gadfeal

This is a wonderfully produced mini-series in terms of sets, costumes, makeup, special effects. The script is really something that a teenager (or younger) would like - Medieval setting, anachronisms too numerous to mention, absurd complexity of neologisms and lore. The main draw of the series, Henry Cavill's beauty, is also its main drawback - He has two expressions: blank or scowling, and one register - taciturn monotony. If he were not physically convincing, famous or attractive, he acting ability would have inadequate alone, and the weakest of the cast.

The Medieval gobbledy-gook of neologisms and anachronisms of rune (Celtic) and Ingvaeonic (aka, reductively, Anglo-Saxon-Jute-Danish) words and themes, seems even more in stark contrast to the decidedly salty 20-21st Century slang and curse words. I'm all for interpreting ancient dialog into an emotionally-resonant modern script, but this was inconsistent.

Completely anachronistic is the presence of non-European characters at a time that pre-dates European Colonialism to other continents by several centuries (400-500).

The narrative tone as well was a bit monotonous "doom and gloom". A more dramatic effect would have been to have light and grey moments in the narrative. Only the joker-like humorous character provided some texture.

It was about 50% too long.

Although the superficial narrative is that "fame destroys", the back story was more that fame postponed the self-destruction of Rob Pilatus. Born to a US serviceman in Germany and what must have been a one night stand with a German stripper, both abandoned him to foster care. While children are often awful and cruel, taunting Rob with stereotypical epithets, his psyche had never been nurtured to form a sense of confidence.

Rob, like many insecure performers, thought that fame would compensate for the constant gnawing self-hate that many foster children, especially of visible minorities, develop. Naively, the two youngsters signed up with industry vultures who royally screwed them in a financial sense, and who paid little attention to Rob's fragile ego.

Objectively, Fabrice was more confident in the end, while Rob descended into numbing addiction, like Marylin Monroe, Judy Garland, Anna Nicole Smith and others.

The closest "feel" in the impression of this series is the recent Outlander. In both series, we have attractive, well-crafted characters and good actors, set in both the present of 2014 Manhattan and the past of a British doctor of the turn of the 9th Century who was shot by a privateer captain with what must have been one of the last slave trade ships to British Americas, as the good doctor refused to let the captain chuck him overboard like "damaged goods".

The common thread is a highly integrous Briton who protects the "innocent" as best he can during his 200 years on earth. Starting with his utter distaste and alienation after discovery of his own father's resort to stave off ruin by allowing slave trade runs in his fleet, to his taking in an orphaned Jewish baby after its parents had been killed in a concentration camp, to his self-disgust after killing in self-defense, to putting himself in harm's way for others. Yet, there is a very human fear of being revealed as "immortal" since it had first landed him in an insane asylum after he told his then wife of his condition, and so, for most of the remaining century, keep out of intimate relationships save one.

There is a hint of House (the impossibly inutitive, experienced perception from a medical pathologist's viewpoint), Highlander (the inability to be killed), Quincy Jones (the medical examiner who sees the entire picture for the victim's entourage, and who pushes forward even as the police are unwilling), and, of course, Outlander, the immmortal who exhibits a set of humanistic values now normal in our era, but unusual in times past.

There is never any sexual relation between the impossibly beautiful, perfectly coiffed Jo Martinez and the old world charm of trim, rakishly day-old beared protagonist. It would have made the narrative into a cheap soap opera.

What are less plausible are:

1. Henry Morgan kept the same name for 200 years, and, it is surprising that no-one in the 21st Century would have properly vetted his background.

2. For a Briton who seems to have lived in the US for two lifetimes, it's extraordinary that his accent and speech patterns have not adapted at all.

3. Upon death, the body and clothing of the two immortals simply vanish leaving no bodily trace, yet they reappear stark naked in the same spot in the Hudson. This made it a bit too unbelievable. Immortality would more plausibly be astounding regenerative ability, or almost superhuman toughness - not some transportation via a wormhole.

4. For someone with as much time on his hands, financial security and extraordinary intelligence, it is entirely implausible that the protagonist does not have a cell phone in the mid 2010s, doesn't know what a hacker is, can't drive...

In short, I think that the characters were as developed as they could be, but the narrative could have been done in a three or four hour miniseries. It jumped the shark about 2/3s of the way through, but the final episode wrapped up ends.

While the same fantasy of a wonderful human society using technology in facing challenges off world - in completed stories of one hour, this episode stood out by pushing the "fantasy" into explicity, of a musical.

