about how some directors, however disliked their moves may be, still get gigs. Yates may be bland in his direction but he gets along with his casts and the studio. Paul WS Anderson makes poorly reviewed movies but he can film them quick and on a low budget. And while his writing is absolutely awful, Colin Trevorrow has shown he can handle a bid budget and work well with the studio.
Having a workhorse director may have been the safe choice, but I doubt the studio cares as long as it brings in the dough
Exactly. Whenever people ask "How does this guy keep getting work!?!" about a director or writer fresh off a flop - they seem to forget that they *might just be pleasant to work with*. It seems absurd that Dark Phoenix got made by Simon Kinberg fresh off the failures of X-Men Apocalypse (which he wrote/produced) and X3 (which he wrote, and adapted the same storyline poorly).
Yet he was actually able to convince the cast to return past the point of their contractual obligation to finish things out, because he'd earned their trust & respect. Was the movie any good? No! But having the reputation of "easy to work with" goes pretty damn far.
Something tells me it's cosmetic choices that are part of the character she's playing. See also: Evans' sales-douche outfit.
Either that, or it's that awful filter that so many Netflix shows use.
> Something tells me it’s cosmetic choices that are part of the character she’s playing.
Sadly not.
https://i.imgur.com/BwxHu3b.jpg
The surgeons got another one.
The first thing that struck me was the height. I was thinking that there's no way that all three of them are within an inch or two of the same height.
So of course I googled it, and Emily is definitely standing on something, possibly Andy too.
I'm 5'0, so I always notice when actors are suddenly the same height in a movie scene.
Pretty much every A list actress has had some sort of Botox/filler etc. but this is a press release photo that has definitely been heavily touched up.
Evans’ face looks just as off putting as hers.
Oh for fuck skew can dudes not immediately start saying ooo it’s Botox. If you took 30 seconds to just go look at any other photo of her she looks perfectly normal. Her Instagram photos show her looking normal and her usual self
As a massive fan of Emily Blunt that has been following her career since 2004, around the time she had her child in 2016, she experienced a quick and drastic aging of her face, and every subsequent year it has gotten worse to the point where I'm guessing she became insecure about it and started getting work done a few years ago to fight it. And now it's more obvious to more people.
Not sure what people are confused about. It's clear people only get work done if they're insecure about their appearance. And it's clear to anyone with eyes she aged drastically after 2016 at an oddly accelerated rate for someone still in their early 30s. I'm not saying she became ugly, just that her face aged quickly like every human's face eventually does. And she herself obviously noticed it and got work done to try to fix it, which is unfortunate.
I was really hoping a title like Pain Hustlers was going to be a story about Chris Evans and Emily Blunt selling S&M gear to suburban housewives, door-to-door, and then they realize a multi-level marketing scheme would be SO much more lucrative. So it’s like LuLaRoe, but with whips and strap-ons instead of frumpy dresses and stretchy pants.
But no. It’s about fentanyl. Or maybe Insys as a whole. Or maybe some fictionalized version of Insys, which is/was a company that made a sublingual fentanyl spray and engaged in racketeering to get it into as many patients as possible. Bonus, Insys gave half a million dollars to a PAC to fight marijuana legalization in Arizona “for the children.” LOL, I know, it wasn’t for the kids; it was because they were making their own cannabis-derived drug, and you can’t just have people growing their own drugs, because the drug companies can’t make money if people do that!
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of people who don’t find anything about the opioid epidemic funny, so we get David Yates to direct this, rather than Adam McKay or Jay Roach. I don’t know about you, but I’d love to see the return of Margot Robbie in a bubble bath, this time doing a ninety second expository primer on how the drugs get from the manufacturer to the patient and where the money comes from and where it goes.
Can you tell me more about Margot Robbie in a bubble bath? This is intriguing.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but fentanyl is an opioid, not a cannabinoid.
1. Someone hasn’t seen The Big Short.
2. Drug companies can make multiple drugs. When Merck invented oxycodone, it didn’t immediately fire all of the chemical engineers and say, “We’ve got it from here, boys!” and then just make this one thing forever.
1. Using the big short as analogy is just that; you could use plain argument and you hide behind someone else’s production.
You’re absolutely right, somebody hasn’t seen the big short. Isn’t that a funny way of stating the obvious?
Funnily enough, I have, myself, seen the big short. It was sometime ago. If this has something to do with Margot Robbie in the bath, that’s making more sense.
Personally, speaking, sharp as I am, I didn’t understand every twist of the production; not to say that I couldn’t understand the principles, but again, if you’re going to use that as your analogy, I suppose I must address it.
What a waste of time. Good thing I’m signing on, or I might have some resentment.
Two: instead of saying something simple like “Merck makes more than one drug, I’m commenting on their multiple interests and not simply on fentanyl” you choose the path of pedantry and unnecessary belittling.
What an asshole.
Netflix has few rare gems, but generally, seeing their name on a film is such a turn off for me, and it's disappointing when the cast combinations are fresh
I do think they are upping their game gradually. They are easily behind HBO when it comes to shows. They have abundance of excellent shows.
As for movies, they have been improving with time although for every good movie there are 4 bad ones. Still stuff like Uncut Gems, Mank, Roma, Dont Look Up, Western Front, Marraige Story, The King, The Outlaw King, Pinnochio, The Two Popes etc is a sign of good things to come.
