mwnhqw
Joined Sep 2021
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews6
mwnhqw's rating
"The Three-Body Problem" is one of my favorite sci-fi novels. I first read the trilogy 11 years ago during middle school, and it left me so shocked that I couldn't sleep at night. Over the years, there have been many adaptations of this novel, all of which have been controversial and somewhat disappointing in various aspects. Because of this, I had high hopes for Netflix's adaptation. Unfortunately, after watching the series this weekend on a trip, I can only say that my feelings are mixed, but I still recommend it.
It's difficult to regard Netflix's "3 Body Problem" as the same entity as the novel, just as it's hard to consider Apple's version of "Foundation" as "The Foundation Series." If you're expecting something on the level of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, you're likely to find that it feels more like "The Rings of Power" instead. With a shell and some settings from the book, it drastically simplifies technology, logic, characters, and even the sociology and anthropology of power, individuals, and societies, opting instead for a timeless love story.
From the perspective of the original work, I am greatly disappointed. However, when I think about it, it is, after all, a Netflix sci-fi series with good visual effects (in some parts), a tight plot, and innovative settings from "The Three-Body Problem." It's accessible for the average viewer and not bad by any means. If you haven't read the original book, this series will definitely be very interesting, and I hope it might inspire some interest in reading the original.
I'm not a purist for the original work and I believe that adaptations should differ from the novel, but how to make these choices and how to present the essence of the novel in a different form is a question Denis Villeneuve answered in a unique way through what he left unsaid, but not what Benioff and Weiss has done in oversimplifying the plots and relationships.
It's difficult to regard Netflix's "3 Body Problem" as the same entity as the novel, just as it's hard to consider Apple's version of "Foundation" as "The Foundation Series." If you're expecting something on the level of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, you're likely to find that it feels more like "The Rings of Power" instead. With a shell and some settings from the book, it drastically simplifies technology, logic, characters, and even the sociology and anthropology of power, individuals, and societies, opting instead for a timeless love story.
From the perspective of the original work, I am greatly disappointed. However, when I think about it, it is, after all, a Netflix sci-fi series with good visual effects (in some parts), a tight plot, and innovative settings from "The Three-Body Problem." It's accessible for the average viewer and not bad by any means. If you haven't read the original book, this series will definitely be very interesting, and I hope it might inspire some interest in reading the original.
I'm not a purist for the original work and I believe that adaptations should differ from the novel, but how to make these choices and how to present the essence of the novel in a different form is a question Denis Villeneuve answered in a unique way through what he left unsaid, but not what Benioff and Weiss has done in oversimplifying the plots and relationships.
I've recently watched many 'monster' movies ('Godzilla Minus One', 'Monster' by Hirokazu Koreeda, and 'Poor things'), and Emma Stone's unrestrained and explosive performance in 'Poor Things' presents a different possibility of Frankenstein's monster. Set in a finely crafted landscape and time, it subtly deconstructs the 'polite society' through adventures, experiments, and embodied exploration in societal slices, making it a feminist cult film. It's one of the best movies I've seen recently.
Many people might compare it to 'Barbie', which, beneath its commercial veneer, offers shallow, didactic content and a direct satire of the present. However, 'Poor Things' delves deeper into dark fantasy and absurdity. In the end, it doesn't dissect and reconstruct patriarchy and privileged society, representing a return to reality in another sense.
The movie also reminded me of 'Killers of the Flower Moon' and 'Babylon.' The former because I rewatched it yesterday and I, despite noticing more details from Scorsese's masterpiece, still maintain my initial view that it overly stereotypes women from a 'straight white male perspective,' fitting too realistically into the era. 'Poor Things,' however, perfectly balances this offset from 'Killers.' As for 'Babylon,' which I watched at the end of last year in the similar time, it's filled with bizarre physical and visual spectacles, but compared to 'Poor Things,' it's too full, too noisy, and tries too hard.
Many people might compare it to 'Barbie', which, beneath its commercial veneer, offers shallow, didactic content and a direct satire of the present. However, 'Poor Things' delves deeper into dark fantasy and absurdity. In the end, it doesn't dissect and reconstruct patriarchy and privileged society, representing a return to reality in another sense.
The movie also reminded me of 'Killers of the Flower Moon' and 'Babylon.' The former because I rewatched it yesterday and I, despite noticing more details from Scorsese's masterpiece, still maintain my initial view that it overly stereotypes women from a 'straight white male perspective,' fitting too realistically into the era. 'Poor Things,' however, perfectly balances this offset from 'Killers.' As for 'Babylon,' which I watched at the end of last year in the similar time, it's filled with bizarre physical and visual spectacles, but compared to 'Poor Things,' it's too full, too noisy, and tries too hard.