michaeltong-29180

This film is nowhere near as epic and masterfully crafted as the first one, but it can still be entertaining. The story is a clusterfu**, most of the characters are lame, but John Boyega carries the film with his charm. He's invested and having a lot of fun. The robot fights are fairly well done despite the fact that they've cheapened how the interiors of the Jaeger, and all the action scenes take place during the day for some reason. It is not the sequel Pacific Rim should have had, but it will at least scratch your itch of big robots fighting monsters, if you have one.

It had been a while since I'd seen it, and I went in expecting it to be cheesy in a fun kind of way, but it wasn't even that. While it retains certain elements of 'Resident Evil', it is completely devoid of the atmosphere that is at the core of the franchise. It doesn't seem done with any care or love of the source material. This is surprising coming from the director of Mortal Kombat, a movie that, although corny, captures the spirit of the games.

It starts out okay with some intrigue, but it spirals out of control. There are some cool moments, by 2002 standards. The laser grid scene is very memorable. Yet that isn't enough to sustain the utter bore-fest that is the rest of the film.

It's poorly shot, and poorly edited with continuity errors and outright nonsensical jumps. It also has god awful sound mixing that puts the obnoxious score front and center.

If you want a fun Zombie movie, beware, this isn't one. It's so mindless that the only zombie at the end will be you.

The Majestic has a potentially interesting story, and on the surface appears to be a heartwarming, feel-good film, but it is far from a 10/10. This film has nowhere near the depth as Jim Carrey's other dramas like Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine, and I am baffled by all the praise. If you're looking for an ultra cheesy and totally corny feel-good film, then this will hit the spot. But if you want an emotional drama with believable romance and rich themes, then you will be very disappointed.

The basic story is: A screenwriter accused of being a communist has an accident, loses his memory, appears in a small town, is mistaken for a war hero, and assumes his identity. By helping the townspeople and getting to know them, he gains to courage to confront his accusers and defend himself once he regains his memory.

Jim Carrey is a fine actor, and his performance as Peter Appleton is alright, yet he never really has chemistry with any of the supporting cast, especially with Laurie Holden (Adele Stanton), the woman who is supposed to be his long lost lover. They never click. There is no spark. The story provides no real reason for them to love each other.

Laurie Holden's character, Adele Stanton, is wasted and has very little to do except the cheapest, most cliche excuses to have 'romantic' scenes with Jim Carrey. She's also poorly cast. There is nothing wrong with Laurie Holden's performance, but she doesn't have any allure, charm, or on-screen presence. She's just a generic small town blonde dream girl.

At the end, Peter Appleton's (Jim Carrey) past finally catches up to him and he is brought in front of the House Unamerican Activities Commission to denounce Communism, even though he is innocent, and he gives the worst speech I've ever heard in a film. It's so bad it's like a parody of something from an Oscar-bait movie. His defense is very sleazy when you think about it. He actually uses the sacrifice of dead WWII soldiers and puts words in their mouths to make some grandiose point about the First Amendment as if he knows what they'd think. In real life, saying stuff like that would be contemptible, even in a defense against a witch hunt.

If I were to compare it to food, The Majestic is a well presented meal that is surprisingly flavorless and unsatisfying despite all the quality ingredients that are in it.

Did you like John Connor? Were you happy he survived and stopped Skynet? Well this movies hates you and give you the middle finger in the first 5 minutes. It undoes T1 and T2 just so that it can reset the status quo, but this time with a girl. That's it.

Remember Terminator's central theme about the value and responsibility of motherhood? Dark Fate doesn't. In this movie, motherhood is something to be scoffed at and not something to revered.

The whole concept of Terminator wasn't that Sarah was just a womb. She was the woman who was going to raise a leader. Her value wasn't in the mere fact that she could give birth, it was that she alone could impart the wisdom necessary to make John great. Terminator elevated the role of a mother over that of a military leader and an action hero. Dark Fate does not understand this.

In and of itself, the film is not terrible, but as an attempt to reboot the Terminator franchise it fails completely and basically ends up hitting all the same beats as before. It's pointless, and that's why I'm giving it 1 out of 10.

Star Wars gets a lot of hate these days and with the release of The Mandalorian fans are desperate to have something to love. I don't want to hate it, but I'm baffled by the reviews. At best, The Mandalorian is mediocre.