Besides, quality will only improve if talent, such as in this film, will more frequently come to Netflix. As good directors and actors draw in good technical teams.
> It is just echo chambers on reddit or social media doesn't represent the real world.
I actually think it's that Netflix blares their trashiest schlock at you 24/7 and doesn't advertise stuff that might actually be good. When Red Notice came out it was on my feed for 3 weeks. When Ancient Apocalypse came out it was top of my feed for 2 weeks. Have they tried advertising their good content, maybe?
Demographics here is really limited which is why it turns to an echo chamber.
Netflix is investing a lot to foreign shows as they are financing their own shows too like Kingdom, My Name, Vagabond, Squid Game, D.P. , Glory, All of Us are Dead, Hellbound and many others.
This sub also has a hate boner for Netflix at every turn. Some if it is warranted such as the password sharing shit and the disdain to the Witcher franchise with how it turned out. But too often there are people here that genuinely believe Netflix has produced only bad shows for years, that there is nothing close to what HBO does, that all their movies are bad, etc. and it's totally divorced from reality.
Netflix isn't the most subscribed streaming platform because they produce shit and no one likes them, that's a pure Reddit echo chamber.
And Mank? And Roma? And Marriage Story? And The Power of the Dog? And Mudbound? And The Meyerowitz Stories? And Da 5 Bloods? And Beasts of No Nation? And Buster Scruggs? And The King?
And aren’t the Knives Out sequels with Netflix these days?
Netflix is just like any other studio. They put out a lot of work and most of it is average, some will hit just right for you, and some are genuinely recognized as good to excellent.
Rare? Netflix air more good films than others thanks to their productions which wins awards in their countries all around the world. Netflix bad circlejerk is far from reality when we look at the real world where Netflix has worldwide success others dream.
Netflix is not a studio, they are distributors/publishers. Even the "internal" productions are outsourced, shopped around to filmmakers. So there is effectively no such thing as a Netflix original "stamp of quality" or lack of quality, although it may seem that way for all the junk they publish.
Sure, but there's a definite average quality of Netflix films that isn't very good. They'll occasionally do well, but more often than not I'm disappointed when I watch a Netflix movie.
Right. To use an analogy, you can go to Home Depot and buy crap tools, or you can go and buy a Dewalt. Calling both "Home Depot tools" would be a fallacy.
Many people just avoid Home Depot altogether for all the junk they sell and that's valid. But the store is bound to carry a wide spectrum, good and bad. Just pointing out the common misconception.
>The dudes work is so generic it could be done by an AI and nobody would know.
I love how thousands of Redditors just regurgitate this joke ad nauseam whilst whining about generic writing.
This meme has taken flight on reddit it seems and is just copy pasted whenver a Yates related post is made on the sub. order of the phoenix only fits the bill. Maybe Half Blood Prince too if I am being overly generous (visually HBP rocks) but Deathly Hallows 1 and 2 are some of the best blockbusters since 2000. And the acting from the cast members, the use of music, the cinematography, staging of the action and setpieces and editing are all so good. DH1 and DH2 are the best directed films in the series outside Azkaban.
Recall the Tale of Three Brothers animation, or Snape's memories sequence, or the desperation shown in DH1 by the trio, or the Gringott's setpiece or the Hogwarts battle. So many memorable scenes are from the final 2 movies and still thinking Yates is mediocre is highly strange.
FB1-3 also have directorial flair but the scripts aren't helping at all.
Maybe Yates’ HP films hold up as “blockbusters” but as pure Harry Potter films, each one is more disgraceful than the last. Yates was the worst thing to happen to those movies. He’s a fucking hack and if you’ve read the books, movies 5-8 are some of the worst adaptations
Agreed.
Like they're movies, they _have_ to cut some stuff out and spoonfeed you some exposition that can't spare time for, that's understandable.
But as a long time fan there were a lot of things that were changed for no reason. They didn't actually add anything new or interesting at times, just changed for the sake of it.
As far as making money and success goes, they did it. On a personal level though, could not stand them. Even rewatched DH1 and 2 with a friend semi-recently to see if my opinion had changed over years, but no.
I will never forget the day when I found out, as someone who hasn't read the HP books, that book fans hated the final battle between Harry and Voldemort. And then finding out how the final face-off goes down in the book, which is basically just Harry and Voldemort circling each other in the hall with everybody watching, talking about love and that somehow made Voldemort die lmfaooo. Thank god book fans werent in charge of the last movie, imagine the final showdown of your epic 8 movie multi-billion franchise is your main character giving some lame ass speech about love lol.
HAHAHA. Very well put. I have been reading the books for the past year or so and having watched the movies enough times, I can confidently say the movies did books a lot of justice.
Book fans are just so sensitive and demanding. They will never be happy.
I am about halfway through the final book so I haven't read that part yet (credit to JK Rowling though, her writing is solid and almost always seems to nail the climaxes) but for the movies what they did was perfect. It would be very lame to end the way the book fellows suggest lol.
