Christopher_Reid

I went into this movie knowing very little - only that it's in the IMDb top 250 with a high rating. It turns out the subject matter resonates with me a lot - what if an innocent man is accused of molesting a child? Having worked as a teacher for many years, I've seen firsthand some of the mess caused by the way child abuse accusations tend to be handled. There's a lot of bureaucracy, paperwork and paranoia rather than concrete facts and reasoning.

It's a frustrating topic for me because it feels like society has lost its way. Punishments for criminals are often way too tame, instead intellectuals insist on "rehabilitation". Meanwhile, the standards for evidence have gone way too low, so that a single claim by one person can potentially get someone locked up. Jagten explores this issue from the point of view of someone innocent being accused and the way a whole town seems to turn against him.

While the acting is very good, the movie is ultimately unsatisfying. It's just too frustrating. Maybe that's the point and maybe a movie has more power when it doesn't try to offer "answers". When it doubles down on its theme and stays with you after the credits roll. But plenty of things already make my blood boil, I don't need a work of fiction to be added to the list.

I believe in logic - I have a maths background. Things don't just "happen". Morals aren't complicated. The intricacies of who knows what and who makes what decision on what basis - that can be complicated. Just as the rules of chess are simple but the gameplay and implications are very complex.

And in Jagten, there are clear heroes and villains. People make baseless assumptions. It doesn't matter how severe a crime is, unless you have solid evidence that it actually occurred or that someone did it, you shouldn't be jumping to conclusions or taking severe actions.

Maybe that's the point - how stupid people can be. They let the emotion of an idea take them over and they no longer question the facts, the reality. For many religious people, the promise of god and heaven is so nice and the fear of hell so great that they'll do extreme things in real life to affect their outcome in the after life. That can be very dangerous. The same with socialists who are often willing to "break some eggs to make an omelette" - people dying is a small price to pay for a Utopia down the track.

It's the same fallacy here. Child abuse is such an evil crime that many people stop thinking once you mention it. They just grab their pitchforks. The other major issue is false positives. That's annoying because there are plenty of ways to avoid that - in particular, don't lead the witness! Don't plant ideas in the accuser!

And of course, the character who makes the accusation does so because she saw something - but the movie barely touches on that issue or the people responsible.

The other thing is that Jagten isn't exactly fun to watch. It's well-acted, it's thought-provoking, it gets under your skin, but it doesn't actually say that much. I want some sense of justice or consequence. And I don't really enjoy dwelling on a topic like this, especially when so many of the characters are so stupid and refuse to communicate.

I think there are so many things which can be done to help protect children, for example looking at the track record of individuals, hidden cameras, raising children well and letting them open up, but it seems a lot of society have already gone too far down an opposite path. All men are suspects. Any accusation should be treated as true. Meanwhile, those actually found guilty should be protected or hidden! People who do lots of bad things just move on and nobody knows about their history.

Mads Mikkelson is the stand out here. It's a very good performance. But I feel that the movie doesn't do enough to make full use of it. I mean, you could watch a movie of someone being tortured for 2 hours. Even if the acting was phenomenal, practically real, does that make it worth seeing? That's essentially what Jagten is.

I was hoping Jagten would have some insights about human nature and various systems - schools, courts, gender dynamics, parenting, siblings, etc. Plenty of bad teachers, parents and others go under the radar while the paranoia surrounding child abuse often inconveniences or impacts good people. Jagten powerfully captures this, but doesn't seem to try to offer insight, wisdom or even critique.

Sure, sketch comedy is often hit-and-miss, but KFM mostly misses, unfortunately. The concept is fine, the energy is there, but there are too many weaknesses - lame jokes and ideas, bad acting, slow editing, repetition of jokes, etc.

In particular, the middle section, a spoof of Bruce Lee kung fu movies, is way too long and only has a handful of decent jokes. When the Lee imitator mouths "WTF" as a guy gets back up, that was pretty hilarious. But one funny moment out of 30 minutes of screen time isn't worth it.

Some of the jokes had good potential, like the zinc oxide bit and the cinema experience with in-your-face sensations, but even they aren't executed all that well. The Zucker/Abrahams trio shows some of their potential but they clearly have a long way to go. Even Airplane! I don't like that much because the main actors are weak (not Nielson and Stack but the romantic duo) and so many of the jokes are incredibly lame.

It seems that ZAZ got a lot better later on. I loved Top Secret when I recently rewatched it, which is what drew my interest to this movie. It was entertaining enough, some okay laughs here and there, I sincerely enjoyed the feeling of a movie without rules or limits, a la Monty Python, but it's just not polished enough comedically for me to recommend it. It's a failure, mildly worth checking out if this kind of humour is up your alley.

I have to start with the main strengths of this movie: the audio/visual aspect. I mean, movies are all about images and sound, so that's what should matter, right? Well Dune: Part Two is one of the most incredible looking and sounding movies I've ever seen. It really is otherwordly. It's full of ideas, boldly expressed.

However, movies aren't just about the audio/visual parts, there's also acting, plot, story, themes and meaning, etc. Not to mention the pacing, cinematography and other specific decisions. This is where Dune 2 has some frustrating flaws, in my opinion.

Let's start with the cast. Most of the actors are great. Chalamet is a rising star. Veterans like Brolin, Bardem and Skarsgård are really good, as is Bautista. Zendaya is less impressive, but not too bad. Butler was very interesting as Feyd Rautha. The main casting issue was Christopher Walken who feels out of place. The Emperor just comes across as "some old guy". Is that what Villeneuve was going for? An anticlimax?

The plot is frustrating in many ways. The main issue for me is ambiguity. It's fine to have ambiguity as you build up a mystery. You draw the audience in, you leave us wondering, you keep options open. Fine. But eventually we need answers. Concrete answers. Maybe those answers raise more questions, but at least we get some answers!

In Dune, the mystery is whether Paul is really "the one", "the messiah", or not. Fine. Build up the mystery. But 2 movies in, and after many major events, we need to know - is he "the one"? What does that even mean?

It's annoying because half the Fremen seem to blindly believe in Paul. They already worship him. Meanwhile, the other half of the Fremen scoff and laugh at the idea. They dismiss it as some rumour created by the Bene Gesserit centuries ago.

But which is it? What exactly did the Bene Gesserit plant on Arrakis? What did they say about the Messiah? Did they say that he'd be a skinny guy called Paul? Did they describe him physically, or just vaguely said a messiah would come one day? If Stilgar is convinced that Paul is the one - WHY? If others are sceptical - WHY? Without any explanation, I'm left to feel that both groups are stubborn and stupid - they've already made their choice and it's not actually based on any concrete evidence. This makes the whole story feel superstitious and superficial.

What about the Bene Gesserit - what do they actually believe? They seem to anticipate "the one". Or is he a messiah or is it Lisan al Gaib or the Kwisatz Haderach? Are these all the same thing or are they each different? Do they know a messiah is coming or is it wishful thinking? What is it based on? If they spread rumours on Arrakis, then based on what? Did they base the ideas on what they truly know or believe, or did they just make it up? If Paul fits those predictions, isn't that significant? Did they just happen to describe a random guy centuries in advance by coincidence?

Because it's unclear, I end up being less invested. I don't know or care anymore whether Paul is the one because I have no idea what it even means. I don't know what the clues are meant to be or what his powers or role are meant to be. This is a major failing of the movie. And it's a stupid cliche, to keep the mystery going, while undermining the mystery built up so far. We need some kind of resolution! He survived drinking that blue liquid - how? What does that mean? Nobody clearly explains any of it!

Another issue is the undermining of the villains. Rabban is too hot-headed and it makes him less interesting. All of a sudden he's raving and angry, randomly killing assistants and shouting that the Fremen are "rats". He comes across like a petulant, angry child, not a fierce and powerful leader or warrior. It reminds me of Kylo Ren, which is about as unflattering a comparison as possible.

Feyd Rautha is interesting, visually and in terms of his voice and demeanor. However, he also seems a bit underwhelming. So he's good with a knife? That's it? He also seems to need to kill people for fun? Okay, that's creepy, but it also shows a lack of control. The T-1000 effortlessly killed people, but only when necessary - he had nothing to prove. Vader killed people, but mainly to intimidate and keep them in line, not as a weird fetish.

Also, Rautha is easily seduced by a Bene Gesserit lady, which implies he lacks self-control. Moreover, we learn that he usually fights against drugged opponents, suggesting that he's not actually that strong a fighter - he needs special treatment to win.

Another issue is Villeneuve's style. On the one hand, I admire his patience and unique way of doing things. But it's a little too far removed from traditional movie-making. Stereotypes and cliches can be annoying, but they exist for a reason. At least once in a while, you should have a corny one-liner, you should have a big, cinematic moment, you should have some levity and comedy, etc.

But Villeneuve seems to film big action sequences the same way he shoots close-ups, dialogue scenes, establishing shots, etc. His style is too consistent, in a sense. Whereas Nolan uses cinematic conventions to great effect. He has big action scenes and then calm scenes in between. Villeneuve's Dune movies seem to have a somewhat constant pace, and distance us from what's happening. It's a bit too matter-of-fact. In other words, he doesn't embrace the big moments, the spectacle, the way he should.

Another issue is Princess Irulan - is she a goodie or a baddie? It may sound silly, but I need to know. She just seems to be neutral, commentating on things but not taking a stance. What does she stand for? Why should Paul marry her? Just for political benefit? Did she condone or oppose the betrayal of House Atreides? Is that not important?

