Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)

[Hellhound]

Originally Posted by renegadeviking

Why are IMDB reviews giving this movie good scores and this board dislikes it a lot? Is it because this board is more in line with Rotton Tomatoes 51% rating?

Star Wars prequels were better rated.

I saw it and thought it was much better than the Rotten Tomatoes score makes it seem like it is. Also, don't forget that a 51% score means that more than half of all critics gave it a generally favorable review. It's not nearly as good as The Fifth Element, and certainly has some issues, but I was generally entertained by it.

[Karmasux96]

Honestly I think RT, IMDB, and here are all pretty aligned. If my math is right, based on the poll we're averaging a 3.3 star rating which isn't far from IMDB's 6.7. RT is more unaligned at 51%, but this is a love it or hate it movie so that completely makes sense (even though I get the sense that most of the middling scores here would end up a thumbs up if push came to shove).

[Britnasty]

3.5/5, rounded up for the poll.

This is visually stunning and the 3D was probably the best I've ever seen.

Too bad the story becomes a little blech when the love bits of Laureline and Valerian grind the story to a halt. It's fine early on but it's almost every scene together the task at hand gets thrown to the wayside for his incessant need to prove himself a worthy man to be her husband.

Overall really enjoyed it and it'll be a stunner on UHD but they could've edited some of those lovey scenes down.

[Rodney-2187]

I went to go see it again in 3D this time, but I noticed it didn't look 3D. Since I'd already seen it once, I went out and asked about it. Long story short, by the time they agreed there was a problem and fixed it, the movie was almost over. They gave everyone in the theater a free pass but it was still irritating. Maybe I'll try again next week if it's still in theaters.

[Chaotic]

The 3D was pretty much non existent in my theater. Didn't help that the screen was tiny.

[Zivouhr]

I love strong 3D films, but Valerian, while it does have great visuals and some strong 3D shots during the action scenes, has too many mild 3D layers mixed in, with some medium 3D shots which fare better. Not many pop outs either.

It's still worth a look in 3D, but Guardians of the Galaxy 2's 3D is still the theatrical 3D film to beat in 2017, with mostly strong 3D, pop outs and some medium 3D layers.

[terp_fan99]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

Most theaters here are dropping this to 1 showtime per day this weekend. Yeesh.

I was checking the showtimes for my theater this weekend and this is already gone. Guess I'll wait to rent it.

[dallywhitty]

Watched this earlier and thoroughly enjoyed it. It helps that I like DeHaan and Delevingne already (mainly for their deliciously hammy turns as villains in Marvel and DC productions respectively), so I was excited to see a film which paired the two. The visuals were terrific and I think Besson did a great job in terms of world-building, whereas a lesser director would've swamped the audience in exposition at every opportunity.

Rihanna was surprisingly good, too! It amused me that we got a semi-strip routine in a 12a film. I bet the parents in the audience were squirming.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Watched this earlier and thoroughly enjoyed it. It helps that I like DeHaan and Delevingne already (mainly for their deliciously hammy turns as villains in Marvel and DC productions respectively), so I was excited to see a film which paired the two. The visuals were terrific and I think Besson did a great job in terms of world-building, whereas a lesser director would've swamped the audience in exposition at every opportunity.

Rihanna was surprisingly good, too! It amused me that we got a semi-strip routine in a 12a film. I bet the parents in the audience were squirming.

Ah, I'm glad to see some of that Euro sauciness is still alive and well in Valerian, one of the things I love about Fifth Elephant is how naughty it is at times.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ah, I'm glad to see some of that Euro sauciness is still alive and well in Valerian, one of the things I love about Fifth Elephant is how naughty it is at times.

Aye, it had some naughty junk in its trunk.

[yellowjacket1]

3/10

Oy. This movie plays like an artist that ate 25 tubes of acrylic paint and then threw it up all over a canvas. Either that or else allowed the colors to travel the whole way and pointed their butt at a canvas. What hits the screen is a runny and often nonsensical colorfart mess. From the creator of The Fifth Element, I expected so much more. There’s no real plot and no chemistry at all between the children they cast in the lead roles. Why not cast actual adults? It’s like they shot certain scenes based on how fantastical they could create CGI and then tried to piece an actual movie out of the results. The sad part is that some of the CGI looked terrible.

