Change Your Image
gerick_goldwyn
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Hansel, Gretel i Agentstvo Magii (2021)
Gretel is just a rude, obnoxious, bully!
I watched this film with my kids last night, and we won't ever be watching it again. The character Gretel was so hard to stomach. In fact, I think she is literally the worst animated character I have ever seen on screen, and I have seen a lot over the years. In almost every scene, she is abusing, physically assaulting, or lashing out at her brother, Hansel, whenever things don't go her way. And in one scene, she literally throws him to the wolves to be eaten. And, when she is not beating down her brother or telling us how amazing she is, she is telling us how useless Hansel is, and that everything is always his fault, and somehow, she is the protagonist of this film. Explain that one? Overall, I thought Gretel was a horrible example for young children today, especially for my daughter. So, I think we'll be moving back to Frozen 1 and 2 and some good old classic Disney films. Just do yourself a favour, and avoid this one. Go back to the classics.
Raya and the Last Dragon (2021)
A must see Disney film :)
If your a Disney fan, you'll definitely love this film. I wasn't expecting very much but I was very impressed. I'll probably be watching it again tomorrow night :) I could also see a lot of similarities between Raya and the Last Dragon and Avatar the Last Airbender. There fantasy worlds are very similar.
The only negative, or this could be a positive for you, is - the film is very female centric, with all the main characters and villains being female. However, unlike films like Mulan (2020) and Star Wars E7-9, Raya isn't some super invincible Mary Sue. Raya is a fantastic character and was a pleasure to watch on screen. I only mention this because I like to watch films that are more balanced between male and female characters. However, to spite the female empowerment message and Disney playing more gender politics, it was a great film to watch.
Mr. Robot (2015)
Mr. Robot is Fight Club meets Hackers meets Donnie Darko :)
Mr. Robot is definitely worth watching. Its Fight Club (1999) meets Hackers (1995) meets Donnie Darko (2001). In fact, I would say Mr. Robot is a complete rip-off of these three films. So, if you like these three (old school) movies, definitely check out this series, and if you haven't seen Donnie Darko yet, definitely check it out. It's one of the best psychological thrillers of all time.
Mr. Robot runs for 4 seasons in total. Season 1, 3 and 4 were outstanding. However, season 2 was a bit slow/boring. In fact, I initially checked out of the series halfway through season 2 back in 2016 because nothing really happens for the first two thirds of the season. However, I decided to give Mr. Robot a second try during COVID-19 and I wasn't disappointed.
P.S, if you're interested in watching some really good psychological thrillers, check out Fight Club, Donnie Darko, Secret Window and Shatter Island :)
***MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD***
***DON'T READ IF YOUR PLANNING ON WATCHING THE SERIES***
For those who have seen Mr. Robot, I must admit I was very disappointed with the ending. Part of me thinks it completely ruined the whole series for me. In the first season we learn that Elliot has an alternate personality (like Edward Norton from Fight Club) who is Mr. Robot. However, in the final 2 episodes we learn that Elliot (or the Elliot that we have been watching from season 1 to 4) is just another one of his alternate personalities, and his real personality appears to be a smart, well-adjusted young man, who looks as normal or as sane as you or me, which I feel is just completely out of place for the series. I feel it's the equivalent of watching Silence of the Lambs and at the end of the film learning that Hannibal Lecter is nothing more than an alternate personality, and his real personality is someone as likable and charming as Chris Hemsworth or Chris Evans. Could you imagine Fight Club finishing this way? It just throws off the whole story. We like these characters because their insane or mentally ill. How does it even make sense for Elliot's real personality to be so normal?
I think a better ending would have been that; after Elliot's final showdown with Whiterose his mind fractures even further, and finishes very similar to the film Secret Window. Elliot's mind completely disappears, and creates a new personality to live his life, i.e., Elliot becomes his alter ego, rather than Elliot being the alter ego of the real Elliot and then choosing to disappear willingly. Now this ending suits the character and is much better than the fairy-tale ending that we were given. It also leaves the story open for a reboot and finishes on a great twist.
Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
***4 MINOR CHANGES TO THIS FILM WOULD HAVE MADE IT A BOX OFFICE SUCCESS!! READ ON IF YOU DARE!!***
The first and most obvious change, the writers should have NEVER killed off John Connor in the first scene of this film. This was a massive mistake, and a huge disservice to T1 and 2 (as well as the original TV series, the Sarah Connor Chronicles). It was bad enough that they made John the villain in T5 (Genisys). I mean seriously, what were they thinking?! But, killing John off in the first 5-mins of this film was even worse. As a result, the first and most obvious change would be, instead of Sarah stepping out of the car to save Dani and Grace at the start of the film, it should have been John Connor (Christian Bale) instead, at the same age he was in T4 (Salvation). So, people could place the timeline and see John Connor at his best again in an alternate future. This would have instantly redeemed the Terminator franchise. So, even though John Connor stopped Judgement Day in T2, he still fighting the machines in T6 (Dark Fate), and doing everything he can to prevent a second Judgement Day from coming to pass. Furthermore, Christian Bale would have brought a massive amount of people back to the movies to see T6 (Dark Fate) if he was a part of this franchise again...
Second, as a result of the first change, it's John Connor receiving the anonymous messages, not Sarah. As a result, its John hunting down the terminators. Consequently, Dani, John and Grace go to look for the anonymous texter together, which ends up being both Sarah and a T101 (Arnold Schwarzenegger). Sarah and John had a falling out after they stopped Judgement Day. John wanted to keep fighting/training for the war to come, while Sarah believed they had won, and wanted to settle down somewhere and live off the grid. This change also remains loyal to the alternate end in T2 (Judgement Day) as well as T3 (Rise of the Machines), i.e., in the crypt John Connor says, Sarah believed they were free, they stopped the war, while John never really believed that, etc. As a result, their conflicting ideas (for the future) caused a rift in their relationship, and eventually caused them to go their own separate ways. As a result, Sarah and the T101 have been looking out for John from the shadows, sending him anonymous text messages so he can destroy the terminators that are coming back from the future. John's example inspires Sarah to keep fighting. That's why she is helping him.
Next, the T101's backstory. Sarah (and some of her friends) rescued the T101 (Arnold Schwarzenegger) from the US military. Fearful the US government could use him in some way again to engineer another Judgement Day or Skynet. But, the damage was already done before they arrived. After the T101 terminated Katherine and Robert Brewster, he was captured. Just an FYI, Katherine and Robert Brewster both appear in T3 (Katherine Brewster is John Connor's wife). As a result, the US army gained full access to Arnold's CPU and memories. Consequently, when Legion arose, the Artificial Super Intelligence (or ASI) had full access to the T101's memories, which included a detailed account of SKYNET's future, which the ASI referred to when orchestrating its own Judgement Day. So, in other words, Legion learned from SKYNET's successors and failures when launching its own war against humanity. As a result, Legion's Judgement Day (or war against mankind) was far worse than SKYNET's ever was... Given it learned from SKYNET. Furthermore, Legion also saw how effective SKYNET's terminators were in wiping out humanity, so the ASI created its own line of terminators, which were based on SKYNET initial designs, which were also far more effective at killing human beings. Hence why both futures (John's and Dani's) look almost identical. Legion based his future and war off SKYNET's. This change would actually explain a lot to the fans. To me, I found it absolutely ridiculous that both timelines (SKYNET's and Legion's) looked almost identical when they were 2 completely different timelines.