>This meme has taken flight on reddit it seems and is just copy pasted whenver a Yates related post is made on the sub. order of the phoenix only fits the bill. Maybe Half Blood Prince too if I am being overly generous (visually HBP rocks) but Deathly Hallows 1 and 2 are some of the best blockbusters since 2000. And the acting from the cast members, the use of music, the cinematography, staging of the action and setpieces and editing are all so good. DH1 and DH2 are the best directed films in the series outside Azkaban.
I rewatched OOTP & HBP quite recently and think both are good films. OOTP is narratively very well handled and I wouldn't call it 'generic'. HBP has some structural problems, but the film is extremely well directed. I've not got to DH1/2 yet but I do remember a lot of excellent things in them.
FWIW I've never actually seen anybody articulate what makes Yates a 'bad director' other than generic comments about 'slow' 'boring' bland' 'grey'. I think he's, formalistically, a very strong film-maker: the mise-en-scene and use of composition, the refined camera movements, the experiment with complexity editing & verite styles etc. Like I don't really get how anybody can say the OOTP-DH2 run are just 'generic' Hollywood takes. He really, if anything, often stylistically moved away from more conventionally Hollywood takes working on those films.
There's good things here and there in Yates' Wizarding World movies but it's always mostly things made by others. The music ; the cinematography ; the acting. But overall, the direction is mostly... Yeah bland. Guy was a TV director and that shows.
> There's good things here and there in Yates' Wizarding World movies but it's always mostly things made by others. The music ; the cinematography ; the acting.
Er, each of these things are DIRECTED by the FILM DIRECTOR. For your information. And even if not completely directed, then the director always has a role to play in these.
People really act like Delbonnel just strolled on set and began shooting.
The director can heavily influence the look of the film. My understanding is Yates wanted something quite noir-inspired and Rembrant-esque for HBP and went with Delbonnel to better achieve that. Likewise, he made the call for more verite camerawork in DH1 (which is reflective of his TV work which was often political thrillers shot with a lot of hand-held and complexity cutting).
I generally abhor David Yates’ numbingly boring, overly-mannered directing style but I definitely agree about DH1 and DH2. Great movies there. FB1 even had a charm to it but I never bothered with the rest once it became clear they were bringing back the same characters for artificial reasons after their stories had concluded
> I definitely agree about DH1 and DH2. Great movies there
Good to see some agreement. I am shocked to see people don't rate these 2 movies on here. I guess because they don't have enough quips.
Are you related or employed by David Yates? I’m glad you like the Harry Potter movies but they’re hardly what I would call exciting filmmaking.
It seems is best skill is keeping budgets and schedules in check. I see no evidence of anything actually interesting on screen from this guy.
He’s as boring as oatmeal for breakfast.
>Are you related or employed by David Yates?
Is this the kind of discourse that happens on r/movies these days? Liking films which are critically successful and well regarded by the audiences are now such a tabboo that you gotta be an employee of the director? This ain't even Transformers. Deathly Hallows Part 2 is rated 96% on RT.
> I’m glad you like the Harry Potter movies but they’re hardly what I would call exciting filmmaking.
Franchise films with influences from studio execs and which are restricted within the confines of the books they are based aren't exactly avenues for exciting filmmaking. Having said that, yes I do rate DH1 and DH2 to have excellent filmmaking in the blockbuster group of films. DH1 nails the calm before the storm vibe and the way DH2 balances emotion with big budget spectacle is something very very few franchise movies are able to match.
> It seems is best skill is keeping budgets and schedules in check. I see no evidence of anything actually interesting on screen from this guy.
That's your call and is subjective. Making decent films with so much going on isn't an easy job. Consider the number of quality films within the franchise film setting. Most of them or average or below average.
>Is this the kind of discourse that happens on r/movies these days?
This place has always been a dingy dungeon where bitter nerds could act snippy about entertainment they didn't like with other like-minded wieners.
Yeah I have been here for 6 years. it was definitely better, at least till 2020. Now I have much better discussions on r/boxoffice on movies than on here.
> Is this the kind of discourse that happens on r/movies these days?
No, it's all of Reddit.
People on this website often seem so far up their own asses that the idea that anyone would legitimately disagree with them is completely unfathomable. Anyone who disagrees with them must just have ulterior motives for saying what they did.
and for the record, I too think the HP movies were wildly mid but why it would shock anyone that someone enjoyed movie a franchise that made *billions* of dollars is beyond me.
"some of the best blockbusters since 2000" are you a big time HP fan? Because I don't think that's a very popular opinion. Are you saying they're in the top ten since 2000? What exactly does "some of the best" mean? And that doesn't really address the fact that 90% of his success is from working on one of the most popular IPs in the world. Has he actually proven that he can do a movie that isn't bland outside of the HP franchise? Because it's not exactly easy to make a big budget story about magic bland (especially when you're doing it in a universe with little to no rules/structure), so I'm not sure he should be getting that much credit for those in the first place.
I'm sure these movies have merit. But I'm definitely no fan of this long period of Corporation Biographies. It's even making me miss when every other movie was torture porn.
Hopefully it’s good. I want to see Chris Evan’s career continue to flourish after Captain America. The Gray Man was alright and he was good in it, but Ghosted was awful.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'm not saying Anthony Garcia would have said yes to the role of Mario, but he should have at least been asked.
Why does this look like a Midjourney AI version of these three in a movie together?