That's one of my biggest issues with Dune 2 - the vagueness regarding morals. You've worked so hard to build-up this world, make me care, make me hate the Harkonnens and Emperor, to root for the Atreides and Fremen, and then you make it unclear what Paul actually stands for? Is he going to bring about genocide now? Is he the messiah, or just some guy? Doesn't he want revenge for what happened to his father and House?

Why let the Emperor survive? If he's so powerful, why compromise at all? Do the other Houses not see the signs that he's a true leader? Do they support the Emperor's betrayal of House Atreides? None of this is clearly addressed.

So, despite all this, how can I give this a 10? Well, maybe it's more of a 9, but the experience was amazing. It transports you to another world, you're completely invested in it, the music/sound/atmosphere is incredible, the designs/VFX are phenomenal, the acting is great, the story is fascinating. The flaws frustrate me in part because I feel so invested. Just as I could write for hours about Game of Thrones or Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings or other epic stories and worlds which draw you in.

I'm especially excited to see if Villeneuve goes on to make a Dune 3, because Dune 2 certainly leaves things open for a sequel and the book has many sequels. I don't think any of them are as popular as the first book, but it could be interesting. I only hope that Villeneuve can finetune his approach just a little. Keep the style, keep the alien feel and weird languages and imagery. But clarify the central themes a bit. Don't answer every question, but answer some.

And give us some straightforward morals - we've earned it. Let Paul be a hero and get revenge. Don't muddy the waters when you worked so hard to get to this point! Imagine if Luke defeated the Emperor in Return of the Jedi only to then turn evil himself and kill all the ewoks - it would just be stupid.

Keep in mind, I had very low expectations for this movie. I was excited but once I saw the rating and some of the reviews and footage, I lost most interest. But still, I thought I'd check it out once it streamed mainly because Michael Keaton is in it.

Let's start with the CGI. A lot of it looks insanely bad. Harry Potter's first quidditch lesson bad. PS2 bad. This is a big budget 2023 movie, it shouldn't look like this. I dunno if they just ran out of money or didn't care. Having said that, some of it also looks pretty cool, especially some of the action scenes near the end.

Ezra Miller is a very talented actor. I feel torn because he seems to have a lot of issues to the point I'm surprised they even still hired him. Is he just troubled or actually dangerous? I also have to say that his insistence on "they" as a pronoun is very patronising and confusing - I can't believe Wikipedia seems to have gone along with this. He's clearly a guy, and he can have whatever sexuality he wants.

But anyway, Miller is actually quite good in the lead role. In fact, he plays two characters, or at least, two versions of the same character. And that part of the VFX worked pretty well. It's easy to forget that it's the same guy and that he can never actually interact with himself.

Miller is good in both the comedic and dramatic parts of the movie. To the point that I was laughing and moved many times, far more than I'd ever expected. The performance feels very sincere and the subject matter is pretty universal. As bizarre and silly as much of the movie is, some of the scenes worked quite well.

Michael Keaton was great as usual, although it felt like he didn't have a huge amount to do. I liked many of the subtle nods to his movies, but not so much the obvious nods. If the movie has to grind to a halt so he can say "THE LINE", it's not worth it. But if we get little details on the screen or choices of wording which many people won't notice, and which don't slow down the momentum of this movie, then it's worth it.

I tend to hate unnecessary gender/race swaps in movies, but Sasha Calle was really good as Supergirl. It was a relatively dark, sad and intense take on the character, but I really liked it. It felt sincere and that's what matters. You feel her anger and some of the action worked pretty well. Still, some of the earlier action scenes with her looked ridiculous, with absurd physics and very dodgy CGI. But her performance and brief arc were really good - I'm surprised she hasn't been in more movies.

I was far less impressed by Kiersey Clemons who I could barely stand. I don't like to be mean, but personally, I didn't find her remotely attractive, believable or good at acting. She felt out of place and really uninteresting to watch. I have to wonder how she got the role. It felt awkward seeing Miller trying to act like he was head-over-heels in love with her, it just didn't make sense.

Part of the reason Supergirl worked was that there's no emphasis on her being a girl, no "girl boss" moments, no unnecessary bringing down of men to prop her up, etc. No reference to her being stronger or wiser than Superman. In contrast, Wonder Woman's brief (and yet still slow-paced) appearance results in 3 men being embarrassed. That scene wasn't really funny.

For example, Wayne mutters about maybe he should end poverty to fight crime rather than fight criminals. Pretty stupid, trite stuff. When welfare was expanded in the US, crime went up. There are no excuses for violent crime so Batman is doing just fine beating up criminals.

An early scene involving saving babies was very absurd and was a bad note for the movie to begin on. The tone just didn't work. Endangering babies is very hard to sell as funny. And it had some of the worst CGI I've ever seen.

The cameos near the end were kind of nice, but didn't really mean anything. They were just arbitrary. I'm left wishing they could have found some meaningful way to connect them to the rest of the story. I don't mind a bit of nostalgia here and there if it's done respectfully and if you've built up to it enough. It's something that could work, but the overall movie and plot just couldn't properly justify it - they did nothing with the concept.

The music is okay - better than many superhero movies these days. But it's nothing compared to the work of Elfman or Williams who scored Batman (1989) and Superman (1978) respectively. The Batman theme is quoted, but the last chord is changed which ruins it. Why do that? Modern composers seem to be far less talented and disciplined than their predecessors. There are no memorable new themes here, although the music does its job well enough for some scenes to be decent.

The Flash is a mess, there's no way to deny that. The DCU (or whatever you call it) has completely fallen apart. This movie barely holds together even without the time-twisting aspects. But good actors and some good ideas here and there elevate the material. Ezra Miller has huge potential as an actor - way above average in both comedy and drama, not to mention interacting with himself. Keaton and Calle are really good as well.

There are parts that are actually moving, some brief moments are rousing and exciting. The ideas have potential. But a lot of the comedy is just bad. The tone is inconsistent. The plot is ultimately dumb. But I have to judge by the best strengths of the movie, I have to try my best to enjoy it, and somehow, I actually found many parts of it quite enjoyable.

A notable improvement on the original movie, but still with a lot of weaknesses. It's always better to start slow and end with a bang than the other way around and that's what Catching Fire does.

The early parts are very frustrating. In particular, I want characters to be consistent. Katniss was depicted as stoic and tough in the first movie, while also being kind and compassionate. Certainly she wasn't perfect, but at least there were some positive qualities to build upon. Instead, she is treated like a blubbering mess at the start of this movie, which makes no sense.

Sure, I get it. PTSD is a thing. But if you barely flinch or react in the moment and get through X, Y and Z, and keep going, it doesn't make sense to randomly have nightmares and fall apart later on. I thought part of the point was that Katniss was already a strong person, having to be independent, already facing loss and violence, killing animals with a bow and arrow, etc. It's more of an attempt to generate artificial drama than a natural progression for the character.

An ongoing problem with these movies is the boring characters and how overly emotional they are. In particular, Katniss' sister and mother are SO BORING. I don't know what to say. They make no difference. Now sure, they're family. Family is important. I can relate. But at least my family members have HOBBIES, interests, talents, personalities. They smile or crack jokes sometimes. It seems like Prim does NOTHING interesting. But hey, she's a little sister so we should automatically adore her and find her compelling. No. I'm afraid that's not how it works. She exists as an emotional hook and nothing else.

This movie only picks up when it gets to its own Hunger Games. This is ironic since it reflects a lack of creativity. It's the age-old "repeat the 1st movie but on a bigger scale". But hey, it works in this case. Maybe the strategy is to make the rest of Panem so dull and pointless that we thank the heavens for another round of the Hunger Games. It's ironic also because part of the entertainment comes from the death - that's a more compelling movie than people twiddling their thumbs and vaguely contemplating revolution. Are we sick and twisted for wanting to watch people kill each-other? It's just a movie, but still.

At least there's some excitement and mystery within the Games. This time we have all the survivors from the past. Most of them seem surprisingly unphased by the situation. You'd think they'd be furious and sad to have to go through such a thing a second time. Again, it's frustrating NEVER seeing what the people in the Capitol think. Are they all unthinking automaton who love the Hunger Games? Are they all super rich and love seeing poor people kill each-other? I'm sorry if I don't buy this.

There's no close relative for Panem in the real world. Did Hitler, Stalin, Mao or any other tyrant have a city full of people in bizarre, colourful clothing? No. In a rich country like the US, do they celebrate poor people killing each-other? No. They buy microwave ovens, air conditioning and watch The Hunger Games (the movie) on Netflix. No killing, no districts, no remote parallels to reality.

At least Catching Fire pushes the themes a bit further. It starts to get pretty dark and intense. But the quality of the writing, acting and directing can't match the overall story's potential. It's veering into 1984 territory, or perhaps The Return of the King. You can have epic battles between good and evil, etc.

Several gimmicks in the Games keeps it interesting. And the cliffhanger is quite effective. However, having started Mockingjay: Part I (and judging by the IMDb rating), the follow-up is pretty disappointing. There was more potential here than Collins knew what to do with. She knows how to create twists and turns. How to get us to empathise (to some degree). How to build suspense and anticipation. She doesn't know how economics, revolution or many human emotions work though.