The final change, at the end of the film, John, Grace, and the T101 give their lives to save Dani. So, John dies, fulfilling his destiny of saving the world, by saving Dani, the next great saviour of humanity in the war against the machines. Moreover, from the change above, Legion learnt from SKYNET, just as Dani learnt from John and Sarah, which gives T1 and 2 some significance in the new terminator trilogy. To leave Dani to be trained by Sarah, embodying the qualities of both John and Sarah, a mother and a father figure. Now, this would have been a great story and made all the fans happy. John kicks ass again and saves the world. So, does Grace and Arnold Schwarzenegger, ensuring the film remains politically correct. Furthermore, like the writers wanted, John dies, but in this version he dies a hero, the saviour of mankind (just as he was always written)...
Now this is a cool story with only 4 minor tweaks... What fans wouldn't be happy with this?
***FILM REVIEW AS IS***
While the film was far better than what the critics said. I just had a couple of issues with the film myself.
1 (of course) was John's death. Initially, I thought it was an absolutely insane idea, however, after giving it more thought - I realised it was actually quite clever. I just didn't realise SKYNET was killed off with John. The writers just didn't execute it very well, or give John's death meaning. This was the x-factor missing here. They just killed him off like it was nothing. Anyway, while outrageous, this is why I thought John's death was clever: In T1, we learn that John was conceived by a man from the future (Kyle Reese). While in T2 (Judgement Day), we learn SKYNET was build based on the terminator it send back in time to kill Sarah Connor. So, both John Connor and SKYNET were conceived in response to one another, i.e., SKYNET sent a terminator (it designed) back in time to kill John Connor, and its CPU was eventually used to create itself, or SKYNET. While Kyle Reese was sent back in time to intercept that terminator, and ended up conceiving John Connor. So, it's the whole chicken and the egg scenario, i.e., what came first, the chicken or the egg? Or, in this case John Connor or SKYNET? Stewie (from Family Guy) calls this a "temporal causality loop." So, the universe created John to destroy SKYNET, so when John eventually destroyed SKYNET and stopped Judgement Day, the universe closed the loop, by killing off John, restoring order or balance to the universe. Or, in other words (as mentioned above), John Connor and SKYNET were conceived in response to one another, creating a temporal causality loop. However, when John stopped SKYNET's conception, he broke the loop. So, no SKYNET, no John, etc. This was probably the timeline trying to repair itself or restore balance to the universe. Or, as V (from V for vendetta) once said: "I (like God) do not play with dice and do not believe in coincidence." So, this is why - I believe - John was killed off in T6 (Dark Fate). If this (or something similar) was mentioned by the T101 (Arnold Schwarzenegger) in T6 (Dark Fate), it would have been a great twist in the series and added an extra layer of coolness to the movie too. It also would have been an interesting way to kill off John Connor as well, and give his death meaning somehow. After all, even John Connor is no match for the universe or causality, etc...
OK. Disappointment number 2. One thing I really found challenging about this film was, the first half of the movie completely revolved around 3 women, which turned T6 (Dark Fate) into an action, chick-flick for me. Not that I don't like seeing strong, confident women on screen. In fact, I really can't wait to see the next Wonder Woman film at the movies. I think it could be the best movie released in 2020. It's going to be absolutely amazing!! However, in T6 (Dark Fate), it just felt really misplaced. Furthermore, people need to be pre-warned before walking into an action chick-flick, not blind sighted by it. But, more than this, T6 (Dark Fate) should have never been a female-orientated movie. Moreover, it turned Arnold Schwarzenegger into a secondary character in his own franchise, which is just crazy! I understand the film was trying to be politically correct in today's world, which I agree should be the next frontier for movies today, however, the writers should have known this was never going to fly for T6 (Dark Fate). I mean seriously, how many girls do you actually know who would want to see a Terminator film at the movies? And, like I said above, if Christian Bale was a part of this film, it might have added a much needed counter-balance to 2 or 3 women running around on screen for the first half of the movie, which might have worked. And, sadly, I don't think Linda Hamilton, Mackenzie Davis and Natalia Reyes were strong enough to carry this film, especially for a reboot.
Anyway, to spite these few issues, I would have liked to see a T7 with the same cast, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen now, given that T6 (Dark Fate) completely failed at the box office :/ However, I truly believe, the 4 changes mentioned above would have made all the difference between a box office success and a box office failure. However, there biggest challenge was T5 (Genisys) was just soooooo bad, was anyone really going to come back to see another terminator film at the movies? No, especially not with this story... So, better luck next time folks!
Charlie's Angels (2019)
***AN HONEST REVIEW - THIS IS WHY CHARLIES ANGELS FAILED***
Initially, I had no desire to see the new Charlies Angels film, largely because of the cast. However, after reading so many negative reviews about it online, and hearing that Elizabeth Banks recently attacked people for not supporting a female-centric film, i.e., claiming that men would be sexist if they didn't go see it and would jeopardise the chance of future female-led action movies. I decided to go see it for myself and make my own judgements. However, after watching the movie, it's clear the film failed because it was just a bad movie, not because it was a female-centric film. I personally like seeing strong, female characters on screen, just as much as strong male characters, because it's exciting... Strong female characters, however, just need a strong male counterbalance to be successful, and that's something this film desperately needed. For example, Wonder Woman had Chris Pine, Captain Marvel had Samuel L. Jackson, Edge of Tomorrow had Tom Cruise, Zootopia had Jason Bateman, the 3 amazing women in Hidden Figures had Kevin Costner, Jim Parsons and Mahershala Ali, Underworld had Scott Speedman and Theo James, and the list goes on... The only film I can think of that had an all-female cast that I enjoyed was St Trinians, but then again it did have Colin Firth, Rupert Everett, and Russell Brand in it was well. However, Charlies Angels on the other hand was just an epic failure across the board.