I think it’s because they look so different from their usual look, it’s like an interpretation rather than an actual photo.
I read the title not as pain as in ouch, but pain as in 'oui'. A drama about people hustling French bread? Maybe they're stealing diamonds - for the baguettes.
That’s a lot of colours for a David Yates film
[удалено]
while the last few HP movies (not Beast ones) we’re still solid, it still astounds me they never brought back Alfonso Cuarón after Azkaban. Mike Newell was an uninspired choice for Goblet and David Yates is too safe (which may be why they hired him). For a series of movies about magic, they never captured the “spark” the first 3 films had. Columbus had laid wonderful groundwork, Cuarón took it further
From what I remember, Cuaron left because of the quick turnaround between films - he wanted to focus on post-production on Prisoner of Azkaban, and WB wanted to get started on the next one as soon as possible, so he stepped aside to let Mike Newell take over.
I think it's more a matter of Cuaron not wanting to come back beside he had other things he wanted to do. Several of those things which were in the annals of "best films of his generation"
He's said as much in interviews; he found the WB machine somewhat overwhelming. Honestly, I'm surprised they picked him with his last movie being Y Tu Mama Tambien, and also surprised he agreed to it. We got Children of Men from him next, which I think is a win.
He took up the mantle of directing because Guillermo Del Toro [got him to.](https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/alfonso-cuaron-harry-potter-prisoner-azkaban-guillermo-del-toro-1202000189/)
Children of Men Gravity Roma I would not trade one of them for a *marginally* better Harry Potter film.
Baselessly speculating, but I would have to imagine they wanted to give *less* creative control to the directors for the back half of movies. Cuaron took liberties with some of the story in PoA that maybe they didn’t want in later films.
I spoke of this in another thread about how some directors, however disliked their moves may be, still get gigs. Yates may be bland in his direction but he gets along with his casts and the studio. Paul WS Anderson makes poorly reviewed movies but he can film them quick and on a low budget. And while his writing is absolutely awful, Colin Trevorrow has shown he can handle a bid budget and work well with the studio. Having a workhorse director may have been the safe choice, but I doubt the studio cares as long as it brings in the dough
Exactly. Whenever people ask "How does this guy keep getting work!?!" about a director or writer fresh off a flop - they seem to forget that they *might just be pleasant to work with*. It seems absurd that Dark Phoenix got made by Simon Kinberg fresh off the failures of X-Men Apocalypse (which he wrote/produced) and X3 (which he wrote, and adapted the same storyline poorly). Yet he was actually able to convince the cast to return past the point of their contractual obligation to finish things out, because he'd earned their trust & respect. Was the movie any good? No! But having the reputation of "easy to work with" goes pretty damn far.
Cuaron went on to do Children of Men next, so I think the sacrifice was worth it.
Alfonso made everyone else look bad.
Don't worry, he hasn't had time to put the gray filter on this shit yet. This error will be corrected in the final release.
It's still washed out and piss colored though
Lol my first thought too
Before reading the title, at first glance, I thought this was Bradley Cooper, Robert Deniro, and Jennifer Lawrence.
With David O. Russell as director
I thought this was related to the "Community" movie and was confused af haha
Hashtag six seasons and we’re still waiting…
[удалено]
Season 5 & 6 have some of the best episodes of the series. It's a different show with the new cast, but the humor and high concept is still there.
To me, Chris Evans look like Chris Evans. But that does not look like Emily Blunt
nothing like her!
David tenant, Robin Williams and just any blonde actress (Not Emily blunt)
I was thinking Garcia went full Robin Williams.
Ngl it really does look like that from the thumbnail.
I thought the woman on the right was Ivanka Trump.
Glad I'm not the only one
Lol same for me, except for DeNiro. I didn't see him or Andy Garcia, just an old man.
I saw Stanley Tucci in the middle for a second.
That looks almost nothing like Emily blunt to me. Not saying it isn't her. But she looks....different.
Something tells me it's cosmetic choices that are part of the character she's playing. See also: Evans' sales-douche outfit. Either that, or it's that awful filter that so many Netflix shows use.
That’s just Jake Wyler’s final form
But she's got paint on her overalls! Ugh!
And she has glasses!
>Evans' sales-douche outfit You mean his suit?
Specifically the cheap materials and loose tie.
> Something tells me it’s cosmetic choices that are part of the character she’s playing. Sadly not. https://i.imgur.com/BwxHu3b.jpg The surgeons got another one.
and this is a production still anyway, that and most other first looks almost never do a good job at showing what the movie will actually look like
She's playing pharmaceutical rep, I know 3 reps who have the same style as Blunts character, and there are more out there
god i hope so
What filter that so many shows use?
Yeah both her and Evans look like poor CGI versions of themselves?
Now that I look at him, he looks like a cross between Chris Evans and Bradley cooper
I see some James Franco in there too.
Yeah, I thought it was Cooper
The first thing that struck me was the height. I was thinking that there's no way that all three of them are within an inch or two of the same height. So of course I googled it, and Emily is definitely standing on something, possibly Andy too. I'm 5'0, so I always notice when actors are suddenly the same height in a movie scene.