[P-Rock]

I watched it yesterday. My facebook review:

Valerian, by Luc Besson, is an entertaining sci-fi fantasy with plenty of eye candy, action and high speed chases. But it misses the consistency of Besson's The Fifth Element. The story is all over the place in this movie. There's so much happening on the screen most of the time it's hard to focus. Still, we need more space opera's like this. Most sci-fi movies are too contained, while there are whole worlds and universes to explore. Something Valerian, like The Fifth Element, gets right. Acting was good although the whole love story seemed like an aftertought. Music was great. Leave it to Alexandre Desplat to come up with a riveting score. Those 137 minutes flew by. Bring on the sequel! 7/10

I didn't even recognize Ethan Hawke as Jolly the Pimp, but I did guess John Goodman as Igon Siruss!

[P-Rock]

Originally Posted by yellowjacket1

3/10
Why not cast actual adults?

Dane Dehaan is 31 and Cara Delevingne is 24? Hardly children, or you have a sick and twisted world perspective.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by yellowjacket1

3/10

Oy. This movie plays like an artist that ate 25 tubes of acrylic paint and then threw it up all over a canvas. Either that or else allowed the colors to travel the whole way and pointed their butt at a canvas. What hits the screen is a runny and often nonsensical colorfart mess. From the creator of The Fifth Element, I expected so much more. There’s no real plot and no chemistry at all between the children they cast in the lead roles. Why not cast actual adults? It’s like they shot certain scenes based on how fantastical they could create CGI and then tried to piece an actual movie out of the results. The sad part is that some of the CGI looked terrible.

Dane DeHaan is 31. Cara Delevigne is 24.

[Hellhound]

While both actors might technically be adults, they both look much younger than their actual ages. I really didn't like DeHaan in the role on any level. His performance seemed like a weird take on Keanu Reeves and physically he looked ridiculous pushing around characters that were much bigger than he was.

[javi92]

Originally Posted by Hellhound

While both actors might technically be adults, they both look much younger than their actual ages. I really didn't like DeHaan in the role on any level. His performance seemed like a weird take on Keanu Reeves and physically he looked ridiculous pushing around characters that were much bigger than he was.

This is exactly the problem I had. The film itself is a blast and a lot of fun, but I couldn't help feeling I was watching two scrawny high school students the whole time. I would guess this was an intentional choice on the filmmaker's part to make the characters look so young via makeup, hair, etc. It just gives the proceedings a feeling of the ridiculous. Maybe that was what they were going for, but I'm not sure it works.

[P-Rock]

I'll give you that Dane Dehaan doesn't look anything like his comic character (a younger Josh Brolin look-alike would've been better), but Cara Delevingne doesn't look too young too me, especially compared to HER comic character.

[esteban²]

Once again, both characters in the Ravian comics are very young. Valerian does kick ass while he's not even that masculine or skilled. On this specific drawing and picture the two couldn't be more different. True. But I can come up with a sort like example for Laureline too if I search for it. Sure, on the covers Valerian always looks like the confident hero with a serious face. But in the actual pages he often looks younger and less like a heroic man. He comes of as an 18 year old, including funny reaction faces.

I agree Dane DeHaan is very skinny and looks even slightly younger then 18 at times, but he does match the source material. I can't help but have the idea many have a certain standard hero in mind, without knowing the comic at all. That's not who Valerian is, bottom line. There's only one other actor I would consider right for the part -thinking about a long time, keeping the actual source in mind, and that's Dylan O'Brien, when he's not being too serious. Thát's who Valerian is.

[drush9999]

Just watched it, enjoyed it but it's not great. Some bad casting choices dragged it down a little. Overall 3/5

[Shingster]

Dane DeHaan is a talented guy but he's woefully miscast in this film, not because of his size or looks but because he's not a roguish actor. He's Luke or Anakin Skywalker, not Han Solo. I don't really care what the comic Valerian is like, Besson's Valerian is a Han Solo-esque wisecracking, loveable rogue. Similarly Cara Delevingne is miscast because she not a good actress. She's got one mode: Feisty and can do nothing else. She has zero charm, zero charisma and zero chemistry with DeHaan. She's still learning her craft, she's been catapulted too far too soon based on her appearance and the amount of press attention young models get in today's empty, celebrity-obsessed culture. Ten years from now she'll probably be much more accomplished.