First, the cast. By starring women in their early 20s, it tells the audience that the film was made for young, female teenagers/adults. As a result, it was never going to appeal to anyone over 35, which presents its first problem. Most teenage women would never have even heard of Charlies Angels before, given the last film was released almost 20 years ago, let alone want to see an action film because it's not their genre of choice. Where, if the film was made for people over 35 (and for both male and female viewers), we would have seen a completely different outcome. I personally would like to see a well-thought out Charlies Angel's film at the movies, but Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska was never going to get me there. I personally would have chosen women between 30-45 for these roles, perhaps someone like Emily Blunt from Edge of Tomorrow. She also recently played Mary Poppins, which would also appeal to younger viewers as well. Next, Jessica Chastain, who needs no introduction... She is potentially one of the most talented actresses on the planet. She was blow away in Miss Sloane and played an amazing part in Interstellar. And, finally someone like Taraji Henson. She exceeded all expectations in Hidden Figures and was fantastic in Person of Interest. As a result of starring 3 women like this on screen, it tells the audience it was going to be a well thought-out Charlies Angels film, and which men wouldn't want to see these 3 sexy women on screen kicking ass!
Second, the overall tone of the film. It starts with Chris Pang talking down to Kristen Stewart, implying she's nothing more than a beautiful arm adornment. Kristen Stewart rightfully stands up for herself, explaining: women have the right to think and do whatever they want, which is absolutely fantastic. But, in the same scene she's also acting like a complete tease. She sucks his finger. She puts her foot between his legs. She then uses her body language to seduce him. I mean, the way Chris Pang is speaking to Kristen Stewart is wrong, but what she is doing is far, far worse. Men hate being used or teased this way only to come up empty and it only further highlights horrible female typical stereotypes... like "dumb-blondes" or "cock-teases," and creates ill will between men and women. A strong, feminist film should be trying to break these stereotypes, not reinforce them...
In the next scene, Naomi Scott is in a meeting with her boss, Nat Faxon, and his basically a character from the film Dumber and Dumber, and this is the overall tone of the film. Every opportunity Charlies Angels has to highlight horrible male typical stereotypes or attack men - it takes it - which ultimately creates an over-the-top parody of female empowerment; where women are betrayed as universally smart, virtuous, incorruptible, tough, confident, outspoken, highly-skilled at everything and physically unstoppable, which would be fine if they were counterbalanced by some halfway decent male characters as well. The problem is, there not. All the men in this film are shown as arrogant, corrupt, jealous, unstable, selfish, insecure, dumb or stupid, just begging to be put in their place by their female superiors, which just comes across as hostile and further creates a division between men and women. As a result, I don't know why Elizabeth Banks thought this film would ever do well at the Box Office, or why people think attacking men is the new frontier for feminism. Hate breeds hate. So, whenever feminists attack men, it just creates a backlash that undermines their cause. The best thing feminists could do today is be the bigger person and try to lead by example. I too believe in equal opportunity for all, and feminism is an essential step forward for the future. However, attacking men at every turn isn't going to get us there. It just pisses off the guys your trying to change, and just comes across as catty, not progressive or intelligent.
Finally, the end of the film, which is the biggest slap in the face of all. I initially thought that Elizabeth Banks would try to end the film on a positive note or bridge the relationship between men and women; especially after trashing men for the past 1.5 hours. But, I was left disappointed again. In the final showdown, the Angels are surrounded by a group of evil henchmen (or men), the lights flicker out, and all the guys find themselves knocked out by lots of different Angels. Revealing that all the women that appear in this film, here and there, were all Angels the whole time. Revealing that, Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska aren't really special at all because there are hundreds, possibly thousands of Angels across the planet. Furthermore, it also highlights that all women are angels, while all men are just evil in comparison; given all the antagonists in the film are all men. The movie then flashes forward to reveal Charlie himself, is now a woman, and all of Naomi Scott's teachers and combat instructors (in Angel school) are all female as well, which further vilifies men. As a result, are people really left scratching their heads into why men didn't rush to the movies to see Charlies Angels? All the film did was degrade and vilify men for 2-hours straight. If the main antagonist was a female character, this film might have had something... But, Charlies Angels failed entirely.
After watching Charlies Angels, I'm not sure how I feel about the film and I don't think for a second it's a forward-thinking feminist movie. I was also left wondering if this is how Elizabeth Banks feels about men? In my opinion, movies like Aladdin (2019) or Frozen 2 are far more feminist movies today. In Aladdin for example, Jasmine is betrayed as a strong, confident, intelligent woman, with a beautiful heart and soul. She is also passionate, outspoken, with a kind heart, and above all not afraid to stand up for what she believes in. Furthermore, she is respectful towards others... So, in my opinion, she is a perfect role model for young women today. Even Elsa and Anna in Frozen 2 were fantastic characters. All the male characters in the film look to them for hope and view them as natural born leaders. Again, another perfect example for young women everywhere... Charlies Angels just comes off as teenybopper crap compared to these two films...
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018)
Visually stunning, but the first disappointing Harry Potter film...
I was very disappointed with the Crimes of Grindelwald. I thought all the writers tried to do was dazzle us with lots special effects, which were amazing (10+ stars!!), but forgot about the central storyline; i.e., there were plenty of subplots, but where was the central plot? The movie is also called: "The Crimes of Grindelwald," but it's not even made clear what Grindelwald's "crimes" are. The poster also includes the sign of the 'Deathly Hallows' on it, but they're not even mentioned in the entire film either. Furthermore, Newt, Tina, Jacob and Quennie don't really do anything this film, except couple-fight really and chase their own tails. We also explore Newt's childhood love, which (again) doesn't really add anything to the film... I mean, did anyone even care about Leta's backstory after Fantasy Beasts 1? I didn't, and I doubt it will have any significance in the next 3 films to come... But, what I found most frustrating was Credence's identity story... I liked Credence in the first film, but in this one, he seemed like such a useless character with a pointless storyline... I mean, does anyone even care who Credence really is? I don't... I would have liked to learn more about Dumbledore's and Grindelwald's past or even more on the Deathly Hallows... There is no way he is a "Dumbledore," so the film ended with another useless twist... If Dumbledore really had a second brother, it would have been mentioned in 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' or the 'The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore' by Rita Skeeter. So, it makes the whole thing just silly... Anyone who knows anything about Harry Potter knows it's just nonsense... It would have made more sense if the writers said he was a "Gaunt," or a direct descendant of Salazar Slytherin or Tom Riddle. That, at least, could have been possible and/or carried some weight among the fans, but this twist is just silly...
My biggest criticism, however, is with Albus Dumbledore. Before 'Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire,' Dumbledore was an absolute legend!! I couldn't fault him. However, in the following books, he makes some very questionable decisions, i.e., in 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince' for example, he knows Draco Malfoy is trying to kill him, yet he does nothing to stop him... It was only by pure luck that Katie Bell survived his first assassination attempt, Ron Weasley, his second, and that every man, woman and child at Hogwarts survived at the end of the book... The Dark Lord (or Greyback) could have just as easily brought through an army and purged the whole school of life... Not very bright... Dumbledore is supposed to be the most powerful wizard in the world, yet his completely crippled by EMPATHY for all his enemies. It's exactly the same in this film as well... We all know from reading 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' that Dumbledore doesn't PERSONALLY make a move against Grindelwald until he becomes too powerful to stop / unstoppable... If he had only made this decision sooner, like 3 movies earlier, how many lives could he have saved? Instead, he passes the job to lesser wizards and watches them all dwindle away. As a result, I thought Dumbledore was betrayed as a coward in this film which hide behind his charisma. He was repeatedly was asked to do something and he forever says "no."
