Wow only a 61% rating and it hasn't even been released yet. It's so bad people from the future built a time machine just to travel back to warn us!
It is equal parts asinine and hysterical. Definitely geared towards the hardcore V Mars fans; doubt I would enjoy it if I hadn't loved the show. Ryan Hansen does a good job of playing clueless Ryan Hansen/Dick.
One of the best parts about Highlander is how despite itself, it somehow manages to work. The plot has inconsistencies all over the place, the accents are terrible and the cast seem split on whether to take it all seriously or ham it up. But that is part of its charm in many ways. The filmmakers wisely keep much of core mythology vague, doling out key elements that develop the central character, whilst ensuring the larger backstory remains mysterious. Its a lesson the sequels failed to heed. It’s also clear the filmmakers expected no future franchise with the film providing a satisfying closure for the characters and the themes explored. Indeed this focus on the central character is what makes the film work so well, with the location and historical setting lending the film an epic quality that would otherwise be absent and the core idea that immortality is as much a curse as a gift brought to the fore. For all his difficulties with the accent, Lambert takes the character seriously and whilst he endlessly broods in the present, its the exploration of his past that works to make the audience care and relate to his isolation. Both Sean Connery and Clancy Brown ensure the audience doesn’t take it all too seriously and provide some much needed humour and fun. It helps that the film also has a killer soundtrack from Queen.
Excellent filmmaking of a tragic story and systemic racism.
If you've ever felt like watching a movie that is the definition of playing it safe, you should definitely give the fifth installment of the Indiana Jones franchise a chance. There really isn't a single risk taken here, which leads to a film that is shockingly boring for long stretches. Tension or even a sense of adventure hardly ever arise in the 2.5 hours of runtime. And even the finale disappointed me, similarly to the miserable fourth part.
In spite of that, "Dial of Destiny" actually gets off to a halfway promising start. If you can overlook the fact that the deaging technology is still not truly ready, then the opening sequence during World War II is really fun. Unfortunately, it's also the last time the film is genuinely good. James Mangold is by all means a capable director, but here he fails to convey any personal style at all. The plot is pretty basic, with pretty much every twist and turn being predictable until the absurd finale.
The cast also, regrettably, didn't entirely work for me. Harrison Ford is still good, but age has definitely caught up with him. Mads Mikkelsen isn't bad as the villain either, and there are a few nice cameos as well. However, I was disappointed by Phoebe Waller-Bridge, whose character Helena is terribly written and who seemed like a miscast to me. In my opinion, she's no better than Shia LaBeouf in the fourth movie. And I don't even want to mention anything about Ethann Isidore, who plays a poor man's Short Round.
It all certainly sounds a bit more negative than it actually is. Ultimately, the film has hardly any serious lows, but it also has pretty much no satisfying high points. It's all pretty mediocre. At most, the occasional fan service moment managed to elicit a chuckle from me. But for a good film, they should have taken some risks, at least at some points. As it is, I can't really recommend "Dial of Destiny".
The representation of the darker side of the Parisian Belle Époque continues following "Paris Police 1900" (2021), but succeeds in a greater concentration on the main characters without dispersing in complex political questions. Even more sordid, it delves into the persecution of homosexuality and the syphilis epidemic that was an almost certain death sentence. There is a sleaze in the reflection of this early 20th century society that attempts to counteract with some moments of humor that are somewhat shocking, and on some occasions take the risk of driving the characters towards caricature.
And YOU get an iron man suit..aaaaand YOU get an iron man suit AND YOUUU get an iron man suit ppphhhfffrrrttt
It's perhaps the weakest of all Star Trek shows of that era. It didn't age well. It can't be remastered in HD (which is sad, 'cause production was probably more expensive than TNG) and the virtual absence of coherent story arcs doesn't meet the new standards of the streaming era. Instead, Voyager has this predictable pattern of recurring topics: one "Kim the Lover episode", one "let's get our hopes up, we're about to get home", "the silly holo novel" episode, the "holo character becomes sentient and endangers the crew" episode and so forth. This pattern becomes very dull very quickly. It's perhaps an unfair thing to say because that's how 2000's TV show were structured (for a good reason) but this prevents the show from being binge-watchable in the modern streaming era (it's a "reverse DS9" so to speak: DS9 never worked within the constraints of programmed TV schedules but gained popularity in the era of streaming). They never capitalized on the fact that they had a natural, clear story arch: a long journey back home. It's almost a perfect premise. But too often you feel that the show runners never wrote down a coherent vision and overarching story that is told throughout all seven seasons. The overall show is worse than many of its episodes. Ideally, it should be the other way 'round. But it's still classic Star Trek and I'd prefer to watch some selected episodes over Discovery or Picard every time.