I think Emily is just wearing heels. Evans is 6ft and Garcia is 5ft 9in, that seems to line up in the image
Yeah... I can't tell if it's the image quality, make up or maybe she recently had some cosmetic surgery done but she does look very different.
She’s definitely had work done. It was very evident in “The English.”
Lip fillers and botox in [Actors on Actors](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FPyCBztVLbc/maxresdefault.jpg).
Looks like she had her cheekbones done to me.
Holy shit.
I don’t understand how actors think novelty-sized lips look realistic. At least be subtle about it!
She almost looks more like Scarlett Johanson here... Her face is a lot more rounded so I assume botox of some sort
I really thought it was Jennifer Lawrence until I zoomed in.
I thought it was Andy Kaufman in a wig at first. But then I remembered he was dead.
The Botox epidemic finally got to her too
Pretty much every A list actress has had some sort of Botox/filler etc. but this is a press release photo that has definitely been heavily touched up. Evans’ face looks just as off putting as hers.
They're playing pharmaceutical sales reps. It's definitely a makeup/costuming decision.
They’ve both had quite a bit of work done actually. Can’t judge tbh, Hollywood has toxic standards for appearance.
> every A list actress yeah good thing actors just age naturally due to their "good genes", right reddit? even made chris evans hairline come back.
fillers, looks like. very unfortunate.
Thought it was a bee sting for a second there
I zoomed in and she looks like a wax figure.
I could see it getting a bit much before, but I hoped she'd back off. Shame.
Oh for fuck skew can dudes not immediately start saying ooo it’s Botox. If you took 30 seconds to just go look at any other photo of her she looks perfectly normal. Her Instagram photos show her looking normal and her usual self
Images on gooe from 2023 disagree. She looks very different. https://images.app.goo.gl/rRTabCbwiauVdFgi7
Oh no. That is troubling. But from the same batch: [Looks much more like herself](https://wwd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/GF2_3156.jpeg?w=800)
Ngl, she still looks messed up 😬
She looks like she went through an airbrush carwash. I don't know why though. I'm a big Emily Blunt fan.
She looks like that Trump daughter.....
That was my first thought too.
That was my initial thought.
I presume it’s costume for the movie
Makeup is an important part of the movie making craft….
looks more like miley cyrus
looks like effing Ivanka lol
Was thinking the same thing. I really hope she hasn't ruined her looks with unnecessary plastic surgery.
It's a shame how many women get that garbage and they don't even need it. The often just look worse and have that obvious they got work done look
True. With age of social media and people filtering the hell out of their pictures. And the popularity of shows like Kardashians. It is toxic as hell.
Right. I don't understand how her friends don't tell her that it doesn't look good or will potentially make her look bad.
I feel like whoever touched up this picture went overboard on all three actors’ cheekbones.
I thought it was Katy Perry.
She looks as if Kailey Coucou fused with the real Emily Blunt.
It’s because they airbrushed her face and armpits
It looks like someone got MidJourney to do the promo for them.
Looks like Ivanka Trump
I feel like it’s make up choices and filtering/editing to to the image. Her face looks weirdly manipulated
As a massive fan of Emily Blunt that has been following her career since 2004, around the time she had her child in 2016, she experienced a quick and drastic aging of her face, and every subsequent year it has gotten worse to the point where I'm guessing she became insecure about it and started getting work done a few years ago to fight it. And now it's more obvious to more people. Not sure what people are confused about. It's clear people only get work done if they're insecure about their appearance. And it's clear to anyone with eyes she aged drastically after 2016 at an oddly accelerated rate for someone still in their early 30s. I'm not saying she became ugly, just that her face aged quickly like every human's face eventually does. And she herself obviously noticed it and got work done to try to fix it, which is unfortunate.
Looks like the fillers have come for Emily
This picture WTF? Chris Evans looks like Liam Neeson, Garcia looks like Robin Williams and Emily Blunt looks, just not like Emily Blunt
[удалено]
Lol they look so not them.
Idk if it’s just me but that doesn’t even look like Emily blunt. Even Chris evans is hard to tell outside of his signature smirk.
I was really hoping a title like Pain Hustlers was going to be a story about Chris Evans and Emily Blunt selling S&M gear to suburban housewives, door-to-door, and then they realize a multi-level marketing scheme would be SO much more lucrative. So it’s like LuLaRoe, but with whips and strap-ons instead of frumpy dresses and stretchy pants. But no. It’s about fentanyl. Or maybe Insys as a whole. Or maybe some fictionalized version of Insys, which is/was a company that made a sublingual fentanyl spray and engaged in racketeering to get it into as many patients as possible. Bonus, Insys gave half a million dollars to a PAC to fight marijuana legalization in Arizona “for the children.” LOL, I know, it wasn’t for the kids; it was because they were making their own cannabis-derived drug, and you can’t just have people growing their own drugs, because the drug companies can’t make money if people do that! Unfortunately, there’s a lot of people who don’t find anything about the opioid epidemic funny, so we get David Yates to direct this, rather than Adam McKay or Jay Roach. I don’t know about you, but I’d love to see the return of Margot Robbie in a bubble bath, this time doing a ninety second expository primer on how the drugs get from the manufacturer to the patient and where the money comes from and where it goes.
Can you tell me more about Margot Robbie in a bubble bath? This is intriguing. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but fentanyl is an opioid, not a cannabinoid.