***Just so your aware, I know everything there is to know about the Harry Potter universe, i.e., why Dumbledore couldn't face Grindelwald (because he believed Grindelwald knew the final fate of his sister Ariana, i.e., who shot the curse that finally ended her life. Dumbledore believed it might have been him, which could have destroyed him (emotionally) if that came to light)... We also see in Fantasy Beasts 2, Dumbledore looking through the Mirror of Erised, so we also see Dumbledore's deepest, most desperate desire is not to fight Grindelwald... But, seriously Dumbledore, people are dying here... We also see at the end of this film that Dumbledore made some kind of "blood-pact" with Grindelwald not to fight him, which is also silly, given in 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,' Dumbledore says: "He knew in his hearts of hearts what Grindelwald really was (or something close to)," and still he makes an agreement like this... All this makes Dumbledore look like a dump character to me or a victim of bad writing... I'm going with bad writing...
For the record, I always thought Severus Snape was the real hero in Harry Potter... :)
Charmed (2018)
Why is this show so man hating for?
I absolutely loved the original Charmed series, but I don't remember it being so hostile towards men. The first episode alone touches on consent, abusive men, sexual harassment and rape culture, and these topics have been a running theme throughout the entire series so far... I'm all for "girl power!" and women empowerment, but there is a big difference between misandry and feminism...
After watching the first 4 episodes, I feel the series has been rebooted with an axe to grind. I also see CW has really dropped the maturity level of the show as well. I mean, why on Earth are the girls using baking powder and sugar to vanquish demons for? Explain that one?
The original Charmed series was great because it was about three strong, intelligent women. They were strong because they kicked ass, not because they were feminist extremists. However, these women, I don't know... I think it's awesome that CW introduced a lesbian into the series; however, she adds some much immaturity to the show... In the first episode, Mel takes a standing against a professor that preys on strong woman, but in the next scene she hits a guy for expressing an opinion... So, violence against women is wrong, but violence against men is completely okay? Furthermore, Mel is supposed to be a strong, passionate feminist, a graduate student in the women's studies, yet in the next scene (again), she's yelling at her sister for wanting to join a sorority group. I am pretty sure yelling at a girl for wanting to join a sisterhood is anti-feminist as well... I'm sure CW is trying to make Mel look like a strong female character, but sometimes she comes across as a feminazi, using her sex/sexuality as an excuse to yell at whoever she wants... And, at times, her lines about woman empowerment come across as immature and/or inappropriate (or even childish), which is counterproductive to the series... In her first scene with Harry, her new White-lighter, we learn Mel wrote an article for the local newspaper. Harry says: it was well-written, but very hostile... reading it made him feel like his penis had been ripped from his body... and, she replies with: "Oh, good. You read it right. Perfect." ... Seriously?! Who talks this way? I don't remember the original Charmed series being so sexist... A large part of the audience must be male, so why are CW trying to alienate their viewers by man bashing men at every opportunity? It's like the show is on a war path... The series can be feminist and still being respectful towards men, just as the original series was... Macy is a scientist, which doesn't really bring much to the series yet, except discredit magic at every turn... "Who needs magic to vanquish demons when we have baking powder and sugar in the house, and the Harbinger doesn't really kill people with magic, it's using a biological agent... Why CW added a scientist into the mix to rob magic of all its "wow" factor is completely beyond me... Magic is cool, "wow" enough! Baking powder and sugar, not so much... and finally, there is Maggie... her storyline so far is so super girly! The whole "sorority story" really making me cringe; I feel like I am tuning into a random episode of "Legally Blond." If this is going to be the central storyline of Charmed moving forward, I'm going to check out of the series pretty quickly... I mean, why is Maggie trying so hard to impress a girl with the IQ of a Malibu Stacy doll? She is an all-powerful, super witch for God's sake... Maggie just finds out she is a witch (and the forces of darkness are currently plotting her demise), and the biggest emergency in her life is getting 3 exclamation marks in a text message? I don't remember the original Charmed cast facing down this kind of emergency? Even in the last episode when the Elder (Virginia William) said: "she manages an investment fund to help women in developing nations, tackling poverty and inequality through ethical, female-focused capitalism..." it's like, whoa... enough man, we get the picture... overkill on the feminist extremism... There are already three young, intelligent, beautiful women in this show. We don't need to be reminded about the feminist "bandwagon" every second we tune into this show. I want to watch an episode of Charmed not battle of the sexes!!!
After a very rocky start, I'm still hoping for a bright future... I really liked the original Charmed series, so I'm hoping (finger-crossed) the reboot follows in its footsteps... CW just needs to tone everything RIGHT DOWN and raise the maturity level of the show for the audience...
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
***THIS IS WHY SW IS FAILING - LISTEN UP DISNEY***
I'm so glad I didn't see this film at the movies. What an all-out idiotic film. It was nothing more than one long action screen with no storyline; I could compare it to a poorly written western movie. Initially, I stayed away from this film because I didn't think Alden Ehrenreich was up to the task of playing Han Solo, and although he played his part beautifully, he didn't at any point throughout the movie give off the Harrison Ford or Han Solo vibe. Whoever cast this film cost Disney hundreds of millions of dollars!
I am also getting a bit sick and tired of Disney's new take on SW. There completely stuck in the Empire Era and forever talking about the dam "spark" or "rebirth" of the Rebellion; being SW Rebels, Rogue One, the Last Jedi or Solo, and Disney wonders why SW is failing - it's simple - because it only has one soundtrack. I don't want to hear about the dam "spark" or "rebirth" of the Rebellion every time I turn on SW. When the marauder (or Cloud-Rider), Enfys Nest, removed her helmet in Solo and said she was Rebellion, I wanted to hit head against the wall... And, again, how many SW films can Disney make based during the Empire Era and keep people coming back to the movies? Even SW episodes VII to IX are reboots of episodes IV to VI. If Disney had any brains at all, they would start churning out movies based before and during the Clone Wars; given they have completely ruined episodes VII to IX. The time before and during the Clone Wars is absolutely awesome! Both the Jedi and the Sith in their prime, great characters like Yoda, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker and Darth Sidious back into the mix... Even Ahsoka Tano kicks ass in SW the Clone Wars. That's the X-Factor SW is missing... Marvel has heaps of awesome characters (Ironman, Captain America, Thor, Spiderman, the Black Panther, and the list goes on) and who does SW episodes VII to IX have? No one. There all boring characters! You might also notice, Disney recently cancelled SW Rebel, which is based during the Empire Era, and are currently bring back SW the Clone Wars because (the majority of) SW Rebels was just drivel compared to SW the Clone Wars, and was only able to survive for four season in the first place because in season 2, they brought back the characters from SW the Clone Wars, i.e., Ahsoka Tano, Darth Maul, Cody, etc., which made it worth watching again.
