RSO_Media

'Late Night With the Devil' provides some fun and entertainment, and almost borders on clever by adding certain key elements to the otherwise stale "demonic possession" sub-genre, including skepticism, process of elimination, and scientific inquiry/parapsychology (which actually was considered a semi-legitimate area of research in the time period this takes place) to help validate its' premise. It also looks really good, in terms of replicating a 70's television production, and the actors all do a fine job, especially Ingrid Torelli. My only critique, really, is that the subplot about Delroy's wife doesn't really enhance the film or premise at all, but instead kind of drags it down, as it feels redundant. Easily ten minutes of backstory is used to set this up in the opening narration, but it never really pays off in a satisfying way.

I really liked this episode. Centering around Jadis and culminating in her death I think they did a good job of giving her her due, even bringing back Gabriel, and exploring different aspects of her, and fleshing her out. She's always been such an enigmatic character, and honestly I've always been a little bit amused by what's been established of her character up 'till this episode; She ran an art commune of apocalypse-survivors in a junkyard and even pretended to develop a deviant language for her new civilization, but her role as leader was also a cover, because she was secretly working for the CRM the whole time... She's easily the most implausible character in the entire run of the show, but Pollyanna McIntosh always made her interesting to watch, and she was the highlight of the 'Worlds Beyond' spin-off.

This specific episode goes a long way to humanizing her and establishing her motivations (and also moving the story forward), and I was moved by her final moments... She was nothing if not unique. On a side note, I still don't know if the junkyard people knew she was an operative for the CRM, or if she was planning to bring them to the Civic Republic as B's. I guess some mysteries will never be solved.

I loved the first two episodes, and the third was pretty good, but this episode dropped the ball. It starts off good. The arguing and debating back and forth between Rick and Michonne was believable, but once they begin to reconcile, it felt like I was watching a parody of a therapy session. I'm not averse to Rick showing emotions. One of the best scenes in the original show is when he breaks down after Lori dies, amongst several other notable meltdowns, but this just felt gratuitous. This whole sequence just seemed bizarre, sappy and uncharacteristic, for both characters really.

Call me callous, but it just didn't work for me. I can see Rick delivering some of this dialogue with his thousand-yard stare, but not desperately weeping and pleading the same way he was when he's begging Negan not to make him cut his son's hand off. It just doesn't fit the situation. Narratively, I think the show's still on solid footing, but I think the latter half of this episode was a big miss on the human drama and characterizations.

Rick returns after his strange departure in Season 9 of 'The Walking Dead' in this new spin-off series 'The Ones Who Live'. The pilot met and exceeded my expectations. The circumstances of his leaving seemed so convoluted, as well as the fact that this 'Civic Republic' group has made numerous cameos in spin-off shows, each more cryptic than the next, so I wasn't really sure any follow-up could actually succeed. It kind of felt like they didn't know where they wanted to go with the Civic Republic storyline, although they probably had much of this story mapped out for a while. This is essentially taking the place of a planned theatrical film, so the scrapping of that might have lead to them dragging out the Civic Republic story longer than they'd intended.

Fortunately, they made it work, and actually grounded this group with some insight and backstory that actually makes some sense out of it. It's really awesome to see Andrew Lincoln back as this iconic character, and the new characters, Pearl Thorne (Lesley Ann-Brandt) and Okafor (Craig Tate) really put in some great acting. Okafor, specifically, leaves an impression for what looks like his only episode. You also have the great Terry O'Quinn appearing briefly as Major-General Beale.

There are numerous references to events in two of the other earlier spin-offs, 'Fear the Walking Dead' and 'Walking Dead: Worlds Beyond', with specific events in 'World's Beyond' being significant to the story, but it's summarized well enough that I don't think you necessarily have to watch that show to understand what's happening.

Also, I won't spoil it, but the ending was great.

I enjoyed the first episode, and I'm really looking forward to the next one.

'Terrifier' (2018), is a gory, unrelenting slasher film with a strong 80's slasher movie vibe, and bits of subtle satire thrown in here and there. 'Terrifier 2' has a similar feel initially, but as the film progresses, it begins to transcend its' premise into something strange and new (well, not seen for a long while, at least).

Art stalks new victims Sienna, her younger brother, and her friends on Halloween night one year after his original massacre, but he may have met his match, as Sienna's resilient spirit seems to rebound not only from near-death, but also a bizarre living nightmare that she sinks deeper and deeper into as the night progresses.

It is Sienna's strange journey down the rabbit hole in the latter portion of the film that makes this so unique, as it pushes the film into fantasy-horror territory. If there is an 80's corollary, the nearest one that comes to mind is 'A Nightmare On Elm Street 3'. The actors all do a fantastic job, the practical effects have never looked better, the music and cinematography are gorgeous, and the story takes several unexpected and compelling twists and turns.

As an older fan of this genre, it's rare when a filmmaker surprises me with something really fresh and interesting. Before this it was 'The Sadness' (2021), but before that you'd have go all the way back to 2014's 'Starry Eyes', so I do highly recommend 'Terrifier 2', however I would recommend familiarizing yourself with 'All Hallows Eve' and 'Terrifier (2018) first.