Anyway, Catching Fire seems to be the Empire Strikes Back of the Hunger Games trilogy. The best one, the darkest one (I'm assuming), the one which really expands the world and the themes. But Hunger Games is not Star Wars and so its peak is still not very impressive. I did enjoy this movie overall, but IF ONLY it had more depth behind it and more to do with the potential it creates.

One final thing - much of the messaging is jumbled. The Nazis were infamous mainly for the holocaust and for invading other countries. And among the things we now associate with them are the Swastika and the arm signal they did. And yet, in The Hunger Games trilogy, which side has a symbol and a hand gesture? Which side has everyone following a charismatic leader like zombies, rather than based on independent reasoning? Their 3-finger salute feels like a Nazi salute. What was Collins trying to say? Or did she just not think any of this through?

Even the Nazis tried to hide their atrocities from the German people. But in Panem, the Capitol seems to know what's happening. Do they? And do they approve? The parallels are very clumsy and inconsistent suggesting a very weak understanding of history on the part of Collins.

This movie is like Battle Royale for teens, except that that kind of movie is not remotely for children, or even many adults. That's part of the issue with The Hunger Games. It has the tone of a coming-of-age, slightly edgy, young adult action romance, but the most interesting parts of the movie feel more like A Clockwork Orange, Saw or Se7en.

This is not a cute and cuddly story, however much it tries to include that kind of stuff. It wants to have its cake and eat it too and it doesn't work. The most violent, intense parts work the best but nothing else fits with it.

The direction is bland. What else has the director made? Nobody knows. No vision, no style. Way too often, he uses close-ups or medium shots so we can't see the environment properly. Like so many weak directors (Abrams, for example), he thinks he just has to show the characters and their intense emotions and we'll be won over. No, it doesn't work like that.

We have to connect with the world, understand it, understand what the characters want and why. Only then will we feel something. The Hunger Games does some of that, but I can tell most of the inspiration is coming from the book, not the direction or acting, which are much more average.

Jennifer Lawrence is fine in the main role, nothing amazing, but she suits the role. There are just a few too many close-ups where I'm really not sure what she's thinking or why it matters. I don't care that much. I want the world and the events to be interesting. Then I can project myself onto the main character, like with Luke Skywalker, for example.

We connect with Luke over time. Star Wars doesn't expect us to cry when he faces tragedy - and there are several pivotal events/scenes. But it does want us to root for him by the end. We've seen what the bad guys are capable and now the stakes are really high. Too many movies expect too much empathy too early, including The Hunger Games.

Katniss (which constantly reminded me of cat piss and/or catnip, not a great choice for a name) has a younger sister whose only purpose seems to be to gain our empathy. But the sister is overly emotional and kind of annoying. We don't even know anything about her interests. It's so generic. The same with the mother. Make us LIKE the characters, let them do fun or normal things, THEN we'll care. Don't show them constantly crying - that's dull.

The overall plot has some interesting twists and turns - the book is clearly pretty interesting. But as a film, it does very little with the material. A few parts work quite well - when the games start, for example. No sound, but a pretty crazy adrenaline rush, and probably pretty realistic.

Speaking of realism, I have my doubts that females would last long at all in such a challenge. Okay, Katniss is good with a bow and arrow. But, on average, I don't see girls surviving for long, with all due respect. I can only suspend disbelief for so long and the completely failure of the movie to address this insane imbalance is strange, indeed. Imagine having a big sport match between boys and girls and the characters all act like it's a 50/50 toss up. Yeah, sure.

At times, key issues didn't seem to be addressed. In particular, if I was Katniss, I would have been so furious at one point. I kept wanting her to ask or say certain things to someone else. When the main character no longer seems to have basic common sense or self-respect, it gets really frustrating.

Also, she sometimes tells someone else to be quiet. Why? It's such a stupid cliche. Just let them say it! "Go on without me!" "No, I'm not leaving you." "But..." "Shhhh..." And I just died of cringe. If I've seen it 500 times before, add a twist or do it really, really well.

Some of the CGI has already dated although it wasn't horrendous. It's the kind of thing where you can instantly tell something is fake without being able to exactly explain how. But it reduces the immersion nevertheless.

Again, the tone was one of the main issues. We're talking life and death here. You don't have time for your cute little, 90s sitcom moments. At times it felt like Fresh Prince of Bel Air, with characters making jokes or learning lessons, in between teenagers brutally murdering each-other.

Not enough is explained about the world. In short - I don't buy it. None of it makes sense. Big gaps between rich and poor? It can happen, but always for a reason. And no reason is given here. Where is the wealth coming from? We don't know. Like most movies which have a disenfranchised poor group, it completely ignores culture, as if no such thing exists. They must be poor because of malevolent baddies.

The same with the glamorisation of death. It's just not sustainable. People wouldn't accept that. I guess the sequels will probably go into that. The fashion is also strange. I mean, who knows, people wear all kinds of weird things, but this just feels fake. Ironically, all the actors, both playing rich and poor characters, look like they've just put their costumes and make-up on right before the camera started rolling.

Since I've only seen the first movie, I think it's fine for me to speculate about the sequels. I think there'll be a massive revolution (or an attempt at one) which tries to end The Hunger Games and eventually brings all the Districts together in peace and prosperity. The rich, evil people will learn their lesson and the poor will revolt, etc. But deeper questions about human nature, or how economics actually works, will go untouched. I'll find out.

One of the simplest issues with The Hunger Games is just that it's boring, a little too laborious with some of the plot points, a little too artificial with its emotions. Quite a few cliches as well. The villains are 1-dimensional and we learn nothing about the people of the Capitol or what they think and why. In The Truman Show, we get glimpses of the people watching from home - what kind of people they are and how they react.

Also, the movie cheats to make Katniss look better. She only ever kills in self-defence, which is convenient. She never has to face the prospect of killing a child to win and survive, others do things for her. It's a contrived way to elevate Katniss morally and it feels unearned. Realistically, people aren't all good or evil and you'd face some real moral and psychological dilemmas if put into a fight for your life.

THG plays with your emotions too often. Because of the nature of the story, most characters are disposable and this gets abused way too much. It feels arbitrary which characters we (or Katniss) are meant to care about - whatever enhances the drama of the moment.

I don't regret missing The Hunger Games all these years but at least I've got a few movies to distract myself with now.

So I decided to rewatch this recently, having good memories of seeing it as a kid with my dad back in 1993. It was a bit scary, but I thought it was pretty cool, exciting and funny (I was about 8).

Seeing today in 2024, it holds up surprisingly well. My expectations weren't overly high, and it's certainly dated in many ways - it feels more like an 80s movie (although some of the SFX are a little more advanced), the action is a often silly and clunky, some of it feels cheap and more like a TV show, and the details of the plot are pretty thin. In particular, it's not clear exactly how society became like this or how the various groups and dynamics actually work.

But having said all that, it has a lot going for it. The comedy works really well, poking fun at an overly soft and uptight futuristic society. Bullock is cute and likeable (and pretty good looking), Stallone fits this role perfectly and comes across as tough but reasonable, Snipes is very edgy and energetic as the villain - his athleticism really stands out, as does his urge for chaos. Bratt is also pretty funny as an overly nice and naive detective and Schneider has some funny moments. I noticed Jack Black for a fraction of a second which I thought was pretty cool.

There's enough in the plot to keep it quite interesting - the concept itself is really cool. A society gone soft, a madman gets released and only a mad cop from the previous century has what it takes to bring him in. In today's age of artificially injecting certain values into movies, Demolition Man is a breath of fresh air, with a much more traditional hero, villain, love interest and other side characters. It never feels preachy but it has some interest points to make.

There are several running gags which I really enjoy - the fines for swearing, the way Stallone is constantly bamboozled by new technology, Bullock trying to make clever comments but always getting the wording wrong so it just sounds dumb or inappropriate, etc.

This is a big, dumb action movie except it's got a cool sci-fi twist, it's actually funny and ahead of its time and it's generally way more clever than it claims to be. It's not too far off in predicting the future in terms of technology, but even more so in terms of temperament, like the ineptness we often see in many fields and how naive some people can become when they're too insulated from reality.

This isn't exactly a high quality film, but it's a very entertaining movie and one of the better of its kind. And the ideas it touches on are ripe for deeper exploration.

I enjoyed the first Shazam despite its weaknesses. When a film knows its strengths and sticks to them, it tends to be much more enjoyable. This is a weaker movie but it retains at least some of the good qualities from the first movie. It's got big, silly action, some cool designs for monsters, some funny parts, some heartfelt, sad parts, etc. The music is nothing special but not distractingly bad either.

The villains (a trio of women) are quite underwhelming. It all just lacks imagination. And Zegler's acting is noticeably weak. She overacts everything, like a boxer who telegraphs every hit, her reactions feel so predictable. Acting is the kind of thing you only tend to notice when it's either very good or very bad. Some of the actors (including Zachary Levi) are good, but Zegler is bad.

With very low expectations, this movie was alright. I didn't hate it and I got something out of it. But in that sense it met my low expectations, with no risk of exceeding them. It's disappointing that they couldn't take the ideas/material from Shazam! And actually build something more interesting.

The advantage of a sequel is that you can learn from your mistakes, remove the boring stuff, double down on the best stuff and take it in new directions. But too often the sequel only exists to repeat the formula of the original and make money, including this movie.

