'Valerian', new Luc Besson Sci-Fi movie, July '17.

Then you have reviews like:
"An expansive, expensive adventure whose creativity outweighs its more uneven elements."
"Luc Besson has achieved visual perfection that has far surpassed what Marvel and Disney have achieved over the past decade."
...and "Like The Fifth Element, this will grow on people with time ... meant more for discerning moviegoers with strange taste and sensibilities." which kinda contradicts that Hollywood Reporter review...

 

The comic books were really good, maybe too European for some? I guess rehashed superheroes that 'start over' again after a every two or three sequels is the order of the day?

 

Well, that's like saying, "wow, it looks really cool but makes no F'in' sense." There's too much of that in the world as it is.

 

It sounds just like "the fifth element" to me. That film was gorgeous eye candy but at the same time a silly mess. As I said earlier in the thread the director doesn't exactly have a finally tuned sense of delicacy when it comes to fantasy and comedy. I always get this vibe from the films of foreign directors who try to do comedy that they have no idea their actors are going way over the top into camp and simply bad acting because they don't have the ear for the English language that is needed to capture the nuance of comedy. Classic example is Bruce Willis's mother on the phone in "the fifth element" - an absolutely horrible over the top New York Jewish stereotypes mother, so awfully performed that any native English-speaking director would recognize it as a lousy performance .

 

Well, they use the word "creativity", which to me means more than just "visuals". And "uneven elements" could be a lot of things, not just the plot. But maybe I don't get what an American journalist would typically imply by that, very possible...

Perhaps it makes no sense (wouldn't surprise me) but I haven't seen it yet so I can't comment personally.

 

Looks pretty campy. My girl was laughing at the trailer, but then again she loathes The Fifth Element. These kinds of movies can be extremely polarizing to general mainstream audiences (such as Jupiter Ascending).

 

I really hated Fifth Element and Jupiter Ascending, but that's me.

 

Yes. If the eye candy adds to a good story, good ideas, good concepts and so on then great. When the eye candy is used in an attempt to gloss over crapola I am out.

 

I know that this may bomb big time (see thread movie hits and misses of 2017), but apparently some critics are wooed by it, with a 69% RT score (27/12) so far: Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

Perhaps it is so bad its kind of "good" or "ok"?

 

the trailer at the theater had impressive eye candy that's for sure

I love Besson's films, they are fun

 

Just saw the trailer. It looked like a lot of unconvincing CGI, although I find most Sci-Fi and action movies these days have unimpressive CGI.

 

Hope to see it on the big screen.

 

It's a bid sad that "Valerian"
- which - the original 70's comics - is older than Star Wars (and, as discussed here or there, might have had some influence on the first trilogy's imagery - pinch of salt here) is presented worldwide 40 years too late, and now might be unfairly regarded as the proverbial foreign by-product
- is being handled by Luc Besson, who's at his best only when he gets rid of dialogs and plot (The Big Blue...). He's more than competent technically, but has stayed kindergarten-level for everything else. No improvement in 35 years

Regarding The Fifth Element, Jean-Claude Mézières worked on it, so there already was a Valerian feel indeed.

 

The Fifth Element drew pretty heavily on some Moebius comics written by Dan O'Bannon if I'm remembering correctly (The Long Goodbye?). It seems people are fine with redoing the same handful of superhero comics stories with nothing much important added to them. It's too bad if the ones based on more mature European comics turn out badly. I know they did Judge Dredd twice, once with Stallone was one time too many but the second one based on the Judge Anderson comic storyline with the locked-in tower block was decent enough. The Valerian comics were among the best that I remember, but look at how they wasted Phoenix in the third X-Men movie with no visuals to her hardly. I still think they cast the lead for Valerian too young though in a few years he'd be spot on I'm sure. Really wanted this to be at least as big a success as Guardians Of The Galaxy.

Anyway I probably won't see this until after it's left theaters, maybe some good extras could tempt me to buy the DVD like for Pacific Rim.

 

I've always thought it a pity that Neill Blomkamp didn't use his well-earned cache after the terrific District 9 to make a new Judge Dredd adaptation, he was born to make such a film; socio-political satire, hardware tech, shot in South Africa - where the 2012 version was filmed - and was/is a self-confessed HUGE fan of both Dredd and the 2000 A.D. comic his whole life... he would have killed it and gotten a pretty substantial budget into the bargain.

The 1995 Stallone version had the budget but not the right creative direction... the 2012 version had the right creative direction (for the most part, it badly needed that satirical edge from the comics) but not the budget to do that world justice onscreen... maybe they'll find the right balance some day.

 

I thought the 2012 was a great film, easily appreciated by those who weren't die-hard Dredd comic readers. I understand that it didn't exactly follow the tone of the comics, but that doesn't diminish its accomplishments in a broader sense.