In our desire to forgive Disney for its mistakes, it's appears we've over-compensated by giving such high praise (and there is something suspicious about the multiple 10/10 user scores from users who've ONLY reviewed this show - and have never reviewed or scored any other Star Wars films).

The Mandalorian is the weakest written show of the subscription-service era that I've seen. It bizarrely follows the outdated model of monster/character/problem of the week. So far, they've only released five episodes, but there is little to no plot and all the characters except Mando, and his infant companion, have been superfluous. They can't even fill out the time of a standard 45-50 minute episode. Most episodes are 30-35 minutes.

When compared to its contemporaries/competitors like Stranger Things, Altered Carbon, and Lost in Space, The Mandalorian isn't even in the same league. That isn't to say it's completely inept. The title character is somewhat interesting, but everything else is hollow. All they have is a mystery-box Mcguffin in Baby Yoda, but don't expect answers any time soon because the writers don't even know, which is why every episode is basically filler.

What The Mandalorian reveals is that Disney only understands Star Wars as an aesthetic, and is still leaning heavily on nostalgia. They should have just called it: 'Star Wars Easter Eggs & References the TV Show,' because that's all it is.

Do you remember IG-88? Do you remember Thermal Detonators? Stormtroopers? Jetpacks? What about Sand-people? Or Jawas? Well good, because The Mandalorian shoehorns them all in so that the Youtubers can give them free advertising by making more 'Top 10 Things You Might Not Have Noticed In Episode 5' videos.

Strangely enough, they are inconsistent with their references and aesthetics. In Episode 5, The Mandalorian goes to Mos Eisley and travels through the desert, but he doesn't even pass by the Sarlac Pit, or the wreckage of Jaba's Barge, nor does anyone confuse him for, or mention, Boba Fett. The color of Tatooine's sand wasn't even right and thus it didn't actually look like Tatooine.

The overall production quality is inconsistent. At times it looks cinematic, and other times it looks like a Star Trek TV show - or something for the Sci-Fi channel 5 or 10 years ago. They could afford a CGI establishing shot for some village on a planet no one will remember, but when they went to Tatooine they didn't even have an establishing shot of one of Star War's most iconic locations.

The green screen matting is often Prequel-level obvious, and so far the locations have been uninteresting. They even managed to make the Mos Eisly Cantina seem like a boring place.

The Soundtrack is god-awful and it's the most distracting thing in the show. The Mandalorian title theme is a catchy rip-off of the Westworld title theme, but the rest of the score sounds like it was pre-made. It rarely fits what's on screen, often swelling to dramatic peaks in odd places. There was a scene where The Mandalorian's ship blasted off and the score made it sound like The Avengers were assembling. Yet for some reason, every time they enter a Cantina it goes dead-quiet. For all the references they put in the show, they couldn't compose fun Cantina vibes?

Overall, although the concept had potential, it's failing to execute and it's lightyears behind its peers. It isn't bad. At least it doesn't conflict with cannon, or degrade beloved characters, but it's a meager offering that hardly justifies a subscription to Disney+.

Ad Astra commits the biggest Sin in the book: it's boring. That is not to be confused with a 'slow burn.' At no point does this film 'burn.'

I also gave The Wandering Earth 1 out of 10 stars, but at least it was entertaining in how terrible it was; I laughed, I jeered, and my jaw hit the floor. But with Ad Astra, I yawned.

Some people are defending the film by saying it "isn't sci-fi," and that it's a "character driven film" more about the internal struggle of the character rather than the external spectacle of Astronautics. Although true, this is a poor excuse. Gravity (2013) already did that, and much better.

Thematically, the film is about a man's relationship to his emotionally distant father, but all of that is told to the audience in the least interesting way: Brad Pitt's monotone narration. It's all just people talking about much more interesting-sounding things that we don't see. The plot itself is just the flimsiest excuse to get Pitt's character from one place to another.

There are a couple of 'Set-Pieces,' but none of them move the plot forward or change the character. They feel more like things chosen from a checklist of 'space stuff'. There is car chase on the moon that seems to have been made specifically for the commercials; to trick people into thinking the film has action. It's completely useless and adds nothing.