That said, the lyricists and vocal direction, if the voices of actors were used, was masterful. No screeching belting, no masturbatory masturbation. There was evident "auto tune" - but it was understandable, and never as "synth" as the highly distorted output of some modern "singers".

The standout was the actress who plays Ohura. She's delightful and subtle yet surefooted in her renditions.

MORE PLEASE.

Did we really need yet another version n of blockbuster franchise? Did we really have to choose an octogenarian to play a 30 year old? Did we really have to rehash naked politically-motivated, and, frankly, reductive anti-German prejudice by evoking a war that ended in 1945, about the year of Harrison Ford's birth?

The answer to all the above is a resounding, NO!

Surely, they could have cast a young actor to play the young Indiana Jones? Surely, the Nazis were not the only "bad guys" of historical significance?

Note to producers, why don't you do an original film on the swept-under-the-rug most horrific genocide in History, the decimation of nearly 20% (80% of Mesoamericans) of the Earth's population in the 125 years following the landing of Columbus in the Americas, AND, the 300 years it took for Mexico's population to recover to pre-Columbian levels???? Even the Black Plague didn't have 80% mortality, and European populations "only" took 125 years to recuperate population levels after the worst wave ending in the mid 15th Century.

At least the latest version of Blank Panther has finally begun to shed some equity in the Historical narrative of the Americas.

The premise of the story has basis in fact. After Parliament rejected papal influence in 1534 by making Henry VIII the head of Christianity in England, followed centuries of witch hunt against Catholics. Even the 16th Century interludes without monarchy, the so-called republican governments under Cromwell were even more ruthlessly cruel against the Irish, and sent thousands of them into de facto slavery in the Caribbean colonies, notably to Barbados.

English historians mollify today's sensibilities indicating that it was for "only" a period of indenture. However, roughly 25% of transported Irish died on route, and the period of indenture was prolonged on the slightest pretext. Even after "release", such was the obnoxious prejudice against Catholics that life was hardly easy for them.

In the film, there are some liberties with the truth. The Bishops were depicted as having at least a 100 "servants", which was highly unlikely as each would have cost the equivalent of a Tesla today. Furthermore, there was no such colony called "Port Royal" where there were no African or Indigenous slaves/servants to be seen.

Most viewers may regard the film's premise as fiction, but the harsh reality that forms its basis the centuries of aggrieved Irish sub-human treatment by English governments, and help explain the utter revolt that English rule lit among Irishmen.

This was unwatchable. There was so much "bubble gum" CGI, meandering plot, overacting, and nothing novel in either the cinematography, the characterization. Furthermore, the least unpleasant character was Groot, who was spared the very sub-par dialogue, where the cartoon characters had more three-dimensionality than the humans..

A particularly blood curdling narrative was that of grossly deformed, Frankensteinish genetically modified critters. Either this should be for young one, or adult; instead, the most gruesome mutilations follow some Road Runner level inanity. The style was a mix of Farscape, the muppets, the Sixth Element, and Sportacus, combined with The Island of Dr. Moreau.

The characters were insufferable:

1. Visibly too senior to be an acrobatic action star, Chris Pratt, who has sold his his soul to the franchise dollar. His endomorph body seems to be reasserting itself (hips as broad as shoulders)

2. Gamora version 2 is an unsmiling, acid, emasculating scrawny /female dog/, that any sane human would excommunicate within 10 seconds of her rabid tongue lashing.

3. At the risk of the wrath of body image curators, the actress who plays Gamora's cybernetic sister seems to be a few months pregnant. As Marcia Cross stated, "Acting the only profession where starvation, to maintain the same figure over decades, is a job requirement.

4. The ex WWF actor (whose name I forgot) simply extends the stereotype of the musclehead dumbo brute; no character development. Maybe, in life, he is actually a PhD.

5. The bug eyed expath with the antennae has become a screaming, complaning person, unlike her sweet, endearing character of yore.

This was so much a naked "milk the franchise neverendum", like the last Thor movie devoid of any new material, insight or character development, that it is on a par with the frenetic sci-fi animations of Star Trek Under Decks.

Shame, Hollywood industry for brainwashing naive pre-teen minds with as much morality as the frivolously violent attacks without true consequent in Road Runner, Bugs Bunny.

Besides the competent acting, cinematography and the attractive actors, the narrative was not very original -- two partnered men having an "illicit" affair of passion.

What I like is that this was NOT:

It depicts gay men as indistinguishable from men in general -- which is closer to reality than the often stereotypical camp, queeny or fay depictions in mainstream media.