The special effects are good but the surrounding filmmaking elements do nothing with them. There is no imagination, no excitement. It's clear that the actors have nothing to play off of. It's clear that nobody feels there's anything special about this movie or its events. It's very by-the-numbers. I still generally enjoy the tone, characters and monsters, etc., but it's passionless.

It does feel a bit woke in terms of trying to have 3 female villains and other female heroes. It's just become so trite at this point. Always nerfing the male heroes and artificially replacing them with females who are just automatically strong, wise and basically perfect. It's dull is all. It could work, but not if every movie does it with the same lack of creativity or sincerity. And I don't think audiences like it. There's nothing wrong with the strong male hero rescuing the beautiful damsel in distress.

Full disclosure, I saw the first half of this on a plane. But it kept me entertained and distracted from the turbulence for long enough. And the fact that I remembered where I was up to and bothered to finish it is a point in its favour. It's better than most superhero movies coming out these days, but that's a frightfully low standard, unfortunately. Especially if you like funny, light-hearted, silly, chaotic action, with a bit of heart, it's an okay movie.

This is a dumb movie but a very entertaining one. I was thinking it's like the quintessential Michael Bay movie but I guess it's actually a Jerry Bruckheimer movie which isn't that much different.

It kicks ass and that's all it does. People walk away from explosions in slow motion, everyone talks in one liners, it's full of pop culture references, the plot is very over-the-top, as are many of the performances, lots of stuff blows up, etc.

This brought back some nice memories. I must have watched Con Air a lot as a teenager because I remembered it really well. It's funny how some things just sit somewhere in the back of your mind for years, gathering dust, but pick them up, blow the dust off and they're ready to go. I knew this movie way better than I thought I did.

When a movie has a main draw - action in this case - and it works, nothing else matters that much. This is a high energy, adventurous, big and stupid movie which works quite well. About as good as movies like this can be. Up there with Independence Day.

It was funny to see Dave Chappelle basically playing himself - I had no idea who he was all those years ago. In general the cast is quite good - John Cusack is likeable and funny, the same with John Malkovich as the villain, Ving Rhames, Steve Buscemi, Monica Potter, etc. They're all good. Nic Cage is Nice Cage. He has long hair and keeps saying "Hummingbird". And his physique seems pretty good. The classic "good guy caught in the wrong place at the wrong time".

The action is put together quite well. It's big and entertaining. There are some cool stunts and the effects work pretty well - nothing stands out as bad CGI or anything. And the plot moves pretty fast.

The music is quite effective as well. Nothing brilliant but some nice and memorable themes for the goodies and baddies. Plenty of electric guitar and a kind of heavy rock feel.

Movies like this are entertaining enough to make you forget or not care how stupid they are. That does take skill. Con Air is well crafted enough to keep you engaged for the whole runtime and maybe to even revisit it again later. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it holds up pretty well and it was a nice nostalgia hit which reminded me of how much I used to like this movie. Now if only that guy had left the bunny in the box...

I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this one. Kubrick is certainly a visionary and interesting director, but Full Metal Jacket feels a bit ambiguous and aimless. It's often intense and engaging overall, but lacks a cohesive overarching structure. I feel like I'm missing some deeper point to it, but the simpler answer is that what I'm looking for is just not there.

People seem to rave about the first third of the movie with R. Lee Ermey and Vincent D'Onofrio at the army barracks during training. But while I liked the acting and some of the intensity, it also felt a bit boring to me. It doesn't feel like anything meaningful is going on and I'm unsure what the point of it is.

It also gets repetitive. Okay, a drill sergeant constantly yelling at his soldiers/trainees. Great. What, for 40 minutes? Okay. Is this meant to be a realistic simulation of boot camp? Or is it meant to be an exaggeration? Is this meant to show how harsh training can be? Or is it meant to be funny? I mean, I honestly burst out laughing at Ermey multiple times. He's not wrong a lot of the time! "Are you kidding me?!? You can't even do ONE pull-up?!?" That was hilarious.

The movie also seems to be ambiguous about "Gomer Pyle". Is he mentally challenged? It certainly seems that way. But also, he's quite good with guns. What does it matter though? He ends up dying so all his character qualities were for nought. Did he kill Ermey because he was so mean to him? Or would he have killed any instructor from the workload? Was it because he was already a bit insane and unstable? It's hard to know. Even quite a normal person might start to hate Ermey's overbearing attitude.

The other soldiers take their frustration out on "Pyle" by taking turns beating him with soap wrapped in towels. This is highly disturbing but we can understand their frustration. But I'm left thinking the whole situation is stupid. These are adults and this is war. You need to grow up and make smart decisions. Either this Pyle guy is competent enough to train or not. He should've just been kicked out straight away. Or segregated and put in a special program. The others shouldn't beat him but should make a formal complaint. He would be a liability out in the field.

The sergeant himself is a mix between strict, funny and way too aggressive. Some of what he says is just true. Some of it is crude but pretty standard for how guys talk to each-other. But much of it is also just ridiculous - screaming at the top of his lungs over nothing. A waste of energy. I would request to move to a different group, not because I can't handle pressure or hard work, but because the sergeant is edgy and borderline insane.

The rest of the movie is similarly ambiguous. I'm not sure whether to laugh or be disturbed or both. Maybe that's the point and maybe that's brilliant and deep. Or maybe it's shallow and lazy.

Take the guy shooting from the helicopter. He's laughing like crazy, shooting into thin air, it seems. Then we see his point of view - he's shooting random rice farmers, innocent civilians, many of them women. Are we meant to be shocked? Horrified? Gagging like the other guy in the helicopter? Did this ever actually happen in Vietnam? Once or twice, maybe. Or was it common? I couldn't help but laugh. This guy is insane, loves killing and the movie just kinda glosses over it. Why include this? Especially if it was probably extremely rare or entirely fictionalised?

Take the final, elongated sequence where the main characters are dealing with a sniper. It's a predictable and hilarious comedy-of-errors. First one guy, standing in the open, gets shot. But not fatally. The others take cover and start shooting like crazy. Finally they stop firing and debate what to do. The first guy gets hit again and screams, then they all shoot again until their captain tells them to stop again.

The firing achieves nothing. It's absolutely moronic in terms of strategy - it wastes ammo, gives away your position, hits no targets and makes it harder to find the enemy because of all the commotion. Then of course another guy goes to rescue the first one. Can you guess what happens? They get hit, scream in slow motion and they all shoot like crazy again. I felt like I was watching a Key and Peele sketch. It's actually a pretty funny idea, but I can't tell if Kubrick was going for comedy.

After several of them get killed by not taking cover, finally they corner the sniper and, lo-and-behold, it's a teenage girl. Is this realistic? I'm sure some soldiers in a war like this were young or were girls. But this feels like a cheap idea by Kubrick. Yes, it messes with our feelings. This savage, deadly sniper who just murdered several main characters is just a girl! You're ready for them to just tear this sniper to shreds, but now you feel bad that they're shooting a kid.

Then she's breathing there, bleeding to death. Whispering some kind of prayer. What am I meant to feel or think about this? Horror? Confusion? Emptiness?

Whatever. None of this feels particularly insightful. War is bad. Yes. Got it. That's actually very obvious. Kubrick doesn't give any time to the reasons for the Vietnam war. Or to military strategy or bureaucracy or to any specific moral dilemmas. He just focuses on having one intense or weird scene after another. It actually feels quite slow and deliberate, rather than fast-paced. It's engaging, but still left me feeling a bit bored and wanting more. More meaning. More sharpness and clarity.

If Kubrick is saying that humans are capable of evil - sure. But why? How do we end up like that? No answers or even ideas are offered. Modine's character is fine and somewhat neutral - a means for us to vicariously experience the events of the movie. But nothing he experiences feels all that enlightening. I see inefficiency, bad choices, insane people, incompetence and some of the disturbing outcomes of any war. But I see nobody doing anything about it or pointing out the obvious.

Nobody says "gee, our drill sergeant is a bit over-the-top isn't he?" Or "is this really necessary?" Nobody says "let's try to carefully but quickly flank this sniper, staying in cover the whole time. Let's get a visual and rough idea of where the sniper is." "Why is this psychopath murdering innocent people in fields - would his superiors actually defend this? How does it help us win the war?" "Why are we even fighting in Vietnam? Are we the good guys, in which case we should be patriotic, confident and not dwell on the sorrows of war, or is this unnecessary, in which case we should just pull out and end the misery?"

There's room for different opinions on war and Vietnam specifically. But Kubrick seems to offer nothing solid. Maybe it's because I'm a mathematician - I like getting answers. And even in politics and war, there are answers. Some wars are necessary. Some strategies work better than others. Some countries committed worse evils than others. Moral principles do exist.

Full Metal Jacket is a bold and entertaining movie, but one with very little of value to say. War is bad - of course it is. It works somewhat as a very dark comedy. And that's certainly deliberate in part. It's subtle but there. Kubrick likes playing with juxtaposition and expectations. He uses upbeat pop songs for much of the movie.

It's just way too over-the-top to take too seriously. And as a dark comedy, it is pretty funny and makes some interesting if scattered points about war and what it's like to live through it. But it doesn't commit fully to this and seems to want to be a drama or commentary as well - at which it is much less successful.

