No. It is not good. At all.
Call it a rental and save yourself the hassle of going to the cinema.
.
Have you even watched it? Your statement very much makes me doubt that.
.
The movie very much met and exceeded my expectations for it. I mean, it's a Luc Besson movie, and it is very much what he is renowned for. Sure the story is nothing special. Sure the lovestory part is predictable, but isn't it in all movies? For the story outside of the love part, yes, there are some logical flaws, but again, logic is not what Besson is famous for. It's not a superawesome special story, but for what it's worth, it's solid enough to entertain.
.
And here comes the other part: visualy and presentation. This is one of the few movies which really profits a lot from the big screen. This one really is meant to be watched in the cinema, any smaller screen will take away from it. And also as a sidenote: it's the first movie since a long time i watched, where the 3D was done technically well. You can philosophize if 3D adds much to the movie or not. In my eyes, it helps the atmosphere, so in my personal book, it's the second movie made in 3D where the technology was worth it. And btw. the first one where i consider 3D to be a valuable addition is not Avatar, it is Sanctum. Avatar was a nice technology study (albeit with a very mediocre story), but 3D didn't add more to it that the "Wow, this can be done?" effect.
.
.
Btw, another sidenote on "3D was done technically well": there recently were a number of seemingly low budget productions, where they could not afford to film them in proper 3D, but rather use 2D and just rework them to 3D in the computer. A prime example for that was Rogue One. I guess the Star Wars franchise just is too weak, it doesn't make enough money so they have to cut corners? (Sorry for the sarcasm, but how else to react to low quality on such a moneymaker? ) What i mean is: in that movie it's very obvious that it was filmed in 2D and then reworked. DUring dialogues i sometimes had the feeling of watching a cutscene in GW2. The actors were taken out of the background and brought to different distances, but of course their facial features were mot modelled. (That'd be more effort than to actually do the movie in proper 3D. ) So for somebody who paid enough attention it very much felt like cardboard cutouts were talking to each other. The same effect was not observeable to me in Valerian.
.
Anyway, it seems like Valerian shares the same fate as The Fifth Element, the other big SF movie of Luc Besson: having awesome visuals and screenplay, while only bringing an average plot, it made and destined for the big screen of cinemas. Despite that, it just like the The Fifth Element starts out with being not well received. Now 20 years later The Fifth Element is seen as a great movie, despite many of those who now love its visuals never even saw them on the big screen, where they are even better than on any home device. I predict that Valerian will end up with the same reputation, so everybody now missing it in the cinema got nobody but himself to blame for only seeing the watered down smaller screen version.
.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