The masculinity is not a comic book puerile version, like former sissies who "butch up" as adults but their hair and dress are a bit too "curated" to be natural.

Although the gay romance theme and gay casting is front and center, there is no agenda of "woe is me" victimization by society, nor is there any more drama than among any two humans in general.

There was no hint of moral judgment, such as intolerant strangers, nor implied doomed fate (I'm talking about you "Brokeback Mountain").

The main cast is NOT straight playing gay. Alexander Lincoln is a handsome-average man -- not too pretty, not too buff, not primping. He had been a child actor and then a regular on the long running working class British soap, Emmerdale Farm. So, in facat, until he "came out" in 2022 at age 29, he was considered a stright playing gay, whereas he was gay playing straight.

Please, more of the same but with a much more original script.

I don't get the overly flowery reviews of others. I didn't get any originality from this prequel. In fact, the introduction of human drama into the United Earth Government project seemed boring. There was one action segment at the beginning, then it was either personal dramas among the Chinese members and CGI.

There was the usual unscientific fiction interpretation: Noises heard in the vacuum of space being the most banal. However, they should have consulted with some geophysicists for the most basic premises of plot. At one point, they stop the earth's rotation as they head out of orbit. Even an adolescent would know that the earth's rotation is essential to maintaning the electromagnetic shield that protects the earth from radiation. Secondly, it would plunge the northern hemisphere (since Antartica is seen as facing the sun) into darkness, killing off plant and animal species. If they are truly planning a 2,500 voyage, there is also a lot of technology needed to keep 100 generations healthy and fed underground; but Sci-Fi hardly seems to concern that issue.

If there is going to be a Wantering Earth III, they could focus on life without sun, sustanability. I also don't know how societies would live stuck in underground shelters with no obvious means of long distance travel. The oceans would freeze, and the most likely source of energy would be from below the earth's mantle, either directly, or indirectly from volcano entry points.

The depiction of non-Chinese has been very two-dimensional, and a future scenario writer would best include a more natural narrative if they wish to appeal to an international audience.

Originality: Zero Production Values: 7 Acting: 6 inexperienced, uninteresting acting

Yet another neverendum sequel or re-working. JUST WHEN I thought that werewolf themed movies and series has exhausted public interest in the past decade, here is some producer's attempt at a redoing cash cow. Coming on the heels of Teen Wolf the Movie, the series seems filled with green children and no memorable performances.

Apart from some of the "teen" actors (who must all be in their 20s) who are appealing, the cast is a lot less interesting than in Teen Wolf. They just seem so childish and green. No Tyler Hoechlin hotness, no gratuitous bare chests of impossibly good-looking actors, no comedic effect of "Dylan"...

Producers, werewolves (or were-animal of any kind) have JUMPED THE SHARK ten years ago. Enough already! Why don't you fund dozens of innovative, innovative productions instead?

1 for originality 4 for character development 7 for episode writing 3 for memorability 8 for cast's ability

This should end after this series if I were a typical viewer. It's not half bad, but nothing stands out except the female Asian character, who has authenticity, gravitas and emotional expressiveness.

Just as I think that "sequels" and reworked, updated old movies or TV shows of yore are, essentially, strangling innovation by diverting funds to commercially-motivated, creatively un-inventive productions.

Just as we didn't learn anything new from Avatar 2, John Wick N, Batman N...., this crop of a reworked, diverse (Black, Asian, Gender-non-conforming...) cast adds NO NEW THEME. Sure, the special effects are more sophisticated, the corny characterization is lessened, and the stories are like mini novels per episode, it's just too BLAND. The protagonist is a nice-enough, nice-looking enough Asian actor, but the character is a goody-two-shoes, blank expression man lacking any punch or quirk. The strongest performances were by the Black and female Asian leads; they have presence and gravitas.

If you are old enough to know the original series, this may be entertaining if you have nothing else to but, but it's like eating a very run-of-the-mill sandwich.

Younger viewers may find it fresher.

The first thing to notice is the excellent actor lineup from the brief role of Ewan McGregor, to the supremely convincing actors playing the MI-6 protagonists (Bill Nighy and Sophie Okenodo) even if the role of Mickey Rourke (Darius Sayles) and his side-kicks (including Andy Serkis) are Mel Brookes humorist.

Even the introduction of Alex Pettyfer as the golden haired hyper skilled teenager was good even if his character was one dimensional.