I never saw Species II when it came out, but I remember thinking it looked really cool and interesting. Similar to the first movie but taken to the next level, what sequels usually try to do. This time, there are two of them. If the female was that dangerous, imagine how bad the male will be! Or if they combine/mate!

The mix of horror, cool HR Giger alien design, sex, space (going to Mars) and then the military/detectives/scientists trying to stop a disaster all seems exciting to me. But this movie has a low rating so I never bothered to watch it until now.

It was okay, not a great movie but not that bad either. It was actually pretty entertaining. The concept has potential but the script doesn't know what it's doing. Madsen is once again the main highlight. It's also nice that they brought back his biologist girlfriend from the first one and, of course, Natasha Henstridge. But Natasha is underused. She's literally locked up for most of the movie, making her presence feel a bit unnecessary and wasted.

Some of the other actors are pretty bad. The main military general guy felt lame. The main astronaut guy who gets infected is not the strongest actor either. The black guy gets to be a funny sidekick which works fine.

The story is just way too superficial, and the overall weakness of the script, direction and some of the acting brings it all down. The violence feels stupid and over-the-top. There are no consistent rules. It's not clear why some people simply get infected while others get killed. It's kind of hilarious seeing the women have horrific birth deaths right after having sex. The Species movies are good advertisements for using protection.

The finale is pretty stupid but somewhat entertaining. The design of the male alien is pretty cool (similar to Dr Smith in Lost in Space (1998) but we barely see it. It's all over too quickly. Probably the highlight was using Sil to see what the male alien sees and track him down. It's a cool idea but doesn't last long. The movie just feels cheap and unpolished so good parts are only feebly sprinkled throughout.

Still, this movie was pretty easy to watch. I was generally engaged by it, but it's pretty forgettable. Not as bad as a lot of movies. With a better crew and more serious effort at a good script, it could've been quite good - there were plenty of ways to follow on from Species and up the ante.

I saw Species as a teenager and found it interesting. Certain scenes in particular. Natasha Henstridge is very good looking. Anyway, I chose to rewatch it recently, quite casually.

There's something about horror and sex that's mysterious and entrancing. I found the idea of space and aliens really exciting as a kid. And Species has an interesting concept. It doesn't completely deliver on it - it's a movie which feels halfway between big budget Hollywood and low budget indie. The cast lifts the quality, some of the special effects are decent, but overall the story and directing make it feel a bit cheaper.

Roger Ebert didn't like it because the alien keeps jumping out from behind a wall - a cliche. It's so predictably evil with not much else going on. This is where Species misses some of its potential. The idea that Sil (the alien human girl hybrid) is afraid, wants to survive, is half-human, half-alien, confused, etc. That could be developed into some really meaty material. Existentialism, the meaning of life, her instincts, her fears and desires. Is she loyal to humans or some alien species? Is she good or evil? Does she have control?

Also, the parallels with changes we go through could be explored. Puberty, aging and various diseases - these are all real examples of body horror in a way. Sil goes through a major transition with a cocoon. But does she know what's happening? It seems not, but the movie doesn't explore it much.

The movie is entertaining with its mix of scares, sex scenes and the group of people chasing after Sil. But it's a bit repetitive. They find a dead body, giving them a lead. Sil tries to sleep with someone. Something goes wrong. The team arrives but it's too late. Rinse and repeat.

I didn't notice the music much except for the main theme during the opening credits which is pretty good - mysterious and a bit ominous, nice chords. Probably a bit of a rip-off of Alien which the whole movie feels a bit modeled on. Speaking of which, HR Giger's designs are pretty cool, the same old mix of alien, sexual, industrial, organic, etc.

The finale is a bit silly and the CGI starts to fall apart, really showing its age in 2023. The story ends up feeling a bit empty. Mildly exciting but anticlimactic. Michael Madsen is the main highlight from the cast. Alfred Molina and Ben Kingsley are underused. These actors are much more capable than what the script demands of them.

Henstridge is naturally quite a good actress - better than many people give her credit for. With the limited dialogue she has, she expresses a fair bit - confusion, fear, sexual desire, problem solving, curiosity, etc. She seems innocent but also very dangerous.

Species just needed a few rewrites to make it better. Flesh out the deeper themes. Add some variety to the events in the movie. A more epic finale. Some more interesting subplots. Some more comedy or action - something to contrast with the main linear part of a team chasing down a dangerous femme-fatale alien. As it is, it's an alright movie.

Cameron's made some great films - Aliens is one of my personal favourites, T2 is arguably the best action movie of all time, True Lies is good, Titanic is decent if a bit bloated. But Avatar had major flaws. Practically everyone agrees - the visuals were very impressive, the world was detailed and interesting, but the actual plot and characters weren't that likeable. The message (nature good, humans and capitalism bad) is preachy and stupid.

Cameron, being the genius that he is, decided to use the same characters in his sequel, with the same dull qualities and the same reliance on amazing graphics (I admit, they look amazing, a good way to show off fancy 8k OLED screens) without a good story, themes or plot to make use of them. I mean, I don't think it's a spoiler to say he brought back the same bad guy from the first movie. The bad guy we all thought was too 1-dimensional. Well, I guess he's 1.5 dimensional now. A fractal, if you're mathematically oriented. Not really an improvement.

In fact, it's almost worse as now he's mostly evil... but also a bit inconsistent. Sometimes arbitrarily nice or overly trusting. We need a deeper motivation for him, some kind of vision that he thinks is good - he has to see himself as the hero.

Avatar 2's problem is that I just don't care. I want to but can't. Zoe Saldana's character does absolutely nothing but scream, cry, scream, glare, shoot arrows (okay, that's kinda cool), cry, growl and scream. It's lame. I can't remember the main character's name. Or any of the others. I don't get why they do what they do. I don't feel connected to their world or stakes.

Look, we have words like barbaric, tribal, backwards and uncivilised for a reason. All humans started like that - primitive and animalistic. But there's a reason we started using words rather than grunting, wearing clothes rather than leaves, using guns instead of spears, etc. We became civilised. That's not just a fashion choice, it's a critical part of progressing.

It makes no sense for the Avatar people (Na'vi, whatever it is) to still be like cavemen but super advanced. It doesn't work like that. The same with Wakanda. Advanced technology isn't something you just do 'cause you feel like it. It takes decades, centuries of infrastructure, education, clothes for crying out loud, and other basic civilised things.

Anyway, because of that, I find the blue (and teal) people really uninteresting and self-contradicting. They couldn't possibly have weapons that advanced but still be like tribal people who live in nature. They argue and assume things, their strategy is often terrible. I don't like them. A few are okay, ironically the ones who are more "human", who think and have motivations.

The baddies are still completely superficial. They just blow up, burn and destroy stuff. That makes no sense. We cut down trees to use the wood to make buildings, houses, furniture, books, etc. Is that so bad? No, it's justified. Some animals get displaced, but that's a necessity. What matters more - 50 orangutans or 1,000 humans? But in Avatar 2, what is their motivation for the destruction?

Why is there no mutually beneficial exchange going on? This part of history gets ignored. The more advanced civilisation can offer better medicine, transport, communication, clothes (pretty important), etc. The local primitive people will definitely want those things! In exchange, they can offer insights into the land, the animals and plants, etc. They can cede land to the more advanced culture in exchange for a share of the more advanced technology!

One thing the baddies do is kill giant whale lobsters for their glowing yellow brain fluid. Oooh, so evil. What does the yellow goo do? Apparently it lengthens human life. Oh my, these baddies are so deeply ev- wait... extend human life? So, like, by how much?

They say the goo from a lobster-whale brain is worth $80 million (in 2050 (or whatever year) US dollars I assume). But how powerful is it? Can it lengthen ten people's lives by 5 years each? A hundred people's lives by 10 years each? One person's life by 6 months? Why is this never explained?

I'm sorry, but if the brain goo of a lobster on steroids can extend a lot of people's lives by a large amount, then it may well be financially worth it and morally justified to hunt the huge lobsters.

Also, they don't use the rest of the carcass. One of the goodies is upset by this. What, would you prefer they cut up the carcass and sold it for other uses? Speaking of which, why don't the baddies use the rest of the carcass? Really? None of the rest of it has any value? Basic economics and the concept of incentives have gone right out the window.

The acting is decent, the innovation in motion capture and CGI is good, the music is forgettable but I guess it's at least there, the story and heroes and villains have no depth or logic to their positions, the characters are boring and unlikeable. It's a little too long and convoluted, but it generally held my mild interest.

There were some more touching moments near the end, but even they get ruined by histrionic wailing by you-know-who. The plot is so dumb that even a girl observes that "I'm being tied up again?!", to paraphrase. If the characters are noticing bad writing, what does that tell you?

We get a major battle perhaps inspired by They Live!, but it all feels pointless because of what happens next. I really wanted a sequel (another intense personal fight) as that would have been absolutely hilarious. It's a bad sign when I want the movie to turn into a terrible parody of itself just so it becomes more enjoyable.

Avatar 2 wasn't all bad, but it's not really a success either. It's terrible in terms of narrative, character motivations, logic, likeable characters, deeper themes. All it has going for it are the effects, the overall look and some action sequences and dramatic scenes here and there. I can't call it a disappointment since my expectations were already at sea level.

I don't know where to begin. This movie was just so intense. Like every Nolan movie, it has completely enveloped my mind. I'm obsessed with it. It's haunting me.