I was kind of perplexed by the premise of this spin-off series. I knew the most basic aspects of it going in (Daryl Dixon somehow winds up in France), and it struck me as a peculiar choice, even though France has been a point of interest going as far back as Season One of the main show.

More than anything, I was curious as to how he gets there, and why. Fortunely, the show not only explains this, but also gives us several new interesting characters and conflicts. It doesn't immediately follow up on those previous story points that were dropped in 'The Walking Dead' episode 'TS-19', or 'World Beyond's post-credit finale scene, but the show and characters are satisfying enough on their own, and presumably they'll get around to it in future episodes, as the finale seemed to imply that he wasn't necessarily leaving right away.

New characters, most notably Isabelle, are given depth and the actors all do a great job. Her nephew, Laurent, is one of the better young characters introduced in 'The Walking Dead' and its' spin-offs, which has been kind of an ongoing issue with some of the more recent TWD universe iterations (most notably 'World Beyond').

As the spin-offs go, I liked 'Dead City' a bit more, but 'Daryl Dixon' was a lot of fun. It visits several new locations that I honestly never thought we'd get the opportunity to see, especially as the backdrop for this specific character, and that odd mixture of somewhat disparate cultures and personalities really works for the show. It also gives us some new zombie "variants". I'm curious to see what comes next for Daryl and these new characters.

'Year of Hell' Parts I & II are possibly the peak of 'Voyager', which is saying a lot, as I consider 'Voyager' to be up there with TOS and TNG. Story and characters are all in top form.

A group of aliens (the Krenim) have built a time weapon in order to alter history, and return their empire to its' former glory by preventing their enemies from ever existing, but their Captain has his own personal agenda.

Kurtwood Smith plays a great humanized and complex antagonist as 'Annorax', the Captain of the weaponized time-altering ship, but I think where this episode really shines is with Kate Mulgrews' 'Captain Janeway'. By the end of the episode(s), Voyager is so utterly ravaged after having travelled through Krenim space for approximately one year of almost constant attacks, and this episode really showcases Janeways' leadership qualities; her abilities and limitations as a Captain who has to make life-and-death decisions, as her crew and she are (literally, in her case) put through the fire.

The set design is also particularly remarkable in this episode. It seems like every department of the production really put a lot into this one.

This is THE best episode of 'Voyager', and ranks up there with 'Best of Both Worlds' as one of the best two-parters in any 'Star Trek' series.

It's difficult to find much to fault in 'Hegemony', the second-season finale for 'Strange New Worlds'. In this first part of a two part episode, the Gorn return to attack colonists on the planet Parnassus Beta, as well as Captain Patel and her ship, the Cayuga, situated just outside of Federation space.

The Gorn make for a formidable and unique antagonist, in the sense that they have a sophisticated technical intelligence, but are, at the end of the day, large, carnivorous, vaguely humanoid lizards, with all the attendant qualities. Much of the episode plays out as sci-fi/horror, as it should. If you can look past the glaring continuity error of the Gorn being completely unknown to Starfleet until Kirk first encounters them in 'Arena' (which takes place well after this series), and some of the nuances and motivations given to that original Gorn Captain, you should be able to enjoy it. I mean, 'Enterprise' f@#*$ up the established continuity of the Klingons in the first five minutes of the first episode, so let's not pretend as though no one from the Berman era took this kind of "creative license".

Notably, Scotty makes his first appearance in the series, and Martin Quinn is almost instantly likable, so that's a plus.

My one complaint stems less from the episode itself, and more from a plot thread that has spanned the entire season. I HATE the Spock/Chapel storyline. It's one thing to slightly change the origins of an alien species that appeared in precisely ONE episode of classic 'Star Trek', but it's quite another to completely alter one VERY well-established (and iconic) main character, and another established tertiary character... which is what they have done with Spock and Nurse Chapel. Even worse, it plays out like I'm watching 'Dawsons' Creek' or 'Beverly Hills 90210'... It's an abomination, and it's difficult to watch, frankly. This shouldn't be that difficult to get right, either. If you can't be bothered to look at the hours-upon-hours of Leonard Nimoy's portrayal of a Vulcan as a reference, try Tim Russ as Tuvok. He played his character perfectly. Or T'Pol in 'Enterprise'. Hell, even your PARODY cartoon series got it right with T'Lyn. But as I said, that's less a complaint for this specific episode, and more for the season overall.

Another review suggested that Spock acts so uncharacterically because he has not yet undergone Kolinahr, but Spock had not been through Kolinahr throughout the entirety of TOS, either. In fact, he NEVER completes this process, as we see in 'The Motion Picture', so this does not explain his un-Vulcan-like behavior. The more likely reason is that the writers don't understand the character, or they've simply chosen to revise the character for their own inexplicable reasons.

I would certainly count 'Hegemony' as one of the highlights of the season, others would be 'Among the Lotus Eaters', 'Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow' and 'Ad Astra Per Aspera'.