Let's not talk about the first three seasons. They are weak. That's all I have to say 'bout them, but every new Trek show struggled in the beginning (not as badly as Voyager though). Seasons 4 to 7 are solid. 6th season maybe the best. Seven saves the show. She and the Doctor are responsible for the best moments in this show. All other main characters are kind of dull. Some have potential (Janeway, Tuvok, Kes, B'Elanna) but the writers never really knew how to tell their stories. Some characters are annoying most of the time: man-child Paris (originally some sort of renegade character), useless Mr. Vision Quest and the clown loitering in the mess hall. Worst character is maybe Kim: I couldn't care less whether he's there or not. He's just a dull guy and letting him appear in various romantic stories makes it all worse.. Most characters never show any kind of character development. They always seem to forget what has happened to them the previous week. Only exceptions are the Doctor and Seven (and perhaps Naomi) who exceed expectations and grow with every scene. Seven is remarkable. What probably was a desperate (and condemnable) attempt to infuse some one-dimesnional t&a tailored to nerds into the show, grew into one of the most complex, most funny, most interesting characters in Star Trek ever (before they murdered her in Picard) Plus, Voyager is very bad in telling romantic stories. They never got "Kim, the Lover" right, they tried various other romantic relationships (Paris/Kes, Neelix/Kes [that was outright disturbing], Janeway/Chakotay) but nothing worked. And the relationship they ultimately came up with (Paris and Torres) never felt credible, logical, emotional or romantic. Even worse, I often don't feel a basic chemistry between most members of the main cast. (Like the characters, the ship is invariable too. It virtually never shows permanent signs of degradation.)
On paper, Voyager was a good idea: a whole new and exciting quadrant to explore. A motley crew with lots of conflict potential (Marquis vs. Starfleet): An epic journey through hostile space with an uncertain outcome offered all the potential to bond with the characters by watching them working as a team and overcome enormous obstacles. A very intimate setting: the small crew was trapped on that ship and this offered the chance to show people socializing when off-duty. They never really capitalized on this setting. Instead they were limited by it: Star Trek was great when they told about the interconnected alliances, diplomacy, politics and trade. A utopia we created around Earth. Individual characters and ships were always embedded into the fleet and an interplanetary network. Every ship always represented this system and mankind.. Voyager is so distant from Earth, they often forget about the whole philosophy behind Starfleet. Writers could have used this in their favor though: the crew could have become more desperate, cornered, more ruthless but the writers were not willing to explore this idea (they only used the U.S.S. Equinox as a proxy to explore this dark possibility). Plus, the Alpha and Beta Quadrant (and thanks to DS9 even the Gamma Quadrant) offered this rich lore: Dozens of well-established species and unique empires. Voyager faced the monumental task to create all of this on their own... and they failed. All species and civilizations they invented were either uninteresting or they never invested enough time to explain how powerful/threatening they really are, what role their civilization/empire really play in the Quadrant and how complex their culture really is. They are all just one-dimensional "monsters of the week". Generic foes you know very little of. That's why they are so dull. When that became clear, writers resorted to the Borg as Voyager's main foe and isolated guest appearances of traditional characters (Barclay, Deanna, Ferengi, Zimmerman, Q, Klingons and Romulans). Don't get me wrong, the borgification of Voyager was perhaps a wise decision, given how lackluster every other race in the quadrant was, but the show also became almost too Borg-ish. Not only that: as if there were no other fascinating aspects of the Borg, most stories (just like Seven's story) were focused on the possibility of individuality within the hive. In turn, this demystified the Borg and in the end they were a minor nuisance necessary to get home. It's almost like they "sacrificed" the Borg in order to limp to season 7 and avoid early cancellation of the show.