Even the soundtrack is bored. It's the dullest minimal/ambient soundtrack I've ever heard. Rather than help bring the film to life, it sets it into a lull that is likely to induce sleep.

If you like films like Gravity, Interstellar, and Space Odyssey, then just re-watch those because everything in Ad Astra has already been done better.

I usually enjoy the wild, gravity defying set-pieces from the Fast and Furious franchise, but this movie showed the limits of upping the ante to extreme degrees with each iteration. The stakes are higher, and the villain is stronger than any in the series, but it was totally unnecessary. If they scaled it back a bit and had more grounded action it could have been much better.

Johnson and Statham make a great team. When they're kicking ass and cracking jokes it's a lot of fun, and if the movie had consisted mainly of that it would have been perfect, but instead they loaded the plot with super-viruses, super-humans, and secret organizations. It's becoming as wild as something written by Hideo Kojima.

The CGI action and explosions get boring at a certain point. It defeats the purpose of having two of the best action stars when they're on a green-screen reacting to explosions that aren't even there.

Even though I enjoyed watching it, I'm giving it a 5/10 because I think its potential was squandered. Rather than having a distinct and unique flavor, it's bland and fails to stand out.

When I went to see this in theaters the couple in front of my friends and I walked out of the movie thirty minutes in. Maybe it was because it wasn't to their taste, or maybe because we were obnoxiously laughing our asses off.

Whether or not you like this movie is a matter of personal taste, but if you like mocumentaries, club culture, stoner movies, and EDM, then his movie is guaranteed to please.

The plot is straightforward and there isn't an ounce of fat in the script; it's a tight comedy that never meanders. It's wild, in your face, and also has plenty of heart. There are many memorable lines and bits that should have you laughing hysterically, and touching moments that could make you cry (I did).

The film still looks fantastic and it also has a great soundtrack. All the elements for a fun time are there and I highly recommend this film to anyone who love Electronic Music.

I enjoy the first and even the second John Wick, but with Parabellum it's starting to stagnate. These films have always been based on simple plots that serve as justification for the action but the motivation seems to get weaker and weaker.

There is some decent action, but it's hardly top ten material. It's admirable that the actors rehearsed intensively to perform the action sequences, but the problem is that it looks too rehearsed; the way they move is too mechanical. There is also too much action, and a lot of it is so similar it actually gets boring.

In addition, despite the tactical realism they attempt portray, there are many things that strain credulity. In the final shootout Wick isn't even grazed by a single bullet. His opponents have worse aim than Stormtroopers, and they're supposed to be part of some super-secretive, elite league of assassins.

I had hoped this third film would serve as a satisfying conclusion, but it's just another chapter that dangles the possibility of another sequel because apparently Wick's kill-count isn't high enough yet. After Parabellum I have little to no interest in seeing the story continue.

Wow there are so many troll reviews by inarticulate rubes who can't even explain their opinions.

People are entitled to their own tastes, and the super hero genre of the Marvel variety that is a pastiche of action/adventure, sci-fi, and fantasy doesn't appeal to everyone, but for what it is, for what it succeeds at being for its target audience, Avengers: Endgame is currently the benchmark as a satisfying grand finale in a cinematic universe.

There can be no doubt that Infinity War and Endgame are masterpieces. That doesn't mean they're the best movies ever made, or that they're better than other masterpieces of different genres, it just means that it succeeds in every element required of it.

The barrier of entry to The Avengers, especially the last two films, is quite high and requires someone to watch a lot of movies, and without an investment in those characters in the Marvel film that lead up to Infinity War and Endgame, a casual viewer will not care the same way a fan will. Yet that shouldn't detract from how skillfully the writers and directors manage to balance so many elements and fuse so many genres to deliver a unique piece of pop-entertainment that is full of humor, spectacle, and drama.

The Avengers is not a particularly profound franchise. It doesn't attempt to be allegorical like The Lord of The Rings, it isn't as mind-expanding as The Matrix, it isn't as mystical as the original Star Wars, nor does it make any social commentary like The Dark Knight, but it has plenty of great archetypal characters who embody different aspects and struggles with heroism. Each character plays so well off the other and the cast has so much chemistry.

No other franchise understands its characters better than Marvel, and no writers have a better grasp of heroic conflict and camaraderie than Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. Comparing their work in Endgame to other franchises like the DCU's Justice League or the current Star Wars is night and day.