I hate musicals, but I do have a fondness for those occasions where 'Star Trek' delves into the bizarre, such as 'Shore Leave' in TOS, or 'The Royale' in TNG, and so on. 'Subspace Rhapsody' does kind of fall into that category (though it's predictable, and not nearly as clever as either of those), as the crew of the enterprise are involuntarily compelled to perform musical numbers after they encounter an anomaly that warps their reality into an improbable Musical Theater version of reality...

Okay, so whoever wrote this obviously wanted an excuse to do a musical episode of 'Star Trek', but honestly the sight of the crew jumping and twirling around through the corridors of the Enterprise while belting out these insipid songs is every bit as surreal as Dr. McCoy seeing the white rabbit from 'Alice in Wonderland' running around on the Shore Leave Planet, and the high-strangeness factor actually kind of winds up working in its' favor.

Also, the significant La'an/Kirk thread that began in 'Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow' is (seemingly) concluded in a more-or-less satisfactory way, although Kirk refers to his girlfriend, Carol (Marcus), as being pregnant, which, if I'm recalling Star Trek II correctly, he should not know about. While we're on the subject of disrupting TOS continuity, the abominable Spock/Chapel telenovela shows no signs of abating, unfortunately.

Also, this episode features Uhura as the central protagonist, so she gets some much needed character development.

The songs are the sort of generic junk common to virtually all musicals, whose lyrics relate either to specific character subplots, or more amusingly, rhyming Star Trek techno-babble, but I'm always down for a good, old-fashioned spacial anomaly screwing up reality for a while.

If you ever wanted to see 'Star Trek' merge with an animated parody of itself, well... this is the episode for you. This was not something I was ever especially interested in seeing, but I think it's fair to judge it on its' actual intent.

The two ensigns (Boimler & Mariner) from the animated 'Star Trek' spin-off series 'Lower Decks' accidentally travel back in time and interact with the crew of the Enterprise before they're sent home. So, it's about as deep as an inflatable swimming pool. It's a light episode intended mainly for comedy. It's probably worth noting that every other 'Star Trek' series have also done comedic episodes with a similar tone, except maybe 'Discovery'.

I've only seen the first three episodes of 'Lower Decks', but Jack Quaid and Tawny Newsome do a good job of translating their characters into the slightly more subdued third dimension, and while not everything lands, there are some genuinely funny moments, especially once Mariner arrives.

Probably better not to over-analyze this one.

Now that I've dispensed with all the niceties, anyone rating this with a ten needs to stop drinking bong water.

This episode, 'Among the Lotus Eaters', is currently the lowest rated episode of season 2 of 'Strange New Worlds'. It's ranked lower than the first episode of this season, 'The Broken Circle', which is easily the worst episode of this season, and frankly, one of the worst episodes of all of 'Star Trek'.

In my review for 'The Broken Circle', I noted the conspicuous absence of 'strange new worlds' in a TV show that contains the phrase in the title, nor am I the only reviewer to point this out. Well, 'Among the Lotus Eaters' finally gives us a strange new world, and an interesting science-fiction story with our characters stuck on a planet which causes perpetual memory loss, and features good performances that stretch the range of our trio of main actors to top it all off and... it's the lowest rated episode of the season.

Some of you are your own worst enemies. Enjoy the next Star Trek reboot from Paramount with Khan and the Borg getting trotted back out for the millionth time, only now they'll be angsty teenagers challenging each other to starship Tokyo Drift races as they fly around shooting lasers at each other to 'Rage Against the Machine' songs, Fast & Furious-style... and that's if your LUCKY.

I'm not saying "love this show". SNW is not a great Star Trek show, overall. But this episode, specifically, is interesting science-fiction. I fell in love with 'Star Trek' because it had interesting, humanist science-fiction like 'Where No Man Has Gone Before', 'Return of the Archons', or 'The Motion Picture'. You should commend these rare wins. You can still criticize stuff like the lack of discipline/decorum of the bridge crew, the grating use of modern lingo and other stuff this series gets wrong, while at the same time acknowledging the positives. You're sending mixed signals to the writers by dumping on the most 'Star Trek'-like thing they've ever done in the entire run of this show.

Anyway, this is a good episode and it's the closest thing to actual 'Star Trek' this show has offered thus far. Rant over.

There's plenty to criticize here; The continued obsession with the character of Khan, which is symbolic of Paramounts' failure to accept and promote Star Trek as its' own thing, distinct from more action-oriented science-fiction like 'Star Wars'. Also, there's another "humans from the twenty-third century driving an automobile in the twenty-first century" gag (that old chestnut), but this time it's set to modern pop/rock music! It gave me severe J. J./Star Trek '09 flashbacks.

However, my thoughts on this episode are mostly positive. Obligatory attempts to appeal to modern 'Fast & Furious' audiences aside, I think it has a good time-travel premise AND execution, but the dynamic between La'an and an alternate universe version Captain Kirk really elevates it into something else. There's a bit of a tragic love story in there that's surprisingly sweet and well executed and adds a bit more depth to La'an. The comparisons to 'City on the Edge of Forever' are obvious, but I think it works well here.