All in all a highly enjoyable teen action comedy romp, plagued with nonsensical premises:

1. Mickey Rourke, wearing blue eye-shadow and looking like he fell off a bandwagon, supposedly was an American who attended school in England where he was bullied by "snobs". That is highly unlikely. First of all, he would not have spoken like an American, secondly, looking like he does, I doubt that he would have gone to a "Public School" (i.e., the elite private boarding schools in England) where he would have met the snobs of the elite, but to a Comprehensive (i.e. State private school) such as where Adele attended in working class London.

2. Alex Pettyfer must have always been told he was astonishingly good looking, even as a child. Here, he is a scrawny teen with the ability dispatch 8 burly men handily, dodge bullets, parkour like there's no gravity, and keep his cool.

3. Alicia Silverstone, oddly named "Jack", has taken care of Alex for nine years, i.e., from age 5 through 14. Yet, she is an undocumented immigrant. How could a top secret agent NOT have vetted her, and gotten her papers from the get go? Implausible.

All in.all, a suspended belief teen action comedy in the vein of Agent Cody Banks with top level actors and good production values. For an adult, the storyline has too many holes to even be remotely believable.

We have seen every version of humanoid AIs going "rogue" from the "Terminator" series, to "A. I.", to the Cylons. This was nothing original. The only amusement was the eerie depiction of an emotionless robot by a human child actress. Is this progress, when we convert humans into mindless robots? It reminds me of the Beijing Olympics, when the spectacular choreographed shows essentially converted humans into voxels..

That said, for a young person who has not bothered to have seen any of the fore-mentioned movies, innovating in their day, the movie would be a refreshing first - but for anyone older, not.

Perhaps, the young actress could progress to being a human with human emotions next time.

There was no character development since the supposed 15 years elapsed since High School, and the age of the actors hasn't advanced 15 years either.

The Argents looks virtually the same, with Allison looking incredible, perhaps due to surgery and diet.

"Jackson" looks exactly the same, but he is given a "dumb jock" role and nothing else to do.

Everyone else looks 10 years older, as they should do.

With the TV series now in progress of "Teen Blood", I fear that the fad for attractive, teen werewolves with hearts of gold has not YET died off.

Could producers please stop milking a dead cow with the neverending serials, remakes, and reengineered scenarii?

Although "animation" usually means "for pre teen children" in the US, this was a narrative that was a mix of childhood wonder and brass knuckles cutthroat egomaniacs.

On one hand, none of the six child protagonists were killed from the umpteen natural, wildlife or criminal challenges, there were very clear incidents of gory demise of, usually, "baddies", albeit off screen.

The adults were mostly two dimensional characters but the children really showed development from living in imaginary views of the world with social relations deformed by social apartness, to growth in self-reliance, empathy and learning from mistakes in judgment.

The series was, however, a bit too long, and only two or three adult characters showed that humans are often flawed, doing good and bad; most of them were almost "cartoon like" caricatures.

All in all, much more time for screenplay and character development than in any of the non-animated movies.

This film was "real life" in that it was unscripted, happy endings aren't expected, and nothing goes to expectations at the pace of Instagram. I am surprised at the footage obtained if this was truly not a script.

The superficial story is that of a UK "veteran" (who seems like a teenager who can barely grow facial hair) who finds redemption in the Amazonian forest of Peru, doing a "first" in developing a protocol for rescuing wild ocelots. From that point of view, nothing too "preachy" - just the tell tale signs of inconsiderate humans who destroy forests, kidnap and maim innocent creatures, and an Amazonian that is unpatrollable in most cases. That "animal rescue" story is good but sobering to the reality. The reality is that, unlike Tarzan and Rambo depictions of jungle men, the protagonist is skinny, bug bitten, often muddy and injured lad, who is not afraid of death.

The deeper story is that of this PTSD afflicted seemingly teenage British ex-soldier who was devastated by the inhumane, violent, gut-wrenching horrors of war in Afghanistan, who concluded as he held a dead child's bloody body that "we had no right to be there". On that point of view, I couldn't agree more. The New American Century cabal that controlled the agenda for the two Bush administrations tried to impose their egocentric, two-dimensional views in a tinderbox region of multidimensional complexity. From the legal inanity of giving a President "War Powers" when there is no verifiable enemy State; whoever in his right mind would grant war invasion powers against "Terror" when the players are criminal and radical groups - not State governments?