Whoever wrote episodes VII to IX should be fired! Disney should have released a new trilogy simular to the SWTOR Cinematic Trailer: Return; a new Jedi Order, the return of the Empire, and some super cool Jedi and Sith Lords back into the mix. Instead, we're stuck with duds like Kylo Ren and grumpy old men like Luke Skywalker. It doesn't inspire much faith in the future, does it? I want to see some super cool Sith Lords, Jedi, and some kick-ass Force powers... This is what makes SW great!!! All we have seen so far is Kylo Ren, who's an absolute joke; bested by a girl who had never even held a lightsabre before. Anyone of one thousand Sith or Jedi could have easily killed him with a single swing of their lightsabre and picked their teeth with his bones, and he's the next Vader - pathetic!!!! I mean, we're supposed to believe that Kylo Ren destroyed the new Jedi Order when he couldn't even defeat a single force-sensitive girl with no Jedi training of any kind? Who wrote this rubbish? You don't bring down the Avengers and the Justice League, only to be brought down by Smurfette... Perhaps Kylo Ren better call for reinforcements before he faces another defenceless young girl (or Jedi novice)? Useless!!!! I was also hoping that Ezra Bridger would turn out to be Supreme Leader Snoke, but I was disappointed on that front too; it could have kept SW Rebels going for another few more seasons.
What Disney fails to grasp is: SW is the Jedi, the Sith, and the Force itself. It's not the Skywalker line, the Empire, the Rebellion, or the endless production of stupid Death Stars they refuse to walk away from, or even the original SW cast or characters. I'll say again: it's the Jedi, the Sith and the Force. So far we have seen four Disney SW films, which don't even include these three things really. Instead we're following around storm troopers, resistance pilots and smugglers, and next (probably) it will be a damn bounty hunter. Awesome. These movies should be the absolute bottom, BOTTOM of the barrel. Tell me, what's the point of visiting a galaxy far, far away without the Jedi, the Sith or the Force even in it? Does that even sound like SW to you? It doesn't to me. Why even visit? It's the equivalent of making a Planet of the Apes movie without the apes... Disney was even stupid enough to kill off the Jedi and the Sith in the Last Jedi too (I think the quote was: "It's time to let old things die. The Sith... the Jedi, the Rebels...let it all die!") and completely destroyed the Jedi's legacy in the process. The Jedi could have easily been rebranded as heroes again but instead, their rebranded as cowards: when the galaxy really, really needs them, where are? Luke Skywalker is hiding on Ahch-To with his tail between his legs. Just like Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi after the Clone Wars. It was their decisions that lead to the fall of the Jedi Order and the Republic, but where are they after SW episode III? Living in exile while the survivors of Order 66 were being exterminated across the galaxy.... This is who the Jedi are now: wimps and losers. The Jedi were once the coolest fictional characters in the world, and now there've lost all their awesomeness - it's just pathetic!!!!
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)
A very disappointing second film
I was very disappointed with Jurassic World 2, given the first film was outstanding. I thought the storyline was incredibly weak. It didn't add anything to the franchise, except pave the way for the next movie, which is: Welcome to the Dinosaur Apocalypse.
In the first scene, we see excavators dig-up a Indominus Rex fossil, which is later destroyed and doesn't add nothing to the film. Ted Levine also abductions the Velociraptor Blue from Jurassic World, which later escapes, so Bradley Darryl is unable to harvest its DNA to engineer the next generation of weaponised dinosaurs. So, again, adds nothing to the film or to the next dinosaur apocalypse. We also see a new weaponised dinosaur, the Indoraptor, which is later killed off, so won't play any part in the next dinosaur apocalypse. It would have been heaps better if it escaped, outsmarted everyone, laid a heap of eggs, which later hatched and overrun the human population. But, alas, we won't see anything that cool in the next film either. All that happens is: evil capitalist Rafe Spall, sells some dinosaurs (as weapons or exotic animals to hunt and kill), and sends them around the world, which will most likely escape and somehow destroy the world? What the point of all these weaponised dinosaurs if we're not going to see any in the dinosaur apocalypse? So, ultimately, this film adds nothing to the franchise, except human cloning, but I can't see how human cloning will play in part in the next apocalypse; unless we're going to see human / dinosaur hybrids, which sounds crazy to me... This movie deserved much better, if we're heading towards a dinosaur apocalypse, they could have made an amazing film. Rise of the Planet of the Apes was an outstanding movie, and Jurassic World could have been even better. What are apes compared to dinosaurs? However, all we have here is an unimaginative film.
Overall, a very disappointing movie; just a lot of running and screaming and dead-end storylines and plots. This one is a wait to see on DVDs...
Star Trek: Discovery (2017)
I wouldn't bother, get back into Stargate SG1!!
I have been very disappointed with the new Star Trek series. I thought first episode was outstanding. I couldn't have asked for more - I rated the show 10/10 on IMDB. The plot, the outfits, the special effect - amazing - talk about a "wow" factor. However, after Michael Burnham was disgraced in the second episode, I thought the series took a massive dive, and I dropped my rating down to 4/10 - it shifted Star Fleet from heroes to villains in my eyes. How many lives did Michael save in that episode and she was still sentenced to life in prison. That vilified everyone in the series for me. And, every episode since has been very disappointing, boarding on ridicules. Good science fiction get its roots from good science, so I can't seem to get my head around the Spore Drive or the magic plants they discovered on Pahvo. Even the episode where Michael is reliving the same day over and over again, she's - somehow - unable to beat Mudd without a romantic dance and kiss from her boyfriend first. Come on? Is this a series for children or adults?
My final criticism is the Klingons. Would it kill them to speak English sometimes?! After getting home from a hard day's work, I like to put something on in the background as I read the news or have a drink, and after hearing Kling for 10 minutes, I just want to turn Star Trek off and put something else on. Talk about frustrating...
I have decided to walk away from Star Trek Discovery, unfortunately its nothing like its recent films. I think the series is more for children or young adults :/
Stranger Things (2016)
Has Stranger Things lost all its originality?