Even the moment with Khan, who I now view as one of Trek's most overhyped and annoying characters, actually kind of works in THIS story, where it feels gratuitous in other stories (Picard season 2, Into Darkness), because it is significant to La'an's character in a deep and personal way. I mean, it IS still gratuitous, you could even say the entire character of La'an is an overly-indulgent Khan reference, but at least they managed a decent story out of it for once.

The inclusion of the 'Temporal War' characters and concepts is interesting as well.

This episode was pretty good (That's "good" relative to the rest of the season), so, of the first half of the final season, there have been two decent episodes (2 & 6), and the rest were nearly unwatchable... And really, because the other episodes were so bad, the stakes in 'All I See Is Red' are significantly lowered to the point where I'm kinda' just glad it's over, at least until the next half of the season... hopefully PADRE is done for good and I never have to hear about them again. At the very least, I hope they rebrand so I can disassociate them from the last few episodes...

This whole PADRE storyline in the first half of season 8 is like if you'd skipped ALL of the Savior arc in season seven and the first half of season eight of the main show, and then just picked up the story from that point in the middle of season eight. You'd have no context for anything. Eventually, you just tune out because it wasn't important enough to the writers or showrunners to properly establish any of the characters or story, so why should we, the audience, care?

Speaking of which, I didn't care for that Dwight & Sherry ending either. "It didn't work out, sorry you missed it hitting the skids during that eight year time jump before the season started." Again, no context. I have no training as a professional television writer, but I'm positive I can do it if that's the level of storytelling required to make it to air.

The premise of rogue Klingons attempting to restart hostilities with the Federation by building their own Federation ship for a false flag is an okay Trek premise for those who like the continuing story of warfare and diplomacy with the same alien races over and over again... although for a show called 'Strange New Worlds', you'd think they'd do a little more exploring of... y'know... strange new worlds....

I thought Carol Kane was fine, as I have no problem with exaggerated acting (I'm a Shatner fan, after all). Where the show goes FLYING, nay, CARTWHEELING off the rails is when Nurse Chapel... NURSE CHAPEL(!)... takes adrenaline and turns into John Wick and just plows through a corridor of twenty Klingon warriors one by one with Dr. M'Benga... How 'bout we let John Wick be John Wick and let Star Trek and Nurse Chapel be Star Trek and Nurse Chapel, okay? If pyrokinesis was trendy, they'd turn Yeoman Rand into the Firsestarter... then again, pyrokinesis is actually an interesting science fiction concept that doesn't involve excessive hand-to-hand combat, laser beam fights, or genetically altered supermen named 'Khan', so they probably wouldn't use it, now that I think about it.

It's too bad there wasn't an after credits scene where Nurse Chapel explains to Dr. M'Benga that she's a chain belt in karate, and karate man bruise on 'da inside... Also, did she use the quart of blood technique? You do that, and a quart of blood will immediately drop out of their body. I'm surprised she didn't pick them up with one arm before sneering; "Your soul is MINE!" and sucking their lifeforce from their body. If anyone really wants to show how insanely stupid New Trek can be, just edit a couple of scenes of Majel Barrett as sweet, kindly Nurse Chapel from classic Star Trek together with Flying Bicycle Kick Boss Chapel from 'Strange New Worlds'...

'Dead City' is looking pretty awesome so far. I loved the opening with Maggie on her own scouting a new landscape (a ruinous Manhattan) with no background or exposition. It's an interesting way of throwing the audience into this new story without a lot of information, inviting curiosity, and it also cleanly distances this show from any lingering plot threads that might be unnecessary baggage from the main show, apart from those that are significant specifically to Maggie and Negan.

Some years have passed since 'The Walking Dead' finale (I'm guessing about seven or eight), and a former Savior has kidnapped Maggie's son and is holding him for ransom in Manhattan. Maggie tracks down Negan, who has been on the run and now has a bounty on his head from an incident in another settlement, to help her.

I like the feel of the show. It's very gritty and still has a post-apocalyptic/neo-western feel. The remaining humans seem to have more or less adapted to their situation, but everything is kind of broken and falling apart, unlike the settlement we saw in 'World Beyond' that looked meticulous and pristine (before it was razed, anyway). That's definitely something this show gets right.

The same applies to the scenery once they actually reach Manhattan, whose skyline is now crumbling and spotted with scorches and overgrown vines. It has a very 'Escape From New York' feel (As does that great promotional image with the protagonists stand in front of the head of the Statue of Liberty), so I'm guessing they just shot at locations and then in certain shots added in very simple, but effective static visual effects. There's a great sequence showcasing the destroyed Brooklyn Bridge when Maggie and Negan arrive, and a little bit of expository background about what happened to Manhattan after the outbreak began.

Lauren Cohan and Jeffrey Dean Morgan step back in to their roles seamlessly (Negan is still one of televisions' most charming villains). The new characters, The Croat, and a group of ill-fated Marshalls spearheaded by Armstrong, also seem intriguing and I'm looking forward to see where they go. Maggie and Negan capture one of Armstrong's Marshalls, a young trainee, who is accidentally killed towards the latter half of the episode. They made him kind of relateable and naive/inexperienced, revealing information about his family and background, and then they shock you by killing him off. It's great character development, making you sympathize for a character who doesn't live past the first episode, something 'The Walking Dead' in its' earlier years used to have a real knack for. Little details like that really give me confidence that this show may surpass my expectations.