Star Trek Lower Decks is an animated copy-cat of, "The Orville."
I love it.
That was the weakest episode of this season so far.
And I still don't understand why they needed to name a "random recurring character" James Kirk for no apparent reason, since it's obviously not Kirk (they could have called him Jim Carrey).
Well, it was definitely a Tom Cruise movie. Good action and a decently engaging plot but nothing that stood out really. Still, I had fun watching it in the big screen. It was very theatrical
For me, the main question I wanted to know going in was, "Is this going to be better than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull".
Happy to report that, yes it's vastly superior in almost every area to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
But with that out of the way, does it compete/equal the originals, to which the answer for me was no.
But it had its moments and felt way more in line with "an Indiana Jones" movie than Crystal Skull and had it's share of flaws. I still think Hollywood should use younger actors or makeup/prosthetics instead of "de-aging CGI" as it continues to look horrible IMO, or at least use it the same way the used emerging CGI in the late 90's early 00's by keeping it in shadow/not the focus point.
The cast, both legacy and new are solid across the board, soundtrack and score work well, plot was a big fun dumb adventure that actually felt like following the breadcrumbs in a good way.
Not at all a bad film, but one that probably won't make my top 10 of the year, but unlike Crystal Skull this probably also won't make my worst 10 of the year either.
The cgi is awful in a ton of scenes. Especially the babies scenes. Batman and Supergirl had cool scenes, but all the flash stuff was boring and stupid.:rofl::wastebasket:
The Best Part Of The Flash Is All The Batmans That Were In It - Genuinely Michael Keaton Was The Best Part - It Wasn't As Bad As Justice League But This Was Just An OK Movie - Ezra Miller Is Decent As A Side Character Not The Main Actor, He Just Wasn't Good To Lead - And The CGI Gave Me A Migraine, It Was Just Plain Bad
It's a canon event, Barry!
Overall, this was a decent superhero movie. Michael Keaton was great being Batman again, fun cameos, and some of the jokes were funny. The only thing that didn't sit well with me was the CGI & VFX. It felt like I was watching a slightly older generational video game.
Yeah, this movie was fun. This is the best way to describe the positives. Regardless of how you feel about Ezra Miller as an actual person, his portrayal of Barry is very likable and he killed it by playing two of them. And the humor is quite good. I (and a bunch of others in the theatre) laughed a good amount of times, it was charming. That also applies to action which is well-shot and creative.
I am very much looking forward to Andy making the Batman movie if the rumors are true. His camerawork is nothing but amazing, I loved it. Really excited for the action Gunn and Andy can bring to the DCU. The CGI is also most of the time a clear non-issue unless you pay extra attention to it. The only time where I think it becomes distracting and uncanny is the cameos, but that takes place in the speed force so I can live with Andy’s argument here. However, uncanny cameos don't come close to ruining this movie as many people pretend it, although I'm sure none of them actually watched the movie. So let me state it clearly: I think the Flash is well-shot, looks a few times bad, but most of the time very good. There are a lot of scenes where color and lighting are very well-utilized. Personally, I have some gripes with the aesthetic of the speed force though, but maybe we can improve it in the DCU. The DCU is the perfect opportunity to overhaul the aesthetic and make something better.
If there is one thing I think could've been better, it is definitely the emotional gravitas. I think the script is solid, but there is just too much content to expand on the theme properly, but Barry's characterization also feels rushed. I think previous movies could've established that better, and this movie instead could have expanded more on Keaton's Batman and also Supergirl, because they also have regrets and scars from the past. Supergirl generally is criminally underutilized in this movie. This movie felt super short, to be honest. I guess I was well entertained because it didn't feel like I sat in there for 2,5 hours and there is so much they could've expanded on. Also, I liked the Andy cameo.
So yeah, overall, fun and charming experience, however, the movie ultimately feels rushed. Too much content crammed into one movie. The general theme of regrets and moving on is very good, but the movie didn't live up to its potential. In a DCU which has proper build-up between different movies and series, I think Andy can make something truly magical.
I really wanted to love this movie.