After a phenomenal first season, I feel Stranger Things has completely lost its edge; recycling the same ideas we've seen on TV a million times before. First, I thought this season was a complete recycle of an episode of Fringe I saw a couple of years back, called: Alone in the World; Fringe was an American science fiction television series that ran from 2008-2013. In this episode, the Fringe team discover a large fungal network in a service tunnel which is actually part of a superorganism that functioned like the Shadow Monster. The infection also psychically connects to a young boy (named Aaron), who discovered the phenomenon, and if the Fringe team try to kill the organism, Aaron dies too. The Fringe team also finds that the organism is growing rapidly; creating its own ecosystem with tentacles and death spores for defence. Sound familiar? Google it. Furthermore, Joyce, Johnathan and Nancy make Will's body inhabitable to the Shadow Monster by increasing the temperature, because the monster likes the cold, which is identical to something I saw a season or two ago in Supernatural, in an episode called: The Things They Carried. Even, Elevens adventures this season could have been taken straight out of the pages of the Firestarter miniseries; based on Charlie McGee, a young girl with psychokinetic powers. I am sure Eleven is based on the character Charlie McGee, however, at least try to bring us an original story.
To spite a weak second season, I'll still be watching the third. Hopefully, the writers can get us back on track and bring us something we haven't seen before on either X-Files or Fringe. Otherwise, I'll be checking out for the fourth. It's a real shame too, the second season of Stranger Things had such huge potential but they went in completely the wrong direction.
Season 1: 9/10. Season 2: 4.5/10.
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
Wash, rinse and repeat – the same ideas endlessly!
After seeing Alien: Covenant and (over the weekend) Blade Runner 2049, I have lost a lot of respect for Ridley Scott. I feel all he does is wash, rinse and repeat the same ideas over and over and over again, without a fresh idea in his head. In the Alien series (for example), how many times can we watch a bunch of space cowboys land on an alien planet and get infected by an alien (or xenomorph-like) virus? With Blade Runner 2049, the "long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what's left of society into chaos" is procreation among Replicants. Are you serious? This concept has been exhausted endlessly in science fiction over in past 20 plus years! Largely, during Battlestar Galactica, the 2004 television series, procreation among humans and human Cylons. I also remember seeing something very simular when I was a kid, back in the early 90s, in SeaQuest, procreation among their version of Replicants, known as G.E.L.F, genetically engineered lifeforms. All these ideas were cool back in the 80s and 90s, but seriously, are movies today completely incapable of keeping up with the times! God, it's frustrating! Blade Runner 2 really deserved better! I feel it's the same with Star Wars right now, I mean, how many times can the Rebel Alliance destroy a Death Star? We're on 4 times now. Why are we incapable of coming up with any fresh ideas for film?
If you want to see a good film (and enjoy movies like Guardians of the Galaxy 1 and 2) go see Thor: Ragnarok instead and have a laugh. Blade Runner 2049 is a wait to see on DVD!
Logan (2017)
An all out sh*t movie!
I am absolutely stunned that this film has received so much positive feedback online; when I couldn't be more disappointed! It's by far the worst Marvel film we have seen to date. The story line was incredibly weak – I personal believe it was written by a 12-year-old child – and the movie itself, is set during another random messed up future time line, which completely falls out of sync with the rest of the X-Men (or Marvel) films we have seen to-date.
Once again, this movie failed to capture (or portray) Wolverine's character properly. The closest we've seen so far is: The Wolverine (2013). However, my biggest criticism is: I am so sick to death of seeing Wolverine fight at a disadvantage. It's like he has a permanent piece of Kryptonite rammed so far up his ass, he is incapable of fighting properly. In the first Wolverine film (X-Men Origins: Wolverine), we were forced to watch him fight with the indignity of bone claws; I wasn't very happy when Marvel added bone claws to Wolverine's mutation in 1994, when in the previous 20 years, his claws were always the result of the Weapon X project. Not some bizarre, gross mutation. However, since it was an Origin story, I can bring myself to overlook this. In the second film (The Wolverine), his powers were suppressed by Viper (or that machine attached to his heart), and in this film (Logan), we were forced to watch him: as a tired, broken down, old man. It's so disappointing
You might notice, when we watch all the other Marvel superheros on screen, they're all fighting at full strength (or in their prime); not at 10 or 20 percent of their working capacity. I want to see Wolverine completely cut lose! Is that too much to ask!! In the Avengers (or in the Captain America films), we see Captain America seriously kick ass, he is awesome, and so are all the Avengers. Even Spiderman and Ant-man kicked ass in the last Avengers film. We have never seen Wolverine shown in that light before. Half the time Wolverine is getting his ass kicked by random no bodies, and there is never a mission impossible factor involved. I cannot believe Disney don't get that
God, it's pathetic!! I think we could have seen Wolverine fight at his best if he joined the Avengers, and I would have loved to seen Hugh Jackman join the team. He probably would have stolen the spotlight though.
I am also getting a bit sick and tired of seeing Marvel (or Disney now) releasing a X-Men film with no concept of who the X-Men are, what the series is all about, and what the characters are all capable of. In the first X-Men movie for example, Mystique and Rogue are mortal enemies, when in the comic book series, Mystique is actually Rogues adopted mother, so they would never harm one another, and their relationship is critical to the Rogues eventual story. In X2 and X-Men 3, Jean was given the power of the Phoenix Force, when the Phoenix's abilities were never part of her natural mutation. In X-Men 3, Professor X and Juggernaut weren't even step brothers, and in the final X-Men film: Apocalypse, Mystique and Nightcrawler were roughly the same age, when Mystique is Nightcrawlers biological mother, and there are errors or inconsistencies like this throughout the entire X-Men (film) series. With this film for example, Laura has the exact same mutation (or powers) as Wolverine; that isn't how mutations work, identical powers aren't passed from father to son. I can provide 1000 examples on this point but I won't. God!! Does anyone actually read the comic books over there at Disney?! Just imagine tuning into a random episode of Game of Thrones and none of the Lannisters are related, the Tyrion Lannister (the Imp) is a Giant (and is as dump as a box of hair) and Winterfell is in the South rather than the North, which is completely being run by the White Walkers under the blistering sun. You would think: if Hollywood was going to make a movie based on Games of Thrones, they could at least get these facts right – or is that asking too much? Apparently so
I feel that's what the X-Men (film) series has become now. I feel it's become nothing more than a jumbled mess of random crap, and we're supposed to praise Marvel (or Disney) for their work. This movie was nothing more than another messed up alternate future, where mutates have largely been wiped out. So in the next X-Men film, are we going to see another time traveler go back in time and fixes thing because Marvel (or Disney) are incapable of producing a decent X-Men film. That's going to get, real old real fast. Whoever wrote this film has no concept of who Wolverine is or what the X-Men is all about! They came close in X- Men: First Class, X- Men: Days of Future Past and The Wolverine. I know these movies have inconsistencies compared to the comics but at least they came close to capturing what the X-Men is all about. However, this movie (Logan) was a complete mess, and only encourages me NOT to see anymore X-Men films at the movies! And, I won't be ever again! The X-Men has so much potential on the big screen but Disney seems determine to screw it all up! You know, get your sh*t together people, we deserve much better
Travelers (2016)
A must see first season.