I blame the armchair political leaders who are completely divorced from the gravity of their decisions to take military action. From a President who avoided military service, and a Prime Minister who went against massive popular opinion, the advice of the Foreign Ministry, and the authenticated reports of the UN Atomic Energy Agency rapporteurs, Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei. Like cowards, the principal actors of the New American Century cabal don't dare set foot in a nation where there is possibility of arrest under an international warrant for war crimes.

Meanwhile, two decades on, dozens of millions of lives continue to suffer from the cabal's actions: millions of displaced refugees flooding into Lebanon, Jordan, Europe and Turkey, a societal collapse in Afghanistan, and precipitation of the spread of a violent strain of radicalism. Quite the opposite effect desired -- BUT ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE by all who had any grasp of Middle Eastern societies, history and politics.

So, this poor lad, who was suicidal and self-mutilating in the UK, sought redemption for the senseless killing, maiming and violence on innocent people, but converting his salvation into a project to raise an orphaned ocelot kitten to release in 17 months. He lived somewhat "off the grid" with no running water or toilets, but he did have access to solar power, satellite phones, local helpers and funds from a number of organizations including that of his then US girlfriend on her doctorate project.

The heroes of the story are his family and his wonderful, compassionate American girlfriend who kept him sane with unflinching devotion, but whom he ultimately pushed away as he spiraled into another cycle of self-destruction after a first setback in his "quest".

I won't give away spoilers but if you don't end up crying and repulsed by bone-headed armchair political leaders and their war-mongering with no responsibility for untold lives destroyed or hobbled, you would be likely a very cold hearted being.

As for the wildlife rescue aspect, the girlfriend was the level headed one who put in the education and marshalled resources to make durable change that continues long after the poor soldier's quest of redemption. She is the real heroine of the movie.

Cons: two-dimensional characters, lacks originality. Only Sigourney Weaver's and the second son of "GI Joe" brought memorable performance. Excessively violent.

Themes: Violence; Gaian connectedness; Tech vs Nature; invaders versus natives Pros: Again, a visual tour de force, although the unnatural blue skin takes some getting used to, and almost imparts a cartoon feeling (as in the Schroumps), broken only by the seamless integration of apparent actors in the flesh. The technical and artistic aspects were unparalleled.

Tone and narrative flow: The action scenes were too much a central feature of the narrative. There was little balance with other human interaction or "being interaction" other than the cartoony "family togethernes", right vs wrong simplicity, and ostracism of those "different". The final act in the sinking hydrofoil battleship lacked logic. The protagonists had no reason to keep trying to reach air as the ship rolled over and sank; surely, they could have held their breath and called their marine steeds? It's also unlikely that guns that shoot bullets faster than the speed of sound could be outdone by arrows. In addition, what happened to the masses of water Navi who launched the final attack? All we see afterwards are the protagonist family until the ending scene back at the village.

Nutshell plot: The mad soldier ("GI Joe") killed in Avatar 1 remains the baddie thread as he had been resurrected into a Navi body, and, even in Avatar 2, he is saved for an Avatar 3 screenplay. This has jumped the shark.

Discussion: From a moral and philosophical viewpoint, there was no novelty. A) Man spoils the earth, and wants to move to a beautiful but toxic aired planet already occupied by eco-Indigenous, b) Enormous heavy arms and two-dimensional depictions of soldiers with no conscious or common sense counterbalanced by the few sympathetic humans and the noble "savage" indigenous. C) A highly interconnected planet with shared consciousness between Navi, plants, animals, bird/dragons and marine creatures.

This is a mixed bag in narrative originality, dialog.

So-so: The theme of future apocalypse caused by Man, elite corps of.brave soldiers who succeed against all odds, corrupt mad official, disastrous effects of military robots are all well-trodden themes in Western movies.

Noteworthy: That this was not a US-based production but the CGI, choreography of action scenes, special effects, sound effects and esthetics are second to none. The only indication that this was not a US-made action high-cost production was that a) all the actors were Chinese, b) the dialog was in Cantonese (I think).

Note to marketing this to non-Chinese viewers:

1. Anglophones DON'T like subtitles. Please dub into English, but with high quality, i.e., use voice actors of all the same accent type, have English scriptwriters match lip movements with dubbed dialog, and retain or improve foleying (sound atmosphere). Many dubbed films sound as if they were done in an anaechoic chamber, giving a muffled unnatural feel to the movie.

2. The jingoistic undertones may be unpalatable to non-Chinese, just as US military recruitment propaganda is to non-Americans. Odd that the worldwide disaster only seemed to involve China. Even the Wandering Earth indicated international cooperation to save Man.