In many ways, it's a big departure for Nolan. Normally his movies have a lot of action, crazy stunts, far out sci-fi plots and most of them are fictional. Even Memento had more action and violence than this. Dunkirk was based on real events in WWII but it barely had any dialogue and was more of an experience, an action/suspense/thriller ride.

Oppenheimer truly is a biopic, all about a man and his life. It doesn't try so much to give an objective overall assessment. It feels very personal. It captures the intensity of life. When you reflect over your years and realise the big things which stay with you. Other movies feel so trivial compared to this.

The acting is incredible, one of the most impressive casts of all time, mostly male but that's a reflection of the reality. Cillian is great. So many understated and incredibly talented actors seem to come from the UK and Ireland. Oldman is great as well in his brief role - when I saw him, I thought "of course, who else could play a role like this and pull it off". He's so good at accents and embodying people.

Branagh, Blunt, Downey Jr., the sister from Black Widow, Hartnett, Raiden from Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (a personal highlight) - they're all perfectly cast. Not to mention perhaps 10 to 15 other great performances from other actors. It makes me so keen to learn more about the real people and get back into physics. I miss my university years. Also the aging effects are flawless, for lack of a better word.

The music is really effective. I correctly guessed it was Ludwig Goransson again (Tenet), who kind of replaced Hans Zimmer who was busy doing Dune. I really enjoyed it. It felt like an extension of some of those themes. Often heavy in intense, but also contemplative and... intellectual I suppose?

I'm now intrigued by Oppenheimer. By being so specific in the details of his life, the movie becomes universal. We might not achieve the same things, have the same fears or make the same mistakes, but we can relate to his emotions and experiences. It's all analogous. And few movies touch on life like this.

The pace is blistering. Nolan is great at drawing you in, directing your attention, building to climaxes, using parallel timelines to enhance the meaning and suspense of various events. Now the movie is over, I'm left desperate for more. It's 3 hours long, and it certainly felt long, but it was riveting for that length.

I personally have mixed feelings about Oppenheimer's politics. Teachers shouldn't be political in front of students. It's not the right venue. And communism was dangerous, not that different from fascism - just different names for insane, incoherent visions which overrule personal freedom and lead to totalitarianism. But the paranoia surrounding communism and treatment of Oppie was probably unwarranted and unhelpful.

The bombing of Japan was necessary. Few alternatives existed at the time. Maybe that could have been emphasised more. But this is a movie and its Oppie's movie. He seems like he was a very intelligent and caring man. His fears are still relevant today. I think deterrents work and it's good that the US has the most nuclear weapons in the world. But it's still scary. What if such weapons get in the wrong hands? We're in a new world.

Overall, this movie was highly engaging considering it's 95% talking. It's powerful, memorable and thought-provoking. It doesn't try to go into the scientific details, just what we need to know. It doesn't pander with cliches.

It's full of important interactions, just as our lives are. It seems to rush through them. We're left with all these fragments as we try to piece them together. All the standard emotions are there - happiness, sadness, anger, betrayal, redemption, hope, fear, etc.

I can't wait to learn more about the real events and watch this again in 6 months or a year. Until then, it's making me reflect on my life and, like very few movies (including Schindler's List and E. T.), it reminds me of the immense weight of life itself. How profound it is.

The MCU has really been falling apart in phase 4. WandaVision was decent but disappointing by the end. No Way Home was pretty good. Guardians 3 was quite good. The rest have all been somewhere between okay and horrible. Most of it mediocre or just really bad. Quantumania unfortunately continues that trend. It's quite bad.

Part of the problem is that it tries to do too much, but in a rushed, lazy and unearned way. That's the key word perhaps: unearned. It tries to have all these big epic moments, heartfelt moment, action spectacle, comedy, etc., but none of it feels earned. In contrast, Infinity War and Endgame were fan service, but carefully constructed, patient, creative fan service.

Jonathan Majors is much better here than in Loki, which is literally my least favourite performance I've ever seen in anything. I'm not kidding. It was so over-the-top and random, so frivolous. But here, at least Kang seems more patient and menacing. If he's a conqueror who's been around for hundreds of years, or whatever, he should be very calm, confident and perhaps strange - who wouldn't go a bit weird after so long? Majors is a highlight of the movie, though still not that great - the standard is so low for the rest of the movie.

Most of the characters either do nothing or are unlikable. Ant Man's daughter was so cute in the first two movies and their dynamic felt very warm, natural and funny. The kind of silly stuff we remember from early childhood. Dad just being funny and clever all the time. But now I couldn't stand her character. She just seems so bossy and sassy for no reason. She's a genius, which is now a cliche in the MCU. It wasn't earned. At least Stark took a while to develop his gear.

Some of the action and visuals are okay. It's mildly entertaining. Some of the CGI is impressive, I guess, but I didn't care much. Actually, the music was pretty decent which was a surprise. But it's a bit like polishing a turd, you know?

MODOK looked pretty stupid without his mask, but then I guess he would look pretty stupid in real life anyway. Maybe it's not bad CGI, but just too weird for us to accept. He did look kind of cool with his mask on and the deep voice. It felt like a wasted opportunity though.

The movie tried its best to build up MODOK and Kang and some parts were a little bit exciting or cool. But not much. The plot is just too messy. Nobody communicates properly, especially Pfeiffer's character. She keeps everything a secret, because the script says so, but then is forced to reveal things later, when it's too late. It's just frustrating.

Paul Rudd is likable as always, but doesn't get to do all that much. He's a side character in his own movie. And he lacks much purpose. He's largely overshadowed by the older Pyms, his daughter, his girlfriend and ants. The ants also felt underused. And I missed Rudd's old friends from the earlier movies. They were funny and likable. The ant playing drums was hilarious. This movie feels empty by comparison.

Some of the quirky characters were sort of interesting but went nowhere. There are no consequences and the world makes no sense so it's hard to care. It's just anything goes without any proper world-building. Instead of 20 different species/groups, pick one or two and make them compelling. Give their world some kind of structure and purpose.

Murray's cameo was alright but didn't change much. None of the movie was really outright terrible, just lame, messy and by-the-numbers. Some lines were just awful though. And some of the plot contrivances were really predictable and uninspired.

I enjoyed some of the movie a bit. Kang's character has a lot of potential. But they barely make use of it. This could have been great - Ant Man being a humble and funny character, against an epic new time-traveling villain. But it's mostly a failure. With decent music and a big budget but horrible writing and unpleasant characters. Oh well.

A new low for the MCU. Why did I even watch this? There's just too much hope with new superhero movies. Infinity War and Endgame were great. Nolan's Batman films are superb. Every superhero movie comes with that tiny glimmer of a hope that maybe it's good or even great.

Superheroes are an exciting concept and the MCU has tonnes of potential at this point in terms of budget, cross-overs (and the multiverse), source material, good actors, etc. But Wakanda Forever is an offensive waste of all that. And I mean offensive.

If the movie was about a European country, could you imagine them lecturing the rest of the world about being the most powerful, wisest and most disciplined? This movie represents black supremacy. It makes itself about race and it asserts that black people are the best people. It's not about intelligence, principles, laws, communication, etc. The message is far simpler. The US is bad. White people are bad. Wakanda is good because it has no white people.

Nobody would accept the reverse. But the despicable racism promoted by this movie gets ignored. It's also laughable in the face of reality where Africa is hardly known as a continent full of tolerance, prosperity, responsibility, etc.

The plot itself is convoluted. The Talokan are interesting but only in their surface details - how they look and sound, not so much what they say or do. They get less interesting the more we learn. At times I wished I was watching Aquaman which I didn't even like that much - at least it was fun at times.

The acting by the main two actresses is barely watchable. So forced, so superficial. There is no subtlety or depth. The humour falls flat. I couldn't believe some of the jokes. There's a reference to "the white girl from Indiana Jones". Why mention her skin colour? It doesn't help indicate who they mean and it isn't funny. I can't stand people obsessed with race rather than actual human qualities.

The CGI is mixed. Sometimes kinda cool but most of it looks completely fake. The physics are terrible and really take you out of the movie. Too many sudden changes in speed, inconsistent momentum/impact, no gravity, etc. It's arbitrary who dies or gets injured as well.

The dedication to Chadwick Boseman is touching. It is truly said that he died so young and the movie pays tribute to him. I just wish the movie could have been better to do his legacy justice. I also didn't really like what they did with his character. It just felt empty compared to the alternatives available.

Why just a 1 out of 10? Surely some parts of the movie are entertaining? Maybe a little bit. But nowhere near enough to forgive the huge flaws. I don't like the characters, especially the main two. I don't like the message or tone of the movie at all. I found the action confusing and boring. And of course the women are on the front lines, which is completely standard.

I'm Aussie but the US has clearly been a beacon of freedom in terms of long term history. To arbitrarily imply that the fictional country Wakanda is superior in technology AND morality is offensive. Why slap people who value history and freedom in the face and expect them to like your pathetic movie? It adds nothing to the MCU, just resentment and appropriation of all kinds of moments and tropes done better elsewhere.

I suppose it's ironic that this is about the 3rd highest rated Star Trek movie if you count it as one. That's the real measure of parody - if you can make fun of a genre while outdoing it yourself. That requires the movie to be good but also to understand the genre well and respect it while lampooning it.