That isn't to say Endgame is perfect. A Masterpiece doesn't have to be perfect, and most aren't. Certain elements of the plot feel rushed and loopholes are glossed over. Not all the jokes land, but most are pretty funny. Captain Marvel is way too powerful which constantly makes her a Deus Ex Machina. There are any combination of nitpicky observations I could make about parts that don't exactly make sense, but those are minor.

Admittedly, I do have a bit of Marvel fatigue after this. It almost feels like Endgame was so epic that I don't ever need to see another super hero movie again. Sure, I'll probably see the new Spider-Man, and even though I really like the films and the character, it's reaching a point of over-saturation.

There is a lot wrong with this movie, but the most glaring problem is the lack of chemistry between Ryan Reynolds and Justice Smith. I could have overlooked at lot if they were dynamic and funny together, but they weren't.

Most of the time it seems as if Justice Smith isn't even reacting to anything Ryan Reynolds says, as if all the ad-lib stuff was done after. Reynold's Pikachu does make a few funny quips, but other than that the comedy is really flat. It often feels like they aren't even interacting, Justice Smith might as well be talking to air.

The visual effects are wildly inconsistent. They tried to preserve the original designs of the Pokemon, and intentionally made them look more animated, which is fine. But it clashes with the photo-realism, especially in exterior nature scenes. Rodger Rabbit felt better integrated in the environment in Who Framed than any of the Pokemon in Detective Pikachu.

At times, the blue screen effects are some of the worst I've seen in a big budget film, and the backgrounds are eyesores. The visual design lacks unity; it can't decide if it wants to be realistic.

The plot was ridiculous, and there was little to no point in making it a detective story since the characters rarely ever deduce anything, they're just told stuff. It's very formulaic and it doesn't cleverly use the genre to enhance to story.

To those who would argue it's for kids, there are way better movies for children than this. I doubt this will ever become a classic, and it will be remembered as another failed experiment in videogame/movie crossovers.

Despite the veneer of a serious and introspective coming of age drama, I couldn't help but feel it was very hollow and it came off as more of an emo-teen fantasy sans pop indie-rock.

The biggest problem is that Pim is not an interesting character. His only defining characteristics are that he's gay and he likes to draw. There is very little reason to like him. He spends most of the movie moping around, hardly doing anything except sketching on napkins, and secretly getting naked to wear his mom's beauty pageant tiara which feels like an attempt to appear artsy and psychological.

The boy doesn't have any interesting hobbies, he doesn't have any friends, he isn't funny, or smart, or even particularly creative. Other than the fact that Pim and Gino are childhood friends, their actions do not justify their attraction. I don't understand why they like each other.

There are sad and tragic things that happen to Pim, but they are hardly dramatic, and all they lead to is more moping. The effect is that we pity Pim rather than empathize with him. He's a totally passive character. He doesn't learn anything profound, nor does he change that much. He's just a flat line.

In my opinion, it is a competently made film but it isn't entertaining, engaging, or meaningful (not that films have to be meaningful but this one masquerades as if it should be).

This film succeeds on almost every level. It has good cinematography, a compelling story of palace intrigue, interesting characters and good actors, and a good soundtrack.

I watched it with English subtitles and although it took a bit more time to figure out what was going on, it was pretty straightforward once I did - almost too straightforward. It's a story about conspiracy and betrayal centered around with a duel to settle old rivalries.

Yet all of the twists were obvious and predictable, and I could call them out before they happened. There are also certain elements that strain credulity like the umbrella sliding. It makes for a visually unique sequence, but it's odd and impractical to say the least.

Overall it's kind of standard fare for this kind of Zhang Yimou film, except this time, instead of something very colorful like Flying Daggers and Golden Flower, it's bleak and de-saturated.

I'm baffled by this film and the positive reviews. Despite the fact that it's packed with big set-piece moments, it's dull and hollow. The characters are cardboard cutouts and virtually every element is derivative of American blockbusters. It's Armageddon, Interstellar, Gravity, 2001, and 2012 all mashed up into a barely coherent pastiche.

There is only the thinnest veneer of characterization and it's incredibly cliche. There is a rebellious kid who misses his father, a wacky weird side-character with funny hair, a father who had to leave his son, an army guy bound to duty, a comedic genius computer guy. Except none of these characters have chemistry.