On the surface, this is a focus on a visible minority without concomitant or balanced representation in mass media of the reality. There are more Asian Americans than there are Jewish Americans, but even those who have had 5 generations of American history, longer than most White Americans including former Presidents, they are infrequently portrayed and integrated into mass media narrative.

From that viewpoint, it is good to have some representation of Americans who happen to be Asian. However, there is still inadequate representation as it is still caricaturist, replete with stereotypes. The stereotypes fail to provide a current, realistic portrayal of Americans with Asian ancestry.

A) Asian Americans are NOT all recent immigrants. Those whose ancestors immigrated in the 19th Century faced great prejudice leading to a "no Asian" immigration policy. It is likely that they have integrated socially and intermarried as of the 20th Century, so their descendants are often Eurasian, but Afro-asian (Kimoral Lee Simmons), Latino-Asian (Often Philippino-Latin) and Jew-Asian also can be encountered. They are extremely UNLIKELY to speak other languages to English, and certainly NOT highly inflected ones like Chinese; Chinese has a non-phonetic alphabet and thus even someone born in China who immigrated to the US as a young person could forget how to pronounce certain words. If you are Anglophone but living in Turkey for decades, you can always read in English and pronounce English words relatively faithfully; a Sinophone who has lived decades in a non-Sinophone society often can forget how to read a Chinese character set (pictograms) and pronounce it correctly.

B) 20th Century Asian immigrants who arrived through skills-based protocols as of 1960s, tend to be among the most educated and prosperous of people. When the "any White can come to the US" was replaced by a "qualified immigrants encouraged", all such immigrants were the cream of the crop. So, there are disproportionate percentages of 20th Century African and Black Caribbean immigrants and their descendants to the US in positions of success: Sidney Poitier, Barak Obama, Shirley Chrisholm, Sidney Poitier, Eric Holder, and many professors in academia such as the Jamaican father of VP Pamela Harris. In fact, the average family income of immigrants who came as qualified migrants is higher than the average White American family's.

C) Representations of Asians in mainstream productions is infrequent, "decoration", or, conversely, clumsily one-dimensional. Even Kung-Fu suits the sterotypes that i) Asians know martial arts, ii) Asians have one foot in Asia and often live or work in a "ghetto" or Chinatown, iii) Asians who aren't born in the US all sound like demented cookies. They play second fiddle to protagonists who are White, Jewish, or Black, or are perceived as an "exotic other" with mysterious ways, or, relegated to "Asian-themed shows" (Fresh Off the Boat). Rarely, Asian actors are integrated into scripts like Sandra Oh, Ming Na, Mindy Kahling, Kal Penn, or Lucy Liu. Often, the "Asian actor" is not Asian in culture but Eurasian. So, Henry Golding (a Sino-Dutch raised in the UK), Nancy Kwan, Russel Wong, Olivia Munn, Kristie Kreuk, and many other secondary role actors, and their Asian origins are muted.like Summer Glau, Meg Tilly. Rarely, mixed race actors speak out against prejudice and reveal their ancestry after some inhumane act of violence in the US: David Chokachi of Baywatch, revealed his anger at Arab bashing when his father was Iraqi; John Paul Gosselar of Saved by the Bell is Dutch-Indonesian; Merle Oberon was Anglo-Indian;

D) This persistent, obsolete portrayal of Asians in the US as "not American", "recent", "exotic", "infrequent" does have negative consequences. When you have deranged individuals, liberated by the insane lack of common humanity in public since the Trump Administration, it can mean violence in perceived "Asian foreigners". Does anyone associate Frank Sinatra with Casa Nostra (although there had been rumors of connections with US mafia), or that Mr. Trump harbors German (he's only 3rd generation American) or Scottish proclivities (Although political leaders in both Scotland and Germany have publicly indicated that they don't want him.), or that many celebrities are foreigners in disguise (Kirk Douglas, born Issur Danielovitch; Charlie Sheen né Carlos Estevez; Raquel Welch born Tejada; Robert Maxwell, born Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch; Gynneth Paltrow's family name had been Patrowicz) It's one thing to have a stage name when only Anglo names would pass but surely in the 21st Century, one should restore the real traditional last names?