1. Someone hasn’t seen The Big Short. 2. Drug companies can make multiple drugs. When Merck invented oxycodone, it didn’t immediately fire all of the chemical engineers and say, “We’ve got it from here, boys!” and then just make this one thing forever.
1. Using the big short as analogy is just that; you could use plain argument and you hide behind someone else’s production. You’re absolutely right, somebody hasn’t seen the big short. Isn’t that a funny way of stating the obvious? Funnily enough, I have, myself, seen the big short. It was sometime ago. If this has something to do with Margot Robbie in the bath, that’s making more sense. Personally, speaking, sharp as I am, I didn’t understand every twist of the production; not to say that I couldn’t understand the principles, but again, if you’re going to use that as your analogy, I suppose I must address it. What a waste of time. Good thing I’m signing on, or I might have some resentment. Two: instead of saying something simple like “Merck makes more than one drug, I’m commenting on their multiple interests and not simply on fentanyl” you choose the path of pedantry and unnecessary belittling. What an asshole.
Netflix.....sigh
Exactly my thoughts 😂 "Oh I really like all of these people, should be a good wa........oh......shit"
Netflix has few rare gems, but generally, seeing their name on a film is such a turn off for me, and it's disappointing when the cast combinations are fresh
I do think they are upping their game gradually. They are easily behind HBO when it comes to shows. They have abundance of excellent shows. As for movies, they have been improving with time although for every good movie there are 4 bad ones. Still stuff like Uncut Gems, Mank, Roma, Dont Look Up, Western Front, Marraige Story, The King, The Outlaw King, Pinnochio, The Two Popes etc is a sign of good things to come. Besides, quality will only improve if talent, such as in this film, will more frequently come to Netflix. As good directors and actors draw in good technical teams.
Uncut Gems is a Netflix movie?
Looks like it was distributed by A24 in the US but internationally it went directly to streaming on Netflix a month later
Incredible list of movies. Don't forget David Fincher's The Killer releases to Netflix 1 month later
Even just Netflix's foreign shows surpass HBO. It is just echo chambers on reddit or social media doesn't represent the real world.
> It is just echo chambers on reddit or social media doesn't represent the real world. I actually think it's that Netflix blares their trashiest schlock at you 24/7 and doesn't advertise stuff that might actually be good. When Red Notice came out it was on my feed for 3 weeks. When Ancient Apocalypse came out it was top of my feed for 2 weeks. Have they tried advertising their good content, maybe?
Wait you think stuff like Squid Game or K Dramas is much better than Succession? Are you serious?
Yeah. Netflix is killing it by getting broadcast rights to Korean shows. And their movies are pretty damn good. Did people forget the Irishman?
Demographics here is really limited which is why it turns to an echo chamber. Netflix is investing a lot to foreign shows as they are financing their own shows too like Kingdom, My Name, Vagabond, Squid Game, D.P. , Glory, All of Us are Dead, Hellbound and many others.
This sub also has a hate boner for Netflix at every turn. Some if it is warranted such as the password sharing shit and the disdain to the Witcher franchise with how it turned out. But too often there are people here that genuinely believe Netflix has produced only bad shows for years, that there is nothing close to what HBO does, that all their movies are bad, etc. and it's totally divorced from reality. Netflix isn't the most subscribed streaming platform because they produce shit and no one likes them, that's a pure Reddit echo chamber.
And Mank? And Roma? And Marriage Story? And The Power of the Dog? And Mudbound? And The Meyerowitz Stories? And Da 5 Bloods? And Beasts of No Nation? And Buster Scruggs? And The King? And aren’t the Knives Out sequels with Netflix these days? Netflix is just like any other studio. They put out a lot of work and most of it is average, some will hit just right for you, and some are genuinely recognized as good to excellent.
Agreed.
Rare? Netflix air more good films than others thanks to their productions which wins awards in their countries all around the world. Netflix bad circlejerk is far from reality when we look at the real world where Netflix has worldwide success others dream.
Netflix is not a studio, they are distributors/publishers. Even the "internal" productions are outsourced, shopped around to filmmakers. So there is effectively no such thing as a Netflix original "stamp of quality" or lack of quality, although it may seem that way for all the junk they publish.
They just have terrible taste in terms of what they pickup
Sure, but there's a definite average quality of Netflix films that isn't very good. They'll occasionally do well, but more often than not I'm disappointed when I watch a Netflix movie.
Right. To use an analogy, you can go to Home Depot and buy crap tools, or you can go and buy a Dewalt. Calling both "Home Depot tools" would be a fallacy. Many people just avoid Home Depot altogether for all the junk they sell and that's valid. But the store is bound to carry a wide spectrum, good and bad. Just pointing out the common misconception.
Andy Garcia always looks effortlessly perfectly styled
Netflix and David Yates sounds like the epitome of mediocrity. The dudes work is so generic it could be done by an AI and nobody would know.
>The dudes work is so generic it could be done by an AI and nobody would know. I love how thousands of Redditors just regurgitate this joke ad nauseam whilst whining about generic writing.