I really enjoyed watching the first season of Travellers this year. I think it's been one of the best shows on TV this season. I just really hope this series is renewed and its able to keep up its momentum; everything else I am watching at the moment seems to be falling apart. It's also great to see another series from Brad Wright. I was actually hoping for another Stargate spin off or reboot, but beggars can't be choosers. I will now and forever be a huge Stargate fan. I absolutely loved Stargate SG1 and Stargate Atlantis, but I absolutely hated Stargate Universe. That show couldn't be been any worst! It's also great to see Eric McCormack in another TV series. I absolutely loved him in the American sitcom Will & Grace. I think I will always view Will & Grace as this best comedy in my lifetime. I have read a lot of negative feedback online about the Travellers, saying it's nothing more than a rewrite of 'Quantum Leap' and 'Twelve Monkeys,' which I think is very unfair – when, news flash – nothing on TV (or even the movies) anymore is original
For example, I really enjoyed the movie Twelve Monkeys. However, it was nothing more than a rip-off of Marvel's X- men 'Time Fugitives' comics (or early cartoons), released in the early 1980s; where Bishop travels back in time to stop Apocalypse from releasing a deadly plague that destroys the Earth. That's the whole plot of Twelve Monkeys by the way, and who knows where Marvel got the idea from, and the idea behind 'Quantum Leap,' whereby the main characters assumes the body of different people in history. This idea hasn't been explored again in quite some time. I praise the writers for bring this idea back into fashion. Fingers crossed this series is renewed for another season. I think it has huge potential for the future.
The Girl on the Train (2016)
Why weren't more women in the audience offended by this movie?
After hearing The Girl on Train was based on a bestselling novel, I was really looking forward to seeing it; especially after hearing it was being compared to movies like Nocturnal Animals and Gone Girl. However, after seeing it tonight, I am left with mixed emotions. Some reviews online call it depressing, manhating, and an all-out, over-the-top soap opera. I, on the other hand, definitely thought the movie had something but was poorly executed. I also thought the first 2/3 of the film was a scrabbled mess, where the final third of the film was the whole movie. My fiancé tells me that the book is much better, so I'll probably read it at some point to put the movie into some perspective. I didn't think the movie was manhating at all. Although, I can't deny that Tom (Justin Theroux) was a complete psycho and ultimately deserved to be killed by the women he mistreated. If anything, I thought the film couldn't have made the women in the film look more stupid, or utterly brainless. I thought only Rachel (Emily Blunt), to spite being a mentally unstable alcoholic, was the only decent (female) character in the film. I couldn't even imagine what my life would look like after surviving a monster like Tom. I also thought she was incredibly brave to face that psycho at the end of the film, and risk everything to save Anna (Rebecca Ferguson) and her child. I don't know how many other people would risk their lives to save the person who destroyed their marriage.
Anna (Rebecca Ferguson) for example, said at one point: "She enjoyed being the other woman." I am sure it must have been the proudest moment of her life to completely destroy Rachel's marriage and leave her life in ruins; and then to see her at the end of the film looking completely shattered (or even surprised) to hear that her husband (Tom) was sleeping with half the city during their affaire and was currently sleeping with the nanny (Megan) under their very roof and in their bed. It's what we call karma, my dear; if you're stupid enough to marry a man who has a long history of cheating on his ex-wife, don't cry about it when he finally cheats on you too. Megan (Haley Bennett), who is a married woman, having unprotected sex with 3 different men in her life, 1 including Tom, while simultaneously trying to get pregnant with her husband. Why on earth would she ever get involved with a cheating scumbag like Tom is simply beyond me; a man, who she knows, has a long history of cheating on his wives and his mistresses. He sounds like a keeper, a real Prince Charming
I would have thought most women are smarter than this? She had a decent man at home (who loved her) and here she is sleeping with both her Boss (Tom) and her psychologist, Dr. Kamal (Edgar Ramírez), and who knows how many others. I think what Rachel called her in the tunnel was more than justified... and, then to watch Tom beat the sh*t out of Rachel and then to willing walk into the woods with him alone – it doesn't say much for her intelligence does it - why didn't she just call the Grim Ripper ahead of time and book in an appointment? And, finally there's Detective Riley (Allison Janney). She's so focused on pinning Megan's death on Rachel that she was unable to connect A with B. After learning that Megan was pregnant (and ruling out both her husband and Dr. Kamal as the father), I am surprised a DETECTIVE wouldn't use their initiative to look into Tom. Detective Riley knew absolutely everything about Rachel but didn't think to look into her crazy ex- husband as well. Instead, it was a mentally unhinged alcoholic that cracked the case. It doesn't say much for Detective Riley does it? I think each of these 3 characters, in some point in the film, could have asked themselves: If I only had a brain?
I am surprised more girls weren't upset by this film? I know a lot of very strong, smart, intelligent women in my life – people I actually look up too, and could easily run rings round me – and here they are being depicted as just idiots..
The Walking Dead (2010)
What's happened to the Walking Dead?
What's happened to the Walking Dead? It was once the best show on television, hands down, and for many years, but now I feel it's completely lost it way – I feel like I am almost done with it...
Ever since the characters have felt Terminus, I feel the show has gotten really boring. Last season completely ruined the series for me. The whole season completely revolved round watching the characters readjust to living in a community again, which got really tiresome, really quickly
and some of the decisions they made during this time were almost unforgivable... In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some people stopped watching the show because of them, for example; Rick and Michonne hooking-up (where did that come from?); Carl refusing to kill Ron after he continuously tried to kill him, until finally Ron blows a hole in his head; Carol, who was an amazing character, suddenly growing a conscious and refusing to kill people, after spending months ridiculing Morgan for the same thing; Glenn refusing to kill Nicholas after he leaves Noah to die and tries to kill him too; and worst yet, Rick refusing to accept defeat after the Saviours blocked his path to the Hill-top, which ultimately resulted in the deaths of Glenn and Abraham
This was completely Rick's fault. I lost go much respect for Rick after this episode... No one can deny Rick is a proved survivor and the biggest, baddies' cat out there, but to borrow a quote from James Luceno (one of my favourite writers): "To be strong is one thing. But to believe oneself to be all-powerful is to invite catastrophe." Rick jeopardised all their lives simply to get Maggie across the finish line. Even Maggie should have even said – enough. They should have gone home and retried again in the morning, or a day or 2 later. However, it was Rick's arrogance and stupidity that got Glenn and Abraham killed and the Saviours could have just as easily killed them all. Smart move Rick
Real bright
There was a time when Rick's character carried the whole show but not anymore, I think the show could kill him off now and continue without a beat.