The first episode really set up this one-off series in a great way, and there's a lot of potential here. I don't wanna jinx it by being too negative, but I've been watching the final season of the 'Fear...' spin-off, and, well... Let's just hope 'Dead City' doesn't waste the good will that this first episode has imbued it with. I watched the "Inside Look" with the show's main writer after it ended, and it genuinely seemed like he had an actual vision for what he wanted in the show, and that's really apparent in the first episode, so I've got kind of a good feeling about it.

Edit 1: The people who don't like it because it has "zombie cliches" (No s@$#, it's a post-apocalypse zombie show), "there's nothing new" (again, it's a post-apocalypse zombie show, you're either into that or you're not), and suggesting we should "watch 'The Last of Us' instead" are just trendys. They'll watch something as long as it's popular. When 'Last of Us' just keeps going even after its' shiny newness has worn off, they'll bail on that too. 'Walking Dead' has had its' ups and downs. The main show was consistently GREAT up until Season 9, and even after was still pretty good for the most part. The 'Fear...' spin-off had two really good seasons (1 & 6) but it struggled for most of its' run, and 'World Beyond' was awful. But I *LOVE* this horror/post-apocalypse/zombie/survival subgenre. I've probably seen Romero's original three 'Living Dead' movies ten or more times EACH, and I was a fan of those a full twenty years before AMC started producing 'Walking Dead", and over a decade before Kirkman's first 'Walking Dead' comic book. 'Walking Dead' could do infinite spin-offs until the day I die, and as long as they're good (Which the first episode of 'Dead City' was), I'd still be watching whether it was popular to do so or not. Trendys are not genre fans. That doesn't mean their opinions are irrelevant, just mercurial, but if you're a fan of the zombie/post-apcalypse subgenre, their vague critiques of the genre (not the actual contents of the show) can be safely ignored.

Edit 2: Four episodes in and I'm still mostly enjoying the show. Episode 2 was excellent, with an incredible ending. Episode 3 was underwhelming, and mainly functions as an exposition dump. Perlie Armstrong gets some good action scenes, but the Croat is fairly unimpressive so far. He gives a big speech, but we never really see him actually *leading*. This is something that the main show did a SUPERB job with on a consistent basis; The Governor, Negan, Alpha... all had a 'command presence', and a fair amount of time is spent exploring both the motivations of these characters, as well as their individual leadership styles, and even their followers and how they interact with each other. The Croat doesn't seem to have a second in command, nor have we seen anything that might provide insight into the structure of his organization, or more importantly, WHY people follow him. He's pretty generic in that regard. Zeljko Ivanek does imbue the character with a distinct personality, but everyone following him are just generic goons. I mean, I still freakin' remember characters who barely had any dialogue from Negans' crew, like Regina, Arat, Laura, etc. The Croat has a bunch of nameless extras. It's not good for his character.

Episode 4 picks up a bit, but the the action sequence where Maggie and the others are fighting off zombies in the arena doesn't have a lot of tension. The camera is mostly wide shots... few close-ups on their actions, the protagonists' expressions, or the zombies, no gore/effects shots... Other than that, it was a good episode. I loved seeing Steven Ogg return briefly as Simon. I lowered my overall score from 10 stars to 8. They really need to give The Croat more development, not just in his past with the Saviors (which they've done a good job of establishing), but in the present with his own organization.

Episode 1: 10/10.

Episode 2: 10/10.

Episode 3: 6/10

Episode 4: 8/10.

So this episode was pretty excruciating to sit through. Grace dying had some emotional impact, but apart from that... Wow, just awful. Just from the opening, there's this whole radio conversation with Shrike about how Morgan has to clear the shipping yard and, in exchange, she'll provide life-saving treatment to Grace. He agrees, but Daniel's group declines to participate, even though she never said they had to, so she inexplicably changes her mind and orders Grace to be killed (You could have just started the episode here, since all of the preceding dialogue was irrelevant), setting off a plodding chase that extends for the remainder of the episode.

I see a lot of people criticizing the actress who plays Mo, and maybe it's warranted, but I just think back to the first episode of the season when Kim Dickens was surrounded by zombies on Morgan's houseboat and she's just kind of sitting there, not doing anything, like she's a bewildered kitten who's stuck in a tree and her character hasn't been in exponentially worse situations, and I wonder... is it really *just* the actors? Granted, they should not be making any of these child characters the mains. They're annoying and poorly written. Why they keep going back to this terrible 'World Beyond' well, I do not know, but Kim Dickens is great in the first three seasons of 'Fear...', 'Gone Girl', etc.. I think the issues with this final season are way deeper than just bad acting.

