As the prequel is about to come out i was thinking about watching the other two . I have heard there are flaws in their logic/plot and those kind of things instantly puts me off . Are people being very picky or are the flaws actually noticeble ? And how are the other aspects ? Like charcters , plot , story , setting .etc ?
I’m easily put off by obvious technical flaws in scifi movies, and I didn’t notice any in either film.
The world building is fantastic. The third act reveal, in the first film, is esoteric, but I think that fits well with the need for it to be something not too easily discovered.
I’m sure there’s things that could be science flaws, but anything I noticed was well within my “I don’t know everything about this world” allowance.
The only “flaw” I remember turned out to be a very well considered detail, in the second film. When I first saw it, I thought it was an error, but about a minute later it was clear that it was not an error:
spoiler for the 4th act of the second film
One jarring issue that completely disrupted my viewing experience was when there’s a mowed lawn late in the second film. I was angry at the oversight, because no way is anyone mowing lawns in this world. But it was actually an establishing shot - showing that the discovered “safe haven” is believed to be so safe that people even mow their lawns.
scytale@lemm.ee 10 months ago
The first one was good. There are definitely some plot holes, but it’s an entertaining movie. The second one I think you can do without, but I guess if you want more information in preparation for the prequel and you have extra time, you can give it a watch; but I wouldn’t say it’s necessary.