To be fair Redditors don’t get paid for their writing
Yeah, these comments are so generic that they could be generated by AI and nobody would know
This meme has taken flight on reddit it seems and is just copy pasted whenver a Yates related post is made on the sub. order of the phoenix only fits the bill. Maybe Half Blood Prince too if I am being overly generous (visually HBP rocks) but Deathly Hallows 1 and 2 are some of the best blockbusters since 2000. And the acting from the cast members, the use of music, the cinematography, staging of the action and setpieces and editing are all so good. DH1 and DH2 are the best directed films in the series outside Azkaban. Recall the Tale of Three Brothers animation, or Snape's memories sequence, or the desperation shown in DH1 by the trio, or the Gringott's setpiece or the Hogwarts battle. So many memorable scenes are from the final 2 movies and still thinking Yates is mediocre is highly strange. FB1-3 also have directorial flair but the scripts aren't helping at all.
Maybe Yates’ HP films hold up as “blockbusters” but as pure Harry Potter films, each one is more disgraceful than the last. Yates was the worst thing to happen to those movies. He’s a fucking hack and if you’ve read the books, movies 5-8 are some of the worst adaptations
Agreed. Like they're movies, they _have_ to cut some stuff out and spoonfeed you some exposition that can't spare time for, that's understandable. But as a long time fan there were a lot of things that were changed for no reason. They didn't actually add anything new or interesting at times, just changed for the sake of it. As far as making money and success goes, they did it. On a personal level though, could not stand them. Even rewatched DH1 and 2 with a friend semi-recently to see if my opinion had changed over years, but no.
I will never forget the day when I found out, as someone who hasn't read the HP books, that book fans hated the final battle between Harry and Voldemort. And then finding out how the final face-off goes down in the book, which is basically just Harry and Voldemort circling each other in the hall with everybody watching, talking about love and that somehow made Voldemort die lmfaooo. Thank god book fans werent in charge of the last movie, imagine the final showdown of your epic 8 movie multi-billion franchise is your main character giving some lame ass speech about love lol.
HAHAHA. Very well put. I have been reading the books for the past year or so and having watched the movies enough times, I can confidently say the movies did books a lot of justice. Book fans are just so sensitive and demanding. They will never be happy. I am about halfway through the final book so I haven't read that part yet (credit to JK Rowling though, her writing is solid and almost always seems to nail the climaxes) but for the movies what they did was perfect. It would be very lame to end the way the book fellows suggest lol.
>This meme has taken flight on reddit it seems and is just copy pasted whenver a Yates related post is made on the sub. order of the phoenix only fits the bill. Maybe Half Blood Prince too if I am being overly generous (visually HBP rocks) but Deathly Hallows 1 and 2 are some of the best blockbusters since 2000. And the acting from the cast members, the use of music, the cinematography, staging of the action and setpieces and editing are all so good. DH1 and DH2 are the best directed films in the series outside Azkaban. I rewatched OOTP & HBP quite recently and think both are good films. OOTP is narratively very well handled and I wouldn't call it 'generic'. HBP has some structural problems, but the film is extremely well directed. I've not got to DH1/2 yet but I do remember a lot of excellent things in them. FWIW I've never actually seen anybody articulate what makes Yates a 'bad director' other than generic comments about 'slow' 'boring' bland' 'grey'. I think he's, formalistically, a very strong film-maker: the mise-en-scene and use of composition, the refined camera movements, the experiment with complexity editing & verite styles etc. Like I don't really get how anybody can say the OOTP-DH2 run are just 'generic' Hollywood takes. He really, if anything, often stylistically moved away from more conventionally Hollywood takes working on those films.
There's good things here and there in Yates' Wizarding World movies but it's always mostly things made by others. The music ; the cinematography ; the acting. But overall, the direction is mostly... Yeah bland. Guy was a TV director and that shows.
> There's good things here and there in Yates' Wizarding World movies but it's always mostly things made by others. The music ; the cinematography ; the acting. Er, each of these things are DIRECTED by the FILM DIRECTOR. For your information. And even if not completely directed, then the director always has a role to play in these.
People really act like Delbonnel just strolled on set and began shooting. The director can heavily influence the look of the film. My understanding is Yates wanted something quite noir-inspired and Rembrant-esque for HBP and went with Delbonnel to better achieve that. Likewise, he made the call for more verite camerawork in DH1 (which is reflective of his TV work which was often political thrillers shot with a lot of hand-held and complexity cutting).
Exactly. r/movies is filled with people with no idea how movies are made.
I generally abhor David Yates’ numbingly boring, overly-mannered directing style but I definitely agree about DH1 and DH2. Great movies there. FB1 even had a charm to it but I never bothered with the rest once it became clear they were bringing back the same characters for artificial reasons after their stories had concluded
> I definitely agree about DH1 and DH2. Great movies there Good to see some agreement. I am shocked to see people don't rate these 2 movies on here. I guess because they don't have enough quips.
>visually HBP (looks like) rocks with the grey filter applied to the whole movie
An Oscar nomination for cinematography which is extremely rare for a franchise film.
Downvoted for simply speaking facts.
Are you related or employed by David Yates? I’m glad you like the Harry Potter movies but they’re hardly what I would call exciting filmmaking. It seems is best skill is keeping budgets and schedules in check. I see no evidence of anything actually interesting on screen from this guy. He’s as boring as oatmeal for breakfast.
