Review of Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017) by Sean H — 22 Jul 2017

Read several reviews before going. Don't be tricked by the bad reviews. Notice how they don't give any concrete examples for why it is bad. They say the plot starts good then gets bad fast.

In truth, the story starts with a space station expansion, then shows a planet being destroyed, then main characters collecting a special animal, then them being assigned something else, and so on. This is not a bad plot.

The critics say the dialogue is bad. They say the romantic lines are bad. Is, "Will you marry me" a bad line? Sure it's a stock phrase, but if he said will you date me? instead, then it would sound awkward. Other critics say the dialogue is awkward. So which one is it? Most of the dialogue was not overly romantic stuff. It was a lot better than watching the Avengers sit around and discuss things. All the dialogue was part of some action. To me, this was good dialogue.

The critics lambasted Rhianna. I don't really listen to post 2000 R&B, but she didn't do anything wrong. Her dancing was good, her delivery of lines was fine for a non-actress singer (Mad Max had one who did similarly well, but without the dancing).

The CGI was good. It's better to have a real set, but for what they were doing, it actually worked. (Like the virtual overlay scene).

The music was fine, but there is some concern with having David Bowie singing in the intro because in 30 years we may not be listening to it. Yes, the pop music may not stand the test of time, but it still works as a 5 star movie today.

The male character was in fact like some people described. A cocky jerk. But the girl was cocky back, and it was a cool thing between them. Maybe some people watching don't relate to that stuff. Some people even went so far as to say Valerian could be cocky if he were played by someone bigger sized. To me, that statement is just as bad as other profiling. However, it was interesting how one of the alien species males sounded like women, but it was interesting rather than bothersome.

The acting was great. Rhianna did her best as a singer/actress, but everyone else was top notch A plus. You could really see yourself in their shoes. I would often forget I was in the movie theater until someone laughed at some comic relief.

The dialogue did not seem translated. I don't know where some critics got this idea. It seemed like it came from some no name critic where English wasn't his first language, then other critics copied him. Does "will you marry me?" sound translated. Of course not.

On that note, I've noticed that a lot of the critics are actually rewriting what others are saying in their own words. They may not have had enough of their own ideas, and needed some filler. It surprises me that critics would do this because being a film critic is cool. A lot of people must be competing for this job. Yet, it seems like they treat it like homework in a class they don't quite understand. This movie being the case in point. Ebert actually gave a good review. He's also someone who can think for himself.

The film did not seem to have any of the problems described in other reviews. If the critics could give concrete reasons why the movie is bad, then at least I could say it was a difference of opinion. (By concrete, I mean the specific person, place, thing, words, or action) Or I might agree with them.

There is no "Your mom's name is Martha too Batman, oh lets go save the world" like in Batman v Superman. Everything flows nicely from beginning to end. Maybe it's not your type of movie, but it doesn't mean it's bad. These film critics should work on being more honest by actually taking notes on specific reasons the movie is bad instead of, "It started out great and went downhill from there" to paraphrase several oddly similar reviews. without ever stating exactly why in concrete descriptions.