The premise is so absurd there is little point in explaining it.

I'm confused how something like this got green-lit because it isn't even good as propaganda. It is surprisingly devoid of culture. Sure, there are Chinese flags, and Chinese people everywhere, and they celebrate Chinese New Year, but it hardly 'sells' Chinese culture (fashion, music, art). In fact, it just waters down Chinese culture to make it internationally palatable.

Everything feels like it's from a checklist, as if they know they have to hit certain notes to imitate a masterpiece, but don't know how to string it together. The CGI effects aren't even good. It's just an assault on the eyes of how much stuff they can cram on the screen.

The sound design and sound mixing is also terrible. There is a lack of sound effects and music needed to add depth to the world. It sounds empty and cheap. The music itself is terribly derivative of an American blockbuster.

The high user review scores are disappointing because it sets the bar very low for Chinese blockbusters.

I'm surprised by how much of a mess this film was. Rogue Nation was practically a perfect Mission Impossible that had both great espionage intrigue and grounded action scenes, but Fallout is just all high-wire stunts.

There are a few good moments with telegraphed clever twists, but it doesn't have an interesting and cohesive mission with fun heists or ops. It's mostly non-stop action, some of which, like the helicopter chase at the end of the film, is so over the top it breaks immersion.

The tone can be inconsistent at times too. Rogue Nation did a great job a juggling the comedy with the drama, but in Fallout the transitions between the two are jaw-droppingly awkward.

I was hopeful that Henry Cavill would be a cool character, but he actually has very little to do and doesn't really live up to the promise of a strong and equally capable foe.

Overall I was fairly disappointed and would rank this MI among the worst of the franchise, possibly below MI3.

If you like the Mission Impossible franchise there are enjoyable elements, but I'd caution against expecting a masterpiece like Rogue Nation. Heck, I dare say that MI2, with all its camp and John Woo silliness, is better than Fallout.

The 'Burbs is a really fun series of escalating high-jinks on a solid foundation of engaging characters and a quirky mystery. It's full of great set-ups, subversion, and pay-offs that should make anyone with a pulse laugh out loud.

If you haven't seen it yet, it's time.

The big con here is the score, I don't get it. The film is neither bad nor good, it's just flat. There is no dramatic tension, suspense, or emotion. There are a few peaks that keep things interesting, for example the compelling poker scene that built up the characters well, but other than that The Sting has no pulse.

It's so mundane I don't even know what to say about it. At least if it were terrible I could be amused by all the things it did wrong, or if it was a masterpiece I could marvel at its timeless elements. Alas, The Sting is like eating a plain cracker. It will give you some nourishment, but it will neither fill you or excite your taste-buds.

Predestination is a highly engaging film that constantly teases the audience and gives just enough hints to make us feel smart when we figure something out, even though it's actually really obvious.

On a minute-to-minute basis it is very entertaining and if my score were based on that alone this could be an 8, or even 9, out of 10. What holds it back, however, is the lack of satisfying resolution. Technically, that was the intention of the filmmakers, but it feels more like they wrote themselves into a dead end they didn't know how to resolve.

Trying to describe what frustrates me about this film makes me think of a Michael Caine quote from 'The Prestige':

"Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called "The Pledge". The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. [...] The second act is called "The Turn". The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. [...] But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige"."

Predestination does not have a Prestige, which is what holds it back from being a truly great trick. It just leaves you feeling empty.

I recommend watching it. It's well directed, it has good acting, good dialogue, and good visuals, but the story leaves something to be desired.

This kind of film is hard to rate and it seems opinions are pretty split. People either love it or hate it.

Rather than having a plot with an overarching goal that drives the narrative forward, it's more just a series of events and somewhat contrived obstacles in a loving relationship that is doomed to end. The main character's ability to time travel is more akin t,o a disease or terminal illness.

I found it to be emotionally effective in dealing with the themes of lifelong love, fate, and mortality, but there are a number of things that hold it back from greatness.

My biggest gripe is that the film never satisfactorily explains why the characters love each other. We're supposed to believe that Clare fell in love with Henry when she was just a young girl, but there isn't really a scene that justifies it. Other than the fact that he's handsome, why did she fall in love with him? What was so special about her girlhood crush that made it last a lifetime? It might be better explained in the book, but it isn't in the film.