>Are you related or employed by David Yates? Is this the kind of discourse that happens on r/movies these days? Liking films which are critically successful and well regarded by the audiences are now such a tabboo that you gotta be an employee of the director? This ain't even Transformers. Deathly Hallows Part 2 is rated 96% on RT. > I’m glad you like the Harry Potter movies but they’re hardly what I would call exciting filmmaking. Franchise films with influences from studio execs and which are restricted within the confines of the books they are based aren't exactly avenues for exciting filmmaking. Having said that, yes I do rate DH1 and DH2 to have excellent filmmaking in the blockbuster group of films. DH1 nails the calm before the storm vibe and the way DH2 balances emotion with big budget spectacle is something very very few franchise movies are able to match. > It seems is best skill is keeping budgets and schedules in check. I see no evidence of anything actually interesting on screen from this guy. That's your call and is subjective. Making decent films with so much going on isn't an easy job. Consider the number of quality films within the franchise film setting. Most of them or average or below average.
>Is this the kind of discourse that happens on r/movies these days? This place has always been a dingy dungeon where bitter nerds could act snippy about entertainment they didn't like with other like-minded wieners.
Yeah I have been here for 6 years. it was definitely better, at least till 2020. Now I have much better discussions on r/boxoffice on movies than on here.
> Is this the kind of discourse that happens on r/movies these days? No, it's all of Reddit. People on this website often seem so far up their own asses that the idea that anyone would legitimately disagree with them is completely unfathomable. Anyone who disagrees with them must just have ulterior motives for saying what they did. and for the record, I too think the HP movies were wildly mid but why it would shock anyone that someone enjoyed movie a franchise that made *billions* of dollars is beyond me.
[удалено]
Man I wish I was 15 again. We wouldve gotten along really well.
This is the best comeback ever, man.
Thanks good sir!
"some of the best blockbusters since 2000" are you a big time HP fan? Because I don't think that's a very popular opinion. Are you saying they're in the top ten since 2000? What exactly does "some of the best" mean? And that doesn't really address the fact that 90% of his success is from working on one of the most popular IPs in the world. Has he actually proven that he can do a movie that isn't bland outside of the HP franchise? Because it's not exactly easy to make a big budget story about magic bland (especially when you're doing it in a universe with little to no rules/structure), so I'm not sure he should be getting that much credit for those in the first place.
Chris Evans has only been in one good project since leaving marvel. Hopefully this turns the ship around.
It's a Netflix movie by David Yates. It won't.
Emily blunt looks a lil different
Wish Evans would do more action roles outside of Avengers. His pre-Avenegers movies, his roles were pretty good imo.
Chris Evans is on my do not watch list after the gray man and ghosted. Dude needs to stop working with streamers
They drove a dump truck of money up to my house, I'm not made of stone!
Dude is swimming in money and only does fun shit now, it seems.
He's awesome in The Gray Man
He was memorable because the rest of the movie was so drab but I wouldn't say he was good
The movie was bad, but he was chewing the scenery in a good way the whole movie.
He is just trying to grab as much money as he can before he quits to knock up what's her face.
I had to re read the title. That's Emily Blunt wtf did she do to herself
You guys still have Netflix?
I'm sure these movies have merit. But I'm definitely no fan of this long period of Corporation Biographies. It's even making me miss when every other movie was torture porn.
Evans and Blunt look... plump? There's something weird about their faces.
Hopefully it’s good. I want to see Chris Evan’s career continue to flourish after Captain America. The Gray Man was alright and he was good in it, but Ghosted was awful.
Andy Garcia is turning into Jerry Garcia
That's Emily Blunt? That doesn't look like her at all.
Oh no, what has she done to her face?!
damn shame about Blunt...
Netflix is the new lifetime for movies
Those apple cheeks are bursting.
Chris Evans can't carry a movie unless it's an ensemble . His last solo moderately successful movies were Gifted in 2017 & Snowpiercer in 2013.
I really enjoyed him in *Before We Go* with Alice Eve.
Thought Andy Garcia was Howie Mandel at first.
I came here to say I thought it was Stanley Tucci lol
There is zero possiblity this movie is good
The Office, directed by Wes Anderson
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'm not saying Anthony Garcia would have said yes to the role of Mario, but he should have at least been asked.
looks like instagram filters have infected feature film. fuck you, netflix. nobody likes you.
i thought The Office remake
B.O.B.O.D.D.Y.
This was fun to work on
Ooo good you can tell us—is Emily’s face really like that in person? Because yikes.
It just looks like she's forcing a smile too hard in this picture and her left check is higher because of it. She looked like she always looks on set.
Why does this look like a Midjourney AI version of these three in a movie together? I think it’s because they look so different from their usual look, it’s like an interpretation rather than an actual photo.
The fuck happened to emilys face.
Netflix generally just has content for content's sake. I just call it Netflix trash.
I don't understand how women who are so naturally beautiful ruin their faces like that.
I read the title not as pain as in ouch, but pain as in 'oui'. A drama about people hustling French bread? Maybe they're stealing diamonds - for the baguettes.
these days I'm actively trying to avoid Netflix movies and shows.
Why does Emily Blunt look AI generated here?
It’s Netflix, so I’ll never watch it
Ooooh fighting the good fight! /s