Galaxy Quest isn't amazing, but I did enjoy it upon revisiting it recently. Now I've seen a fair amount of Star Trek, but I think it hardly matters. The formula is so familiar, even to people who have never seen the show. Because it's not just about space, it's all the cliches from every sci-fi, action, adventure movie or TV show. Star Trek just has phasers and a few key catchphrases.

This movie is surprisingly touching at times. That's what happens when the actors and director treat the material seriously. It's funnier if it actually feels real. And while it's not a top-tier, life-changing movie, it's as good as the space operas it's making fun of, in terms of music, acting, special effects, dialogue, etc.

Some of the CGI is quite dated, but that's true of most 90s movies. Some of the jokes are a bit predictable too. But overall, the journey is quite enjoyable and the cast is strong. Allen, Weaver and Rickman are all very funny and likeable while the others are less well known but also good. The aliens are likeable too, very innocent and earnest. Sam Rockwell steals a lot of his scenes with some of the best moments.

Perhaps the main issue with Galaxy Quest is that it ironically falls into the same traps as the movies it's mocking or paying homage to. It becomes a bit cliched. It relies on the same tactics which are overused in sci-fi action movies. At least it has jokes along the way, but it's missing it's own energy. At a certain point, if you're gonna do the Star Trek thing, you may as well do it well.

Anyway, it's good but not great. A must watch for Trekkies of course, but they've probably already seen it multiple times. A few key scenes are hilarious or heartfelt, but most of this is relatively frivolous and slightly dated, like the source material it draws from.

So I got around to watching this finally. I've seen pretty much every Batman movie (multiple times), except for Batman v Superman which just looks kinda dull. This was actually pretty decent although it gets a bit preachy near the end.

Apparently it was "filmed" in New South Wales, where I live - I had no idea. But I guess some movies are made here. But surely it's all CGI, not "filmed". But it does look convincing, as if they're doing stop motion with Lego.

Will Arnett is one of the movie's strengths. He is very funny, especially in this role. Batman is such a familiar character who has been through so many iterations but who still has certain universal qualities. Arnett brings those and finds a balance between humour and sincerity. Even in serious movies, like Nolan's trilogy, it's hard to treat the concept of Batman completely seriously and those movies have plenty of self-aware humour as well.

The effects and action are actually quite cool. Despite it being Lego, it often feels big and epic. There is actually a sense of scale and excitement. A lot of crazy things happen with a lot of characters. However, I would have liked some more meaningful contributions and subplots, rather than an endless slew of random references and jokes.

The focus is on Batman and he's funny so that's the main thing. Robin is also enjoyable, not too annoying while providing a chance for Batman to flex his parenting skills and confront the idea of having a new family (painful because he lost his old one).

Barbara and Alfred are alright but a little too bossy for my liking. Especially near the end, the movie abruptly becomes a bit preachy. It's still funny but they shoehorn in this predictable and dull message about teamwork, about needing others to help you. It's such a cliche and honestly such a stupid concept. No, someone like Batman doesn't particularly need help, especially not from an old man, a young orphan and policewoman (or lieutenant or whatever). Okay, maybe she can help with her gun and skills, but in general, not everyone "needs help". Working alone sometimes works.

But it's also annoying that Batman tries to overrule them and prevent them from fighting, to protect them or protect his feelings. It's very cringey.

The story is generally amusing and engaging, especially seeing lots of random villains. But this felt like it could have gone further. Why not more Star Wars characters? Or let us see more destruction and interaction between random heroes and villains? Why not use the Justice League more? So many gags are possible.

Anyway, I enjoyed this movie but it fell apart a bit near the end. The tone is so frivolous but instead of just going crazy and being hilarious and Batman-y, they decide to go all mushy and lecture us about family and working together. It feels very artificial and unnecessary. It could have just happened naturally. Less is more with that kind of thing. Stop constantly bringing up family and just let there be a subtle thing at the end. Batman calls Robin son without even noticing. That would be nice.

Also, the plot becomes a bit too dumb and random by the end. The tension disappears and everything just magically gets solved too easily. The Batman/Joker dynamic is amusing but also feels a little contrived and one-note.

There are some homages to the other Batman movies and especially the 60s TV show, but I thought there could have been more interesting connections and acknowledgements. The Incredibles manages to both satirise AND outdo superhero/spy movies, standing as a great movie itself. The Lego Batman Movie is a funny parody/homage, but goes no further.

Knives Out was decent but not amazing in my opinion. When I saw this had a decent rating, I decided to check it out. It jumps right into the story with a series of new, quirky characters. It's quite funny and exciting. As familiar as the formula might be (eccentric guests invited for a dinner, with a murder and whodunnit case to follow), it's very entertaining if done well.

Alas, Rian Johnson has seemingly the opposite of a Midas touch. Wokeness ruins everything. And Rian seems to have caught it. Or he's trying to virtue signal, or something.

It's not so much that wokeness is shoved down our throats. It's that an obsession with superficial details like diversity ends up trumping the important things in stories - interesting characters, intricate plots, satisfying twists and endings, comedy and drama, etc.

It's too much to be a coincidence. When the only black woman is a hero, effortlessly learning and working things out, when the only black guy is a genius scientist and all the white people are varying grades of idiots, narcissists and jerks, I'm sorry, but that's deliberate.

And the problem is not diversity or race per se, it's that it makes everything superficial and predictable. There can no longer be any intrigue. Only the white characters are capable of stupidity or evil. Only the black characters can have dignity or intelligence. Except for Daniel Craig.

There's a funny pattern with many TV shows and movies. A main character dies. It's a big, dramatic, shocking moment. But... that was also the best actor in the show! The quality immediately drops. That's the trade-off.

The same (or converse) for when a small character suddenly gets a much bigger role. And then you start seeing more of the weaknesses in the actor's ability, the limits to their range. Or you just hate the character. Honestly it gets confusing because the two mold together.

That happens in Glass Onion. Characters/actors I like aren't around for long enough. And others really overstay their welcome, big time. This movie has one of my 3 least performances I've seen in anything. Janelle Monae might be fine as a singer, but I couldn't stand her acting. It's one note, artificial, forced, limited. And I don't like her character either.

The movie completely falls apart near the end. It basically makes no sense. It's Rian's trademark "undermine the audience's expectations" strategy, completely forgoing the alternative aim of "making a good movie".

It really makes no sense. There's no satisfying or even understandable payoff. Just characters destroying things and then abruptly changing their attitudes for no apparent reason.

That seems to be the woke message - rich white men only ever get rich by stealing ideas while black women do all the work but get none of the credit. Then she's stupid enough to let the bad guy burn the evidence. And her grand solution is... to just destroy all his stuff?

Can't he sue her? Why does he not care at first? Either it's valuable stuff or it's not. Why are we meant to celebrate destruction? Stealing would be more noble! To at least appreciate the valuables he owns. Nobody's reactions or choices make any sense.

Norton's a great actor who is completely thrown away here. He's mildly amusing at best. Bautista is hilarious... while he's alive. Hudson is generally funny. Monae is nightmarish to sit through. Craig is fine, generally engaging and funny. Whiskey is generally hot which I guess is her role. So well done.

This is a very frustrating movie. Pretty well crafted but SO POINTLESS. What on Earth is wrong with Rian Johnson? Why does he do this? It's like a very expensive and tiresome prank. To build up like this and then throw it all away. He cares more about being clever than delivering something meaningful. And he's confusing being clever with being random.

It really does leave a very unpleasant aftertaste, the opposite of what you want from a movie. Like the more you think about it, the more it falls apart and you hate it...

This was a pretty entertaining movie although it didn't quite feel complete. The main reason I watched it was because Top Gun: Maverick was so great and this has the same director.

It's certainly not on the same level as Maverick although some of the action is pretty cool and you can see potential in the directing style overall - a patience to let the story unfold which not all directors have.

The concept isn't enthralling, but it piques your curiosity. The story develops a bit but doesn't go in the most interesting directions.

It's ironic. I think it would work better as a TV show. It both feels like not enough is going on but also that there's so much more to explore. A TV show could have taken more time. End each episode with a cliffhanger or reveal. Let them sink in a bit. Let the world develop and evolve as you learn more.

The movie tries to do too much too quickly. As a result, the twists and developments have less impact - we haven't invested enough yet! On the other hand, the implications of the ideas aren't explored enough. It just kind of rushes on at times. So it's both too slow and ponderous and too rushed at the same time.

Anyway, it's hard not to spoil it, but the concept is enough to draw you in. But these kinds of movies, mysterious sci-fi action epic etc, they really depend on the final concept. What was the crux of it? What's the big twist or the ending, the purpose? It all hinges on that. And Oblivion is alright in that way but not amazing.

I don't really feel a need to rewatch it. But it does give me ideas for similar stories. And a TV show adaptation with much more detail and fleshing out of the world seems plausible.

The acting is fine, especially Cruise who always throws himself into these action roles. Morgan Freeman is good but not used that much - it feels like anyone could fill the role. The main woman is a bit annoying while the newer woman is decent. But perhaps that's the point as well.

This episode is even worse than its title. Let that sink in for a second.

Seriously, it was terrible. Boring, preachy, predictable - more of a drama than a comedy. Way too much of the Beths and not enough Rick and Morty - the two funniest characters with the funniest dynamic in the show.

It's full of references but no actual HUMOUR. Good comedy should come naturally out of the characters and situations, not be artificially shoved down our throats with random references to things as obscure as a Black Mirror episode or with constant dialogue but little or no action or emotion.