That's also a question I would put to the British Royal Family which has been predominantly Germanic since 1704. 3/4 Germanic Queen Victoria was a Hanoverian; her son was a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (where her mother and husband were born) but changed it to "Windsor" in 1917 when the US finally joined WWI three years late and anti-German prejudice arose. Even King Charles III's traditional family name of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg was anglcized for effect by Prince Philip whose Germanic last name was anglicized before his naturalization to British and engagement to Queen Elizabeth. He adopted the invented name of "Mountbatten" that his maternal uncle had taken on after WWI, using the maiden name of his mother, a "Battenburg". Surely, British people of the 21st Century wouldn't think any less of their monarchs if their true Germanic last names were restored? (Irony) Surely, no one would think anything if the true names were restored: Queen Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and King Charles Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gluckburg?

Of course, even in this "age of DNA enlightenment", we won't see restoration of ancestral names, nor will the Douglases are restore "Danielovich", the Sheens, the "Estevez" etc.

I am just sick of the implied deprecation of femininity and females by making ersatz linguistic engineering of male terms into an implied lesser or adjunct female neologism. From "bachelorette" (a feminine bachelor?) to "She Hulk" (a transgender version of Bruce Banner?), and now "Woman King"; did the film's female protagonists pretend to be male?

In the same vein, instead of cumbersome male-adjunct terms that belittle women like "Woman King", why not use "Warrior Queen", a term used for Bodicea in prehistoric Celtic Britain and in the same vein as the Woman General in Chinese folklore/history?

That said, the film's premise is a useful education of West African tribal history, and it touched on the Slave Trade. It's a good start, but the full complexity of the Slave Trade in which captured tribes were "sold" to coastal traders or to Arabic traders by the capturing tribes, is not fully addressed. The wealth of some West African kingdoms was based on the selling of captured Africans to other Africans or to slave traders.

The slave trade was awful, but it did not exist without ugliness on all sides of the trade, which deserves to be fully explored in a three dimensional manner.

This is clearly a "holiday cheer" film, and it delivers with big cast, song and dance, and the mercurial Ryan Reynolds who sprinkles magic by his wittiness, snappy dancing and fairly good singing. Although it may seems for children, it is really for adults with vague memories of the classical Scrooge, in a jazzed up twist. Some of the humor has raunchy double entendres, which most children would miss, and the salty occasional dialogue is far less belligerent that the bodily harm inflicted in so-called Saturday cartoons. Refreshing, entertaining, with no other ambition.

I don't know why it has been so poorly rated when disastrously rehashed ad infinitium sequels like "Top Gun", "Spiderman", and even "Batman" should be in the hall of shame of wasting hundreds of millions of dollars when they could spawn a thousand original content.

Ryan Reynolds must be the hardest working actor around, as he has cranked out movie after movie even during the pandemic. Where does he get his energy?

What a waste of time.

Incomprehensible dialog that needs subtitles.

Why is a 55 year old actor playing a role for a brainless slapstick figure of interest to pre-teens?

Why is there any "comedy" that makes light of violence like Road Runner?

I have no idea why anyone over age 10 with any life experience would possibly a) write the script, b) find the money to produce this garbage, c) convince known actors to engage in this reputational disaster, d) play on every stereotype from a muderous Mexican gangster, to a Japanese Yakuza, to rail thin females who can fight off men twice her size...

Sheesh!

With 30 years on, the three actresses looked very close to their younger selves, no doubt helped by the stage thick makeup. Kathy Nijimny is noticeably thinner, and Sarah Jessica Parker is as scrawny as ever. Bette Middler was fine, if a bit "pulled".

However, it has none of the freshness and fun of the original. It's just another rethread with no new stylistic elements. The only noticeably change is a "more diverse" cast. It would have been more interesting to recast the witches than everyone else.

However, for first time viewers, it is entertaining.

It's just not new compared to the first version, and it seems less musically delightful.

Not even the attractive actors, spectacular but completely over-trodden special effects, and top notch cinematography could save this from utter futility and waster of funding that could have done so much more in a thousand more original creative projects.

The theme is so mongrel or Heinz 57 that there is no personality to this Disneyfied, treacle-covered pre-teen oriented "sequel" that has not only squeezed every merchandising drop from the entire Asgaardian franchise leaving only bagasse - much as the vampire genre had been so excessively exploited that no one over age 15 would ever want to see yet another for a while.

This was such a misuse of funds and talent that it would have been much cheaper to have a completely animated project; half of the scenes in any case were synthetic. The storyline was indigestible:

1. A human, Dr. Jane Foster, dying of cancer somehow get Monjhir (Thor's hammer) to make her a "she Thor" and give her reprieve from her cancer. Absolutely sloppy construct. Even more sloppy is that someone who was so "in love" with Thor would "drift apart" in tedium -- only a child would imagine that relationships are "magical" and no adjustment to each other would be normal.