The question can be asked the other way around too. Why does Henry love Clare besides the fact that he knows at some point in the future he will love her? These things are glossed over.

From a personal perspective, I enjoyed it, but when I take a step back and analyze it, there are many elements I think could be improved, focused on more, or changed, to better adapt the story to the screen.

I think it's worth a watch, but if you're looking for a time travel film with the traditional elements of that genre, where a character uses that ability to change events, then you're looking in the wrong place.

This new version of Lost in Space cleverly adapts both the original and adds/inverts elements from the 1998 film, laying the groundwork for what could be a good show as long as they don't drag out the premise. The story leaves a bit to be desired, but the characters shine.

Two of the biggest changes are the Robot, who is now an alien of unknown origin that barely speaks, and Dr. Smith, who neither a man nor the real Dr. Smith. Gender swapping characters can be quite controversial, but it is done very effectively here. June Harris, aka Dr. Smith, is still the same devious and cunning antagonist, but she is also human and complex, much more so than previous versions. Some of the best moments in the show were her scenes.

Many of the characters have received little tweaks. Don West is now a lowly, but capable, and selfless engineer. Maureen and John Robinson aren't happily married. Will Robinson isn't the prodigy who invented time travel as seen in the 1998 film. Penny is dorky and geeky, rather than punk and rebellious. However, Judy is relatively the same, except she isn't John's biological daughter. Most of these changes are beneficial and give the characters more room to grow.

The cinematography and effects are great. It's very similar in style to Interstellar and Alien: Covenant. The design of the Robot leaves a bit to be desired, although I understand why they did it for practical reasons rather than have an unwieldy mechanical behemoth like the very cool 1998 animatronic.

I enjoyed all the episodes, but it feels like an extended pilot. In the end they just set up the classic status quo fans of the series will be familiar with. It now all depends on what they do next.

It would be very difficult for an adaptation to live up to the 1995 Ghost in the Shell anime film but this doesn't even come close. I didn't want to hate it, but it was so bad I couldn't finish it.

It's hard to pick out which element is the worst because it falls flat on every one. The story isn't engaging, the dialogue is bad and poorly delivered, the action isn't exciting, the art design is bland and so is the soundtrack.

1995's Ghost in the Shell has a very hypnotic, slow paced rhythm much like Blade Runner, but this live action version just feels so generic despite the fact that they try to recall some aspects of the anime films and TV shows.

The whole thing just looks and feels cheap, like a soulless copy of its former self. If you haven't seen the 1995 or 2004 anime films you might not have such a high bar and might be able to tolerate it, but even on its own it isn't very good and there are many sci-fi films that do it better, much better.

If the first Lego movie was about a son messing around with his father's Lego and the two eventually finding common ground, then Lego Batman is what it's like to play Batman with your annoying nagging mother in the form of Bat Girl.

The film opens with a similar energy as The Lego Movie, but it falls apart very quickly and the story becomes mired in the very clichés it's attempting to poke fun at.

Batman isn't good at working with others. It's a theme that has been explored countless times. Yet despite the self-awareness of Lego Batman it still manages to drag on and get annoying as hell. It's the same theme that made Batman & Robin so obnoxious.

Pretty much every time Bat Girl opens her mouth it's like listening to a lecture from your mother about playing well with others and obeying the rules. Here you are just trying to role-play as The Dark Knight and you have to listen to someone talk about the virtues of teamwork. Many if not most animated kids films tend to incorporate some kind of moral or message (which I don't have a problem with), but this is way too in your face and heavy handed it sucks the fun right out of the film.

Another problem is that Lego Batman doesn't give you much reason to care. The Lego Movie succeeds in this by having an average Joe character as well as the sub-plot of the son and his father, and you can clearly distinguish the dramatic and comedic moments. In Lego Batman the tone is incredibly muddled, shifting from manic to dramatic in an instant while it tries to shoehorn in character development.

For Lego Batman they took what was basically a good gag in the Lego Movie and tried to stretch it out for an hour and forty minutes. It doesn't work unless you think Big Bang Theory is funny and that references to nerdy things are jokes in and of themselves. Granted there are some pretty funny moments scattered throughout the film, mainly in the first two thirds. By the last third of the film they've exhausted pretty much all the jokes.