I also feel the series has gone in completely the wrong direction with its villains as well. The Saviours are such 2 dimensional characters, their nothing more than bullies, and Negan, not that I don't love Jeffrey Dean Morgan, I think he is an absolute legend of an actor!! Huge fan... it's just, Negan annoys the hell out of me. I think the Governor and the Terminus cannibals were much more terrifying villains. I think the Walking Dead deserves better than Negan and the Saviours, and part of me thinks Jeffrey Dean Morgan is just to dam charming and likable, Lol. I would have liked to have seen the Wolves take a more active role in the show
The Wolves are scary as hell, watching them tear through Alexander, butchering everyone in their path was an awesome episode. These are the villains I want to see
I have 2 problems with the Saviours; first, up until now, the series has largely been devoid of (living) humans, and suddenly, out of nowhere, these Saviours appear numbering in the hundreds, possibly even the thousands – it's completely in direct contrast with the first few seasons of the Walking Dead. And, second, Negan, by my count, he should be dead like 4 or 5 times now; 1) Rick should have beaten him to death with his own bat; 2) Carl should have shot him to death with a machine gun; and (3) beaten him to death (with the same bat) shortly after, and 4) Rosita should have killed him the last episode, but by some miracle, he managed to deflect the bullet with Lucille. Come on, man? This guys has got more lives than a cat, even Dwight should have killed him for turning his wife into his personal sex slave
My final criticism about the series is, about the communities the characters' encounter. Why is it, whenever we discover a new colony, its always wield in some way; the Kingdom, which is led by King Ezekiel, who thinks his King Author, the Valle de Guadalupe (from Fear the Walking Dead), whose leader Celia thought zombification was a path to immortality, La Colonia (from Fear the Walking Dead again), which was led by a messianic figure, who was supposingly bitten by a zombie but didn't turn, etc. I feel the series is getting quite ridiculous at times... I just think the whole show has really lost its connection with both its characters and its audience. Rick and Cark aren't the characters they once were, and I am so sick to death of seeing Rick's shattered face
Carol and Michonne aren't really cool anymore -- when's the last time we saw them kicking ass? Or perhaps all the characters are just spread out too thin. In fact, when was the last time all the characters were even all together or had a heart felt moment. I remember when everyone thought Glenn died in episode 603. Everyone was so upset and depressed about it. I remember reading so many reviews about it online. Glenn actually died this season, but no one really cared because the Walking Dead had lost its connection to its audience over the season break... I think the last episode for the year showed some minor hope for the future but I'm ready to give up
I missing an amazing Walking Dead!!!
The Revenant (2015)
Worst revenge story ever!!!
This movie is without doubt the worst revenge movie I have ever seen! I can't believe Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hardy actually wasted their time making this load of crap!
Nothing happens for the first 2 hours of the film, except watching Leonardo DiCaprio paw around in the snow after he was ripped to shreds by a bear. Just imagine watching Uma Thurman (in Kill Bill) crawl around on the hospital floor (after she wakes from her coma) as she makes her way to the Pussy Wagon. That's the movie in a nutshell. What happens after the bear attack is laughable - leaving only 15-20 mins for Leo's revenge - and the fact that he survives this attack is complete BS. No one could have survived this attack!
Here's the sum of the movie. Leonardo DiCaprio is butchered by a bear, falls down a waterfall and then thrown off a cliff. Somehow, beyond credability, he manages to survive all this, and makes his way home to spend 15-20 mins hunting down the guy his killed his son. 45 mins into the movie, I wanted to walk out. Not worth seeing at the movies. AVOID AT ALL COSTS! My girlfriend and I both hated it!
If Leo wins an Oscar for this, it's should be for doing all the gross things he needs to do in order to survive; like eating raw animals and sleeping in the butchered carcasses of horses.
0 out 10 from me.
Worst revenge story ever!!!
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
Another disappointing review :(
*** Spoiler Alert *** I just wanted to start by saying, I am a true SW fan; I love all the previous SW films (including Episodes I-III, although I think the books are much better!); I have read over 50 SW novels (my favourite is Darth Plagueis by James Luceno, hands down); and I even enjoy watching SW the Clone Wars and SW Rebels on the weekend with my girlfriend. Saying that, I really wanted to enjoy this film, so I walked in with no expectations.
Initially, I thought it was a mistake for Disney to make Episodes VII-XI, largely because the storyline after Episode VI is rather weak. I actually hoped Disney would make a pre-Episode I trilogy. I also thought it was a huge mistake bring Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford back into the mix (because I didn't think they could add anything more to the story). However, to spite all this, as I said above, I walked into the movie with no expectations. I only wanted to enjoy whatever Disney threw at me... and sadly I still walked out disappointed.
I thought the movie was a complete recycle of Episode IV, with a few scenes from Episode V and VI thrown in. The biggest disappointment, however, was the new villain, Kylo Ren. I thought he was nothing more than an emotional child, a pitiful example of a "wanna-be" Sith; well, well below the standards of a SW villain. I thought this character alone completely destroyed the film for me. I think I could have overlooked everything else I didn't like, providing this character alone lived up to the Sith legacy. What makes SW great are its villains, but Kylo Ren, was just an incredibly weak human being; throwing temper tantrums from one scene to the next. We're supposed to believe that Kylo Ren completely destroyed the new Jedi Order when he couldn't even defeat a single force-sensitive girl with no Jedi training of any kind? I don't remember Luke Skywalker defeating Darth Vader seconds after he picked up his lightsabre? Perhaps next time he better call for reinforcements before he faces a defenceless young girl (or a Jedi novice)? I really hope Disney kill off Kylo Ren before the next film (or at minimum, he grows a pair of balls the size of Death Stars, so he can at least swing a lightsabre. I'm really hoping for the latter!!)
SW the Old Republic (Knights of the Fallen Empire) has recently introduced some great villains into the game. Even the new television series SW Rebels has some great villains, Fifth Brother and Seventh Sister. Fifth Brother might not be the brightest Sith in the galaxy but at least he was well trained by Darth Vader... Kylo Ren on the other hand is an embarrassment to the SW series. Why couldn't Kylo Ren have lived up to anyone of these SW characters? I think even Jar Jar Binks could have easily struck Kylo Ren down. Disney please kill him off before the next movie!!
I also think the series needs to completely walk away from Death Stars. I mean seriously, how many times can the Rebel Alliance destroy a Death Star? This is 3 times now. Are we going to see another two more Death Stars in Episodes IIX and IX as well? There are hundreds of amazing SW novels out there that don't require a Death Star to finish off the story, but the movies seem unable leave them alone. Why couldn't Disney have made one of these books into a movie? I can only hope Disney is a little more imaginative next time. 4 out 10 from me... I also thought Harrison Ford completely carried the whole movie. Although, Daisy Ridley played her part exceedingly well.