From the writing to the directing... I even noticed some bad editing in the previous episode. So, it seems to me that the people producing this show just do not care... at all. They just said "F$%^ it", and have completely given up, and you occasionally get a decent episode like 'Blue Jay' because a semi-competent person accidentally wandered in to the wrong writer's room for a day, I guess?

On a semi-positive note, I liked that close-up, sort-of-fish-eye lens shot of Grace when she wakes up as a zombie... it was vaguely Fulci-esque. Also, Lennie James, Karen David, and the rest of the main cast seemingly did their best with the thoroughly wretched dialogue and bafflingly redundant and meandering story they were given. That's it. That's all I got. I'm with the producers at this point. F#$% it.

The second episode of the final season of 'Fear the Walking Dead' seems promising, but I also wrote a glowing review for the season 7 episode 'Till Death' right before that season nose-dived.

Still, I did like this episode, certainly more than 8x01. The story picks up with June, and explores what happened to her in the eight years that have passed since the last season, as she reconnects with Dwight and Sherry.

There are some great horror set-pieces, like the laboratory on the train, and it is interesting that you still have individuals working on an unlikely "cure" to the zombie plague. June's description of her situation in the eight year time gap are somewhat reminiscent of the plot of Romero's 'Day of the Dead'.

Will it all come together for a coherent and satisfying finale to this spin-off series which has been the very definition of uneven? It seems improbable, but who knows. This episode, at least, is an interesting look at Jenna Elfman's ever-evolving character 'June Dorie', and sports a shocking, dark cliff-hanger conclusion in the great 'Walking Dead' tradition.

Count Dracula's familiar, Renfield, attends group therapy sessions for people in co-dependent relationships and, inspired by the power of pop-psychology and the heroics of a police officer (Awkwafina) attempting to take down an organized crime syndicate, he decides to stand up to his domineering master once and for all.

The premise is "cute" at best, and unlikely to stand the test of time, but flimsy as it is, it manages to sustain itself as a mildly entertaining comedy-horror (in that order) film for kitschy, contemporary audiences.

I mostly enjoyed the film, but it leaned a little more into super-hero fighting sequences than I was expecting/cared for. I guess every movie is obligated to have extended ten-minute kung fu sequences now? It's all highly stylized John Wick-style fight choreography, and I can't say it's dull, but honestly I would have liked to see any one of Dracula's (Nicholas Cage) several grandstanding monologues stretched for another fifteen minutes instead.

I'm sure I'll be labelled a heretic, but Cage's Dracula is really top tier, and I think could be a contender as one of the best cinematic iterations of this classic character, alongside Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee. So many recent incarnations have attempted to redefine the character as a misunderstood romantic cursed to drink blood and live forever, or a stoic leader making difficult choices and selling his soul, but here they've returned the character to his roots as a vicious, cruel, aristocratic misanthrope, albeit with Cage's own scene-chewing style, and they've thrown him into a modern setting. It's kind of unfortunate that nothing else in the film is quite up to the same standard.

It's mostly fun, and Cage's Dracula is stellar, but the premise is weak, even for a comedy. Probably could've been better if they'd gone the horror-comedy route, rather than comedy-horror, and focused less on satirizing martial arts and super-hero movies. I'd still recommend watching it at least once, though, for Nicholas Cage's Dracula if nothing else.

A mutating virus causes everyone in Taiwan to go insane and start violently murdering, eating, or f****** each other, or some combination of the three. It's a pretty standard end-of-the-world plot, but still a must see if you're a doomsday junkie.

It's extremely well made and paced, drawing parallels to some real-world phenomena that make it quite interesting and disturbing, and the film does not hold back on the violence or gore, but it is not dependent upon it either.

The actors all do a credible job of slipping into total and gleeful insanity. I also liked the added touch of the "infected" person crying, even while they're grinning ear to ear. It gives added character to the infected, but it's also used to great effect for identifying them in crowds, and creates tense, ominous moments before all hell breaks loose, like the scene in the subway.

Additionally, the filmmakers expertly utilize things like emergency broadcasts to establish the scale and severity of the events taking place.

The concept of people losing their minds en masse is not new to sci-fi or horror, with stuff like 'Star Trek s01e21 - Return of the Archons', George Romero's 'The Crazies', and to a lesser extent the recent 'Purge' films, paving the way, but this is maybe the best iteration of this premise I've seen put to film. It's intense and kept me fully immersed almost from beginning to end.

If you're a fan of the doomsday sub-genre of horror and you have a strong stomach, highly recommended.

The first half of this movie seems to be a good set-up for a horror film. It establishes its' somewhat isolated setting, it has a decent creepy score, it uses shots of dark foreboding tunnels to it's advantage... but after revealing it's premise midway through, it becomes a bit of a joke, which I might actually be okay with, but the film's ultimate "message" is WAY oversaturated in entertainment (if we can still call it that) and it's played out and grating at this point.

I give it points for being, at times, bizarre and wacky enough to actually be humorous, but holy sh@t, is this freshman orientation lecture getting old.

Will the producers of 'Don't Breathe' be suing for plagiarism?