John K.

 

Seeing this today. I wanted to see Dunkirk first, but it'll have to wait until later since I got outruled. One other person wanted to see Dunkirk first too, but two others wanted to see Valerian first and one of them doesn't want to see Dunkirk, period (they hate war films.)

So, I will report back later today. I imagine the report will mostly be about the visual eye candy, but hopefully there is a good story to go along with it.

Edit:

Have to see it in 3D because my cinema is only showing a normal screening three times per day (once early in the morning, once late afternoon and once in the evening) and all the rest of the screenings are 3D screenings. Can't make any of the normal screenings.

 

trailer looks really bad to me

 

Just got back.

I don't even know where to begin with this. It's a terrible movie and was a big waste of money. Sure, there is nice eye candy, starting with the opening scene through maybe the first 20 minutes. The 3D effects were okay, at first. But as the movie progressed, the eye candy was gone and became just a random CGI-fest thrown at you for just the sake of it. Also, the 3D effects that were in the first 20 minutes or so disappeared almost completely, with maybe a few quick flashes of 3D effects throughout the remainder of the movie. Also, whatever effects were shown on the screen were being distracted by the blurriness of the background during the said effects. As for the story, not much of one. Totally boring with really no meaningful, creative plot we haven't seen before in many other sci-fi movies. This is no Avatar (Avatar's visuals blows this one out of the water.) The same can be said about The Fifth Element, which was made 20 years ago, and is a much, much more superior film from Besson. Didn't care about what happened to any of the characters, either. I have no idea who the targeted audience was, but it sure wasn't me, who likes most sci-fi movies. Maybe some teenage boys might like it, but that is just a guess on my part.

As for the actors, the main lead actor was terrible. He kind of reminded me of a terrible young Keanu Reeves impersonator. It was almost like he was trying to emulate him with the same mannerisms and speaking voice (maybe he is a graduate of the Keanu Reeves school of acting?) The main actress, model Clara Delevingne, was decent enough and showed some decent acting ability. Clive Owen had a small role in this movie (I did not know that beforehand,) and it must've been an easy paycheck for him. He didn't bring much to the table. There were also small roles by Ethan Hawke, Herbie Hancock and Rihanna (didn't know about Ethan's and Herbie's roles, but knew about Rihanna's) and a surprise cameo from Rutger Hauer, which was unnecessary. Surprisingly, Rihanna's small role was probably the best thing in the movie and involved one of the best moments of CGI usage. Also, John Goodman does a voiceover for a CGI-alien in a small role, which I didn't know about either.

The other 3 people who saw this with me also hated it (3 of us are big sci-fi fans.) Even the person who was with me who hates war movies and didn't want to see Dunkirk said afterwards she would've rather to have sat through that movie that this piece of crap.

How do I compare this movie amongst other recent Sci-fi movies? Near the bottom. If you remember Jupiter Ascending, which I ripped a new one after seeing that a few years ago, Valerian made Jupiter Ascending almost Oscar-worthy in comparison. I recommend staying away from this one. If you want to see it badly enough, just wait for a free viewing when it comes to cable.

Apparently this movie, so far, has been getting mixed reviews, with some decent reviews mixed in with bad reviews. But I suspect as people start seeing this, its review ratings will plummet with many bad reviews (critics and audience) outweighing the decent reviews.

 

Worse

 

I hated The Fifth Element when it opened in 1996 when I was 22, now being 43 I just dislike it, I'm not so passionate anymore. Jupiter Ascending is just plain dumb.
Having looked the trailer for Valerian, I'm not going to the cinema to watch it, maybe I'll borrow it from a friend who will surely buy it.
I received the Léon The Professional UHD BD a couple of days ago, watched it today and when it finished first think I thought was "what a masterpiece, and Luc Besson is able to make films like this and not the crap he has been doing for the last 20 years".

 

No question, Besson is a visionary filmmaker and makes very distinctive, unique films. La Femme Nikita and Lucy were very good films, and they worked very well commercially and I also enjoyed watching them.

 

I agree with you, Lucy is a very good movie which I also have on UHD BD and its photography is great, it's very well shot. I don't know in the US but in Spain was very misunderstood and people didn't like it, I think it's a good story, well told and with the right timming.

 

Maybe they didn't like Lucy because the premise of the story was total crap? Sounds like Velarian is the same - a polished coprolite!

 

You may be right that Spanish didn't like Lucy because the story was total crap but (I know, I should not say that here) Spanish like crap, why they would vote for their politicians starting with our current Presdident, id they didn't like crap? And I'm Spanish,but I don't like crap, either by leftists or conservatives or film maker to fake good movies.