Visually, it's absolutely gorgeous! Unfortunately, the "friendship" which is supposed to be the emotional core of the movie rings completely hollow.
One of the two main characters is not a character at all. Lt. Hudner has literally zero characteristics (except not being racist), and the movie fails to make me care about him or even believe that he's a real person.
Why does he care about Jesse so much? Because he's black? Because Daisy asked him to in their one short conversation?
Such a disappointment. Not a terrible movie, but it could really have been great.
A refreshing addition to the MCU, made me laugh, made me cry, and restored my faith in the franchise. A nostalgic and thrilling ending to the trilogy!
Like an orgy: lots of action and sensations, though a bit messy and will leave you feeling empty and under-satisfied when you're done.
Those of you who loved the charm and comedy of the first Ant-Man are going to be as let down as a Chinese weather balloon.
Hillary Swank is always a great actress, but the show definitely lacks of deepness and originality. However the cauliflower contest managed to raise the level of the show considerably.
For any who have pondered what it would look like in our post-Lord of the Rings, superhero blockbuster era if somebody tried making The Princess Bride, Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves is your answer. It's an ambitious swing that results in a solid hit, if not a classic. And while it falls short of being a viable launching pad for a new universe of IP-based media content, it is an all-around fun watch that will entertain and perhaps even delight you, so long as you don't stare too hard at some of the frayed plot edges. The cast is all aces (though Chris Pine is - surprisingly - the weakest link among them), and the script from Jonathan Goldstein, John Francis Daley, & Michael Gilio is solid. Even when they're making jokes at its expense, the filmmakers show a deep respect for the source material, though they're not always interested in being 100% faithful to it. Genre films that don't take themselves too seriously can be lots of fun. See the afore-mentioned The Princess Bride or Eric the Viking (which clearly had an influence here) for great examples. But the flip side of irreverence is a deprioritization of world-building. Case in point, there's no sense of place, as the team jumps from region to region and nothing is explored. Another issue is magic- one moment we're getting an explanation of why magic can't just solve everything, and - literally - the next we get the introduction of a new magic MacGuffin. ("See? You can magic your way in!" one character says.) Magic has rules, apparently, but they are almost never explained or followed- except when they serve to present an obstacle for the characters to overcome. There's an order of spies & supposed defenders of justice that one of the main characters was once a part of, but we never see any of them. At the center of the plot is the fact that there's a vast kingdom bordering the region of Neverwinter that's ruled by an all-powerful cadre of Red Wizards who command an army of the undead. Yet why isn't the entire society on a war footing? All of this and more is glossed over in favor of jokes and madcap adventure. To be clear, the madcap adventure is fun and the fan service is subtle enough to be accessible to novices (a really neat trick, that), but as I was watching I just kept feeling like this could be so much more.
Tolkien's work demands dedicated, detailed craftsmanship from the people who want to translate it to the big screen. Why is it that Dungeons & Dragons doesn't warrant the same kind of effort? And what would a movie (or prestige TV series) from this talented team of filmmakers look like if it did? I hope that we can find out someday.
yet another filler ep imo.
If they tell me it's an episode of TWD I believe it... Episode to spare
The part of the Star Wars universe we care less about gets it's own show of course. If only Disney could understand that superhero movies and shows are terrible without the superheroes. Would you watch a Superman movie that focuses on Jimmy Olsen?
Static filler borefest packed with bad dialogue. Should've at least spiced the pace up by alternating the generic teenage trash with present-set sequences in which Ellie clashes with infected and cannibals trying to get supplies for Joel, just as they did with the game.
The episode is boring, and flash back would have been better for a simple duration of 15 minutes to 20 minutes only, without going into many details that take up the episode time, which we have been waiting for a whole week.
I can't rate the episode more than 3/10
Easily the weakest episode yet. The stuff we got was good, it was enjoyable, I liked the characters together - but it felt like it lacked any sort of resolution. This episode left me feeling unsatisfied.
I worry that the final two episodes are going to feel rushed.
They made this even sadder than the game.
Didn't enjoy this film on release. Currently working my way through a Marvel marathon, and thought a second viewing might alter my opinion.
It didn't. Definitely one of the weakest MCU entries.