I really enjoyed 'Thor: Love an Thunder', and I'd say it's one of the highlights of 'Phase 4' of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Attempting to move on from the events of the last three films, and overwhelmed by a sense of loss, Thor decides to dedicate himself to a life of solitude and heroic deeds when he discovers Lady Sif has been grievously injured by a mysterious being who possesses a weapon capable of killing the "gods", but in his quest to defeat him, he also finds that his former love interest, Jane Foster, now wields his beloved hammer, Mjolnir, and also his powers.

Initially, the film was being criticized for the "Lady Thor" aspect of the story (I was skeptical as well) but the Jane Foster storyline here is actually quite touching and it's at the core of the story for both herself AND Thor, and for Thor, it mirrors that of the antagonist, so it's not the sort of cheap or overt pandering that one might have initially expected. Also, I thought the way Natalie Portmans' character was dispensed with in Ragnarok was disappointing, as I'm a huge fan of the first film, so I'm glad she returned to conclude (?) her story.

Another criticism has been the amount of comedy, which really does not exceed Ragnaroks' despite what some have said. In fact, I'd say there's actually less than Ragnarok, as most of the film's third act is one of the saddest storylines I've seen in an MCU movie. However, third act aside, I've always felt there's an inherent absurdity in the "ancient god visits earth in the modern era" story. It could be played any number of ways, and comedically is one of them. No one says 'Star Trek IV' is a comedy, but it certainly exploits the absurdity in its' premise in a similar fashion. I'd say the measure of whether or not you've pushed it too far is if the audience no longer cares about the outcome or conclusion of the story, and I don't think that's true (at least for me) of this film at all. I think the original Thor has a better balance, but it too has quite a bit of comic relief, and at the end of the day I suppose it all boils down to personal taste, The film mostly worked for me and I wasn't put off by the initial tone.

Probably the most legitimate complaint I've heard is that Christian Bales' 'Gorr' character is under-utilized. He completely works in the movie, I just would have liked to see a little more of him. Otherwise, a very good movie and I'd highly recommend it.

Supposedly, Disney bought the Marvel and Lucasfilm IP's because they had the "Disney Princess" market share locked down, and wanted more male audience members. They quickly destroyed the 'Star Wars' property, but for a brief period, it seemed that Marvel might go by relatively unscathed, with insanely good super-hero movies like 'Winter Soldier' and 'Infinity War' released after the purchase.

But the movies and shows were apparently a lagging indicator, with the comic book source material showing us where this property was actually heading.

Skipping several decades of good characters and storylines, Kevin Feige and Victoria Alonso have apparently decided to re-enact the plot of Thor: Ragnarok and cause the ultimate destruction of the beloved MCU by adapting new characters from the last decade that no one particularly likes, and have decided to turn Marvel into yet another Disney Princess property... so... what was the point of buying the Marvel property in the first place, if not simply to destroy it? You had that market cornered ALREADY. Couldn't you just have done another 'Frozen' sequel to profit from that audience? Am I, an adult male, long-time Marvel comics fan, really expected to watch this so I can keep up with the serialized nature of the broader MCU? 'Cause that's not gonna work out. What is the point of this? Is Disney-Marvel intentionally trying to get rid of the original pre-Disney-Marvel fanbase? Here's an idea; let's compromise. I'll continue to watch 'Ms. Marvel' if Disney hires me to direct the next 'Frozen' sequel, and gives me free reign to do whatever I want with it, but after turning it into the unrated, 'Badlands'/'Natural Born Killers' knock-off that I would personally want to see, you still have to market it toward the original audience. Sound fair?

I'm genuinely looking forward to their 'New Warriors' film adaptation with "Snowflake & Safespace", and the ultimate destruction of the Marvel brand. Huffing all that internet gas has rotted this company's brain.

My thoughts about 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness' are rather mixed. I guess I'll start with the negatives;

Going in, I thought the entire premise of the film would somehow tie in to the consequences of Doctor Strange's spell in 'Spider-Man: No Way Home', but although there is a brief reference to it, this particular multiverse adventure is entirely unrelated to those events, as well as the OTHER MCU properties which are also dealing with "multiverse" as a theme, such as their Disney Plus spin-offs "Loki" & "What If...?". It may sound strange (no pun intended), but the fact that all of these deal with the same idea but are otherwise completely disconnected from one another actually affects my ability to suspend disbelief. Everyone is just suddenly dealing with the "multiverse" phenomena all at once in this shared universe for completely different reasons? It's sketchy. I would've given a bit more thought to, perhaps, tying these events together, even if loosely.

Also, 'Doctor Strange' himself remains somewhat poorly developed. The original film moved too fast and did not provide much depth to the character, or the concept of "magic", which was essentially defined as advanced technology in the first 'Thor' film, but little effort is made to describe how "sling rings" or the recitation of certain words is able to create portals or otherwise tap in to the "infinite multiverse" described as the source of magical ability in the first 'Doctor Strange' film, so an enormous, Harry-Potter-sized amount of suspension of disbelief is required... a bit too much for me. This film, like the first 'Doctor Strange, fails to develop on its' ideas, and both suffer for it. There are little tidbits about Strange's personal issues here and there; he needs to be in control, regrets missed opportunities, etc., but because everything's moving so fast, none of it really sticks and he comes off somewhat two-dimensional.