On the technical side it looks just as good as the first film and the realism of the Lego textures is something to admire. However, I did notice a lot more cheating this time around. In The Lego Movie everything was made out of Lego, even smoke and water. Here, smoke is just obvious CGI and so is the water. The characters also stretch and extend in ways that Lego pieces can't, which was done in Lego Movie but concealed much better.

After being blown away by the brilliance of Lego Movie I was very disappointed by Lego Batman which couldn't live up to the very high bar its predecessor set. Lego Movie was full of heart whereas Lego Batman felt like an attempt by DC to damage control a lot of the negative attention they've received for their handling of Justice League. Lego Batman relies entirely on references and fails to create a unique or compelling story, as such I can only give it 5/10.

At first glance Rogue One looks the part. However the great cinematography, interesting locations, and classic Star Wars aesthetic are merely a veneer, a carefully crafted charade that hide the superficiality underneath.

The film is not devoid of value. The action sequences are good and certain elements of the story are interesting.

Possibly its best but least explored dynamic is the class divisions within the Rebellion itself. At the top are upper-class elites who are timid about getting their hands dirty and on the other side are hardened extremists like Saw Gerrera (Forest Whitaker) who is an inverted Darth Vader, kept alive by a mechanical apparatus.

However, despite a few genuinely fun moments, the film does not stand up to hard scrutiny upon second viewing, nor does it actually add anything of significance to the franchise.

The dialogue is clunky and repetitive.

The characters are two dimensional and none are really given enough time to develop.

The plot is generic and doesn't take any stylistic risks, sticking to a very familiar Star Wars structure.

The pacing is too fast, constantly moving from location to location.

The music lacks the subtlety, sophistication, and acoustic quality, of A New Hope's.

The cameos are buoyed by unconvincing performances that, for a film so obsessed with banking on nostalgia, should have looked and sounded exactly as they do in the following film.

Rogue One could have been an interesting experiment into fusing different genres into the Star Wars franchise, but it ended up as a generic filler film that fills a gap in the narrative no one needed to have filled.

As a mindless action film that puts you in the space of the Star Wars Universe it's effective, but as a story that adds any value to the Star Wars lore it isn't.

I didn't want to buy in to the negative hype surrounding this movie. While the third act of Man of Steel was disappointing, I thought it was good overall. Batman v Superman on the other hand is a complete disaster.

The story and pacing is all over the place. At times you can be really invested in sequences that are very focused, then it drags and meanders, stringing along set-ups for The Justice League films that don't contribute to the conflict at hand. Some of the choices they made are completely baffling and it's clear they didn't have a unified vision.

Due to the fact that they're rebooting Batman, Superman and he compete for screen time and the set up for their eventual confrontation is like something out of a bad fan-fiction. It isn't clever or interesting and in the end it could have been resolved if they just talked to each other.

The biggest problem is that there isn't much contrast between Batman and Superman. They're both mopey muscle men. There is no grand conflict of ideology and method. The main thing they failed to set up in Man of Steel is Superman's idealism, optimism, and patriotism. This would have clashed perfectly with Batman's jaded outlook, but they hardly ever tap in to this.

I'm sure I'll get excited for the solo Batfleck film, but I don't know if they can pull it all together for the Justice League and quite frankly I don't really care right now. The way everything has to be so interconnected in these franchise films is getting really annoying. Can't a film just be self-contained anymore?

Like all of Mamoru Hosoda's films, The Boy and the Beast is beautifully animated. The backgrounds are richly detailed and the characters move naturally as well as fluidly. However, the story lacks the tight structure and cohesion of Summer Wars and The Girl Who Leapt Through Time.

The first act is quite exciting as we get introduced to a world of quirky Kung-Fu fighting anthropomorphs. Kyuta, the main character, has to adapt to this strange place as well as his new father/teacher who himself needs to grow up. It's kind of like The Karate Kid meets Spirited Away.

Unfortunately the film really meanders and drags in the second act when Kyuta goes back to the human world and decides to get a college education for some reason. The film takes a huge shift in tone and it never manages to bring it all together in the end.

It's worth watching if only to admire the craft put in to it, but I wouldn't consider The Boy and the Beast to be a classic.