It was like someone with a big message to get out about lesbian love affairs tried to imitate the Rick and Morty style and formula, but just failed miserably. Nothing about the concept is remotely interesting or different. Romance and lust have been done a million times over. Loving a clone of yourself is a bit different - but it goes nowhere.

The characters psychoanalyse each-other endlessly, like the writers just finished Pscyhology 101 and now have to see everything that way and lecture the rest of us about it. There's some awkwardness which is mildly amusing. But it drags on. There's no insight, just the musings of someone who gets off to their own theories about relationship dynamics.

Even the freedom of brief scenes of random video games is barely tapped compared to all the random, silly stuff they could have come up with. There's no sci-fi edge. No throwing Morty into a crazy adventure. No fun. Just gross, boring melodrama and non-stop, unfunny, psychobabble.

Unless this is a one-off train wreck, RIP Rick and Morty.

This is a pretty engaging series with some action highlights here and there, although I'm not sure it quite adds up to the sum of its parts.

Chris Pratt is good in the lead role, though it feels a bit depressing compared to his other stuff. In fact, that's an issue with the show - there's just a little too much sense of heaviness, hopelessness, darkness. A bit of that is fine, but too much and it takes away from the fun.

Most good action films and shows are mixed with some other genre - comedy, romance, sci-fi, etc. The Terminal List is a thriller and perhaps a bit of a mystery or drama, but it still feels like it's missing an X factor. It just doesn't have quite the impact it feels like it should. The concept doesn't really change or develop much throughout.

One nice aspect was the attention to detail. It feels much more realistic than most movies or shows. I know a tiny bit about lock picking and it seemed to show that skill accurately. We see James Reece (Pratt's character) make various preparations, planning an attack, setting up weapons, putting on face paint, etc., which demonstrate that plenty of thought went into how he gets things done. I'm betting the author has experience with much of this stuff.

Some of the action is quite good and filmed pretty well. There's real tension as the darkness of the show means it could easily go in multiple directions. A man pushed this far, but who is also a good man, can be unpredictable. Will he show mercy or be brutal to avenge the innocent? Will he get caught? Will he "cross the line" so to speak? Will people turn to his side? Who are the real enemies and allies? It makes us ask these questions.

The acting and music are fine. Nothing stood out too much in those kinds of areas. If anything, the pace felt a tad slow at times. I didn't care that much about the characters apart from Reece. And even with him, it didn't feel like there was much to develop.

I do sympathise with war veterans. I don't know what it's like, but I feel like I have an idea. I'm sure some people quite literally go through hell. But again, that's not always the most fun thing to watch, even if it's depicted fairly accurately.

In the end, I do generally recommend this show. I found it slightly underwhelming by the end, but it was engaging and entertaining while it lasted. It just felt like it needed a couple more key things to take it to the next level. Maybe some more charismatic villains. Some bigger or better twists. Some more concrete backstory details which regular people can relate to. Some nice music and a deeper message. It's good, but not amazing.

This is basically the first Next Generations Star Trek movie. It's very cool that they included Shatner as Captain Kirk, but the gimmick is short-lived and undermined by the absence of the rest of the original crew. I really wish they got Spock and the others and actually had the crews meet, with their ships and everything.

Generations itself is quite good, but the story just feels a little anticlimactic by the end. And the meeting of Kirk and Picard actually works against the plot a bit. It feels like two stories are trying to be told.

The overall film-making, acting and dialogue are good. The concept of the story is good. But the climax just doesn't live up to the build-up. Malcolm McDowell is a great actor, but he isn't given much to do. He needed henchmen or something.

The scenes of Picard with his family were touching. But they tend to pull away from the rest of the plot. There's no real temptation. It doesn't actually affect anything else. It gives a little more insight into Picard, and Kirk, but could otherwise happen in any Star Trek film.

There are some nice Kirk/Picard moments but not to the extent that there could have been. Too much time is wasted talking past each-other rather than getting on with the story. Again, the scenes in the Nexus work against moving the plot of the story forwards.

The new cast are good but not all of them are used much. Data has some funny moments as he gets used to human emotions. And LeVar Burton is quite funny having to deal with the new Data.

Overall, this is an enjoyable Star Trek movie. The effects are good, the story is decent, there are plenty of fun moments of comedy, action, drama, etc. But in the end, it feels like it could have been much grander. It could have either delved fully into the concept of the Nexus and its implications, or it could have joined the two Enterprise crews. It does a little of both, a lukewarm compromise.

The Office starts out slow, but by the end, I became extremely fond of it and wish there was more. It may well be one of my favourite TV shows of all time. The US version was also great but I lost interest around Season 5. Sometimes it's better to end on a high than become stale over time.

Ricky Gervais is the star of the show. And he's equal parts hilarious and so, so, cringe-worthy. David Brent is incredibly immature. He somehow walks a perfect line between being offensively selfish and rude, and likeable despite his flaws. Carell's version (Michael Scott) is different in personality and style, but identical in character flaws.

The side characters are also really effective. They're slow burners. I've noticed that's the nature of great comedy a lot of the time. Instead of familiar cliches and standard jokes which immediately hit, you get something truly simple and original. As you get to know the characters and atmosphere, it grows on you and the laughs gain momentum.

That's the thing. The Office doesn't try to force too many laughs. It's often comfortable just being awkward or stupid. In many cases, I'd only start laughing once a scene was over, realising how ridiculous it actually was.

The key is that it feels real. That's hard to maintain. But for 14 episodes, it works. Brent is a consistent character. They don't change his nature to suit a joke. He's always the same.

Martin Freeman is great. He was very good in the Hobbit movies, one of their few consistent strengths. And here his performance is understated. But you need the straight man for the buffoons to play off of. Less is more and in that sense, I got a lot of laughs from Freeman's bemused and frustrated expressions.

Mackenzie Crook is perfect as a nerd who takes himself way too seriously. But he's also very likeable. Lucy Davis is the other straight character caught in a love triangle with Freeman and her boyfriend. They manage to somehow make the show seem like a real documentary, all the details just seem so improvised and real.

Although the focus is comedy, there are also quite a few nice moments - sad, romantic, touching, etc. When you commit to the truth of a story, all kinds of things can come out. There are parts of The Office which will stay with me more than most dramas I've seen.

At the end of the day, The Office is just hilarious. Many parts caused me to pause just so I could catch my breath from laughing so hard. So familiar are the characters and situations. Brent is one of the funniest fictional characters ever.

And because the acting is so good and the story so honest, I found myself laughing but also reflecting, hoping, feeling sad, etc. I cared about what happened. And, I have to admit, I saw parts of myself in all of the characters, even David and Garth. They're humans after all. Who can't relate to David's pettiness when someone doesn't laugh enough at their jokes?

This was the first Star Trek thing I saw, several years ago. It didn't blow me away, nor did it disappoint. But it left quite a good impression on me. I thought the story was interesting and I enjoyed it overall.

Now I've seen a fair bit of TOS and TNG along with most of the other movies. And rewatching The Motion Picture, I feel about the same as I did initially. It's a good movie. Mysterious, ominous, intriguing. It doesn't require much knowledge of Star Trek to enjoy. But I think knowing the characters a bit gives it slightly more meaning.

The visuals are pretty incredible, and I'm not just talking about Ilia's legs. Many of the Star Trek films have good effects, but honestly, this might have the best effects of all of them, despite being the earliest. A few parts look fake, but most of it looks really good. They really put a lot of time into that aspect of the movie. And it's also very imaginative. All kinds of strange features, shapes, structures and most of it seems to be completely original in design.

There are many long shots of the mysterious giant spacecraft/cloud. That's what some people seem to complain about - that it's too slow. But I don't really understand since I liked a lot of those shots. In many ways, I prefer a movie which takes its time with an original and ominous concept rather than rushing through exposition and predictable dialogue and plot points.

The music is another major strength. Jerry Goldsmith was one of the most prolific film composers and this might be my favourite score of his. Certainly it's up there. His work varies in quality in my opinion, seemingly based on inspiration. Some movies just don't seem to have excited him much. But Star Trek: TMP must have really struck a chord with him (no pun intended). It brings the movie to life. It may be that "nothing is happening", but I was entranced. It took me to another world.

The music is often heavy (there's a weird clangy/metal guitar kind of sound at many points which is unique) and explores all kinds of interesting ideas. There's a reliance on the concept of mystery itself. A kind of faith which most movies are too afraid to go with. TMP takes the time to indulge in its vision, to let us fall into the visuals and music. If you go along for the ride, much of it is pretty incredible.

It's one of the more imaginative movies I've ever seen. I was reminded of 2001, except this movie is more engaging while 2001 feels somewhat pretentious, despite its reputation and breakthrough special effects. And at least TMP offers answers whereas 2001 doesn't.

The twist at the end is a satisfying one. However, the overall concept doesn't quite hold together perfectly. It's very interesting, but still ultimately dated in terms of the hokey sci-fi jargon and some random things which happen at various points. It's not a masterpiece, just a good Star Trek film with above average music and visuals.

I think this is a solid sci-fi movie for fans of that genre, even if they don't know Star Trek. Although, in some ways, it's not even a Star Trek movie since it has relatively little of the other things Star Trek usually has - the characters could be swapped without much needing to change. Still, I enjoyed Kirk and Spock quite a lot.