On the positive side, Elizabeth Olsen really is amazing as the now fully-realized 'Scarlet Witch', who shares with Strange that theme of missing out on a better life, magnified by a thousand. She's complex, her motives are understandable, she's completely relentless in her pursuit. She totally steals the film, especially if you've followed her progression of the course the larger MCU, including her spin-off show. She's up there with Thanos, Loki, and Killmonger as far as MCU antagonists go. The only downside is that, like Doctor Strange, very little time is spent giving us details about important story points like the Darkhold, Wundagore Mountain, Chthon; all of which are significant story points that are just sort of rattled off to the viewer with almost no backstory or exposition. I understand why some reviewers mention feeling lost at times. Also, did she die!? I'd be very disappointed if that were the case, but whatever the case, I'm disappointed by the lack of thought and respect paid to a potentially fallen Avenger. They may be intentionally leaving this vague as a set-up for future films, but still... Tony Stark gets a 10-minute funeral sequence, Wanda Maximoff gets nothing?

America Chavez is one of Marvel Comics' more recent characters, and even though I don't think the character really hurt the film at all, apart from taking up time that probably would have been better spent by providing more development to Doctor Strange or some of the other story points I mentioned, you can expect the sort of gratuitous, obnoxious virtue signaling that the comics (and increasingly, the films) have become known for in the sequence that delves in to her backstory.

The long-speculated about "illuminati" cameos were great, as this film does mark the first entry of both the X-Men AND Fantastic Four into the MCU, along with other interesting appearances. Fortunately, they actually do manage to provide an interesting backstory for the group, so they're not just props, but actual characters in the film.

Sam Raimi includes some great horror and sci-fi/action visuals, and although I think he made a fun film, with a truly excellent antagonist, I think some time could have been taken to flesh out some of the film's complex lore and characters just a bit more.

EDIT: Apparently, these multiverse events ARE actually loosely (EXTREMELY loosely) tied together by the Disney + show 'Loki'. I think I was confused by the fact that they kept referring to the time loop around "He Who Remains'" palace as "THE sacred timeline", implying a singular timeline, rather than a collection of timelines (alternate universes) that he was preventing from intersecting with the TVA.

While I was (and to some degree, continue to be) skeptical about the future of the MCU, especially after 'Captain Marvel' and that weird scene in 'Endgame' where all the female characters converge on the battlefield to virtue signal, I have to admit that their streaming shows have, so far, been very impressive.

While 'Loki' leads in the more grandiose sci-fi/galactic material, 'Hawkeye' is a fun continuation of the more mundane (by which I mean earthly, not lacking in interest) crime-story side of the Marvel universe.

It starts with a great introduction of a new character and one of the two protagonists, and from there follows Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner) trying to get Kate Bishop (Hailee Steinfeld) out of a jam after she gets mistaken for "Ronin", his anti-hero persona from the time period between 'Infinity War' and 'Endgame'.

Renner and Steinfeld have great chemistry, and even though I do worry about Marvel being needlessly subverted into some sort of pandering political cause, I genuinely thought Steinfeld's Kate Bishop character was interesting and in some ways endearing... well, up until the last episode when she has her mom arrested. That aside, the show really rests on their shoulders and their reluctant mentor/enthusiastic mentee dynamic.

It also ties in several significant threads of the broader MCU, including the Yelena Belova/Black Widow arc, as well as bringing in Vincent D'Onofrio's version of 'Kingpin' (or a very similar multiversal variant) which essentially affirms the continuity of the former Netflix 'Daredevil' show within the MCU.

If I had any gripes, it would be Kate having her mom arrested (although that certainly adds some complexity and conflict to her character) and that, also in the final episode, it could be argued that they made Kingpin underpowered to make Kate Bishop look good, but I also don't think Kingpin wanted or was trying to kill her, so there's that.

Very entertaining, and highly recommended for existing fans of the MCU.

Being a fan of the original show, I thought 'Reno 911: The Hunt for QAnon' was pretty entertaining. I guess if I had a minor critique, I would just echo what another reviewer said, which is that the format of the COPS parody is lost in the translation to feature film (even more so than it was in Reno 911: Miami), but I still enjoyed it. I think I just generally prefer their encounters with homeless crackheads, crippled strippers, and roller-skating male prostitutes on the streets of Reno to their grand adventures at sea or in Miami.

Though the title may put some people off (I saw some reviews to this effect), it's not really the kind of tedious, unearned political lecture from wealthy idiots you might be expecting. It's pretty much JUST an actual comedy. Yeah, obviously they're poking fun at QAnon people, but the whole film is satirical and doesn't seem particularly malicious.

It has some genuinely funny bits, like the plot-thread about Weigel running out of her anti-psychotic medication, the revelation for who "Q" is was clever, and actually pretty hilarious, and of course, an extended joke about diarrhea.

No one seems to notice that their prime suspect is former *acting* mayor of Miami, Jeff Spoder.

Not everything works, but mostly it does.