2. New Asgaard looks like a theme park located in Husavik, Iceland ("My Home Town" of the Eurovision movie). Scandinavian folklore has never felt as cheaply monetized.

3. The milking for every penny was shameful. Why have a scene with other Avengers team at all; they had cameo roles with no pertinence to the move? Was the pandemic so barren that all the actors and film-makers just needed the money?

4. The humor was not only infantile, but corny and not funny except to a pre-schooler.

5. Everyone got superpowers, including children who were able to wield superpowered dolls against "shadowy evil creatures". Not a single child lost its life or even got injured facing "monsters" hell bent on destruction.

6. Thor must be the most pathetic of men if in his thousands of years of existence that all he could do after Jane split is mope, put on a fat suit and make stupid jokes in his mid-UK/mid-Aussie accent.

AVOID, and I will take note of the producers so that I will actively avoid any of their projects in future.

This film, hardly promoted as much as lesser ones, is highly significant in that none of the protagonists portrayed were White in the 1960s. While today that casting would be severely criticized, for a film aimed as edu-tainment of a largely White moviegoer in 1963, it would have been impossible to finance as well and commercially disastrous without the draw of Yul Brynner, and, to a lesser extent, other Hollywoodian actors of some note.

The importance is that it FINALLY introduced that the Mayan civilization pre-Columbus was more advanced in several areas than anything in Europe. Where they were not - in weapons, in ground and maritime transport - led to their demise, and, perhaps unintentionally, European borne diseases like smallpox, influenza etc. Wiped out perhaps 80% of Mesoamericans in the 16th Century. That last humanitarian disaster gets almost no mention in typical North American or European authored history books, but the statististics are glaring. There may have been as many as 120 million Mesoarmericans in 1492 (the lowest estimates are about 30 M) - that would be much more populous than ALL of EUROPE at that time; even Spain probably had only 8 million inhabitants. The 80% loss to disease, slaughter, abuse and starvation in ONE CENTURY makes the Black Plague seem "mild". From 1335-1443, for example, the English population is estimated to have gone from 4 million to 2 million; in the same period, France went from some 22 million to 17 million. It took Europe, on average, about 125 years to replemish their populations; it took Mesoamerica more than 300, with Mexico's population pre Columbus only recovering in the 1950s!

From that point of view, it was a seminal film - much as Brokeback Mountain, despite its ridiculously implausible portrayal of gay sex and relationships and tone-deaf casting, was able to introduced homosexual protagonists who were not laden with the stereotypes - even though the ending was highly stereotypical. It at least introduced the concept of homosexuality as an innate, unchosen phenomenon, and that the trouble with it is the extreme intolerance of society.

The other good things about the film is Yul Brynner. He could physically pass as a Metis today, which he was in that he was mixed European Russian, Central Asian and East Asian. He also always brings presence, 100% committment and embodiment of a warrior chief very convincingly. The other secondary actors were either White or mixed in what could be ungraciously nicknamed "Blackface". The blue-eyed English woman cast as the Mayan princess, the blue-eyed high priest played by American Richard Baseheart etc.; such casting would not happen today. However, at least the background characters seemed to be local Mexicans Metis or Indigenous, and Chichen Itza was one of the sites. It was good that so many would have the work and that Mexico's Indigenous sites, culture and technology were, at least, mentioned.

Now the criticism. The historical accuracy has already been criticized by people more informed than I about that. What I don't understand is how a civilization that cuts stone to build pyramids, crafts wood to make water wheels and planes wood smooth DID NOT HAVE metal tools. Their arch enemies did, and it beggars belief that they could not have not only acquired metal swords from slain enemies but also compel captured enemies to divulging the technology to make metal weapons.

The next issue is storyline credibility even for fiction. The protagonist tribe had maritime technology with sails and used it to escape their less technologically advanced enemies who could not pursue them. Yet, a mere few years later, they were discovered by former enemies is what seemed to be even more advanced ships. Sloppy content writing.

Nonetheless, I value this film for its introduction to an "ignorant" (in the academic sense) American audience of some of the valuable advances of Mayan that were, unfortunately, completely discarded by invading Spaniards. Imagine if the astronomy level achieved by the Mayan had been integrated into European knowledge for example.

Not enough is still not part of major historical texts as regards the technological, engineering and societal development in Mesoamerica, nor about the near genocide as a result of first the Spanish and then other Europeans arrival in the late 15th Century.