jcallows

This was a surprisingly good film. It's an adaptation of a video game but it's a movie that could stand on its own without any knowledge of the video game.

I, like many others I'm sure, came in with low expectations. I thought I'd give it a shot and if I didn't like it after 10 minutes I was going to find something else. But guess what? Thirty minutes in I found myself engaged and still watching. There was a seriousness and sincerity about it I didn't expect.

I was so surprised at how much I liked it that I came here on IMDB to see why. I discovered Neill Blomkamp, the director of District 9, did this. And I learned it was based on a true story. No wonder I had the sense this film was made with care and attention to realism.

With your basic underdog story, a likable character and some really intense racing scenes, you have a very entertaining film.

The filmmakers did a good job with this one. Give it a chance. They won't make a fool out of you.

M3GAN is a modern remake of the classic Twilight Zone episode called "The Living Doll" in which a child is given a doll that comes to life and becomes her protector. Other parts of this film might remind you of RoboCop to the point where you expect M3GAN to recite her prime directives. And there's homage to another Twilight Zone episode called "I Sing the Body Electric". And Chucky? I guess there's a bit of Chucky in there, but only superficially.

M3GAN is a well-done, very entertaining film. It uses CGI with restraint and makes M3GAN a very believable robot, not some computer animated character, unlike Iron Man in the later sequels where the appearance of his suit became a CGI cartoon. And the technology and technical jargon are believable.

This film could use a bit more gore and violence but overall it's a very fun movie.

I first saw this when it came out over 30 years ago. I just saw it again yesterday and my opinion hasn't changed. The story and battle scenes were good. And the performances by Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman were the highlights of this film.

But this film could've been a lot better if it hadn't been for the terrible casting of Matthew Broderick and Cary Elwes. They were unconvincing and just stuck out like sore thumbs.

While the character development of Washington's and Freeman's characters was well done, hardly any effort was done for Broderick's character, Robert Shaw. The film didn't do enough to explain Shaw's motivations. Was he always a proponent of civil rights? Or did it come gradually as he got to know his soldiers?

Also, not enough was done to show the strengthening bond between the soldiers and their leader Shaw. There was a missed opportunity when at one point Washington's character mentioned the mansion Shaw could return to after the war. This should have been brought up later to make the point about how much Shaw was willing to risk to fight for their cause. One could say among the men in his regiment, Shaw had the most to lose. But there he was, ready to give it all up. Had this point been brought up to the soldiers, it would be easy to see how they could form a kind of bond with Shaw. But alas, this wasn't in the film.

As it stands, the film was good but it could've been better.

Perhaps I'm a sucker for films with a strong music score but that doesn't mean a film can stand on its score alone. It still has to be a good film. And John McTiernan's The Thomas Crown Affair is definitely a good film.

Though he was a poor fit as James Bond, Pierce Brosnan is a natural fit as the bored, wealthy businessman and part-time art thief. Bill Conti, who did the famous Rocky score decades ago, amazingly comes up with another gem for this film. Yes, that Bill Conti. He still has it after all these years.

Throw in a clever heist story and an amusing romance between Brosnan and Rene Russo, you have a very entertaining and engaging film that's still watchable today.

What is it about this pandemic that encourages Hollywood to keep churning out mediocre films? You'd think with people couped up indoors and limited diversions that they'd focus on the few things they're allowed to do, such as making movies. Yet even with all that time and focus, they still come up with mediocre movies like this.

There are a few possible reasons as to why. One reason is Hollywood simply got lazy and took it's audience for granted, assuming because of the lockdowns, the audience would have little choice but to watch more movies. Another could be the depressingly lengthy lockdowns caused many filmmakers to be less inspired to create anything new and exciting. And finally, perhaps the current politically correct environment forced producers to hire filmmakers not based on merit but on superficial attributes in a superficial attempt to conform. But most likely it's some combination of the above.

Anyway, about the film. Right off the bat, the movie had a tough task to make an uninteresting character interesting. But Marvel is no stranger to this. Two of the best films in their franchise were about previously little known superheroes, Iron Man and Thor. If they could work their magic on this film, perhaps they could capture our interest in the Black Widow, as they did about a guy and his special suit or a guy and his magical hammer.

Unfortunately, Marvel's magic ended with Captain America. Black Widow stumbled out of the gate with an incredibly silly action sequence in which Natasha and her family escape trouble by taking off in their plane with her father hanging on one of the wings. Then it was all downhill from there. Poor character development, lack of chemistry and a familiar plot pretty much did this film in. Let's put it this way. If Black Widow had been released first instead of Iron Man, no way the other Marvel films would've been made.

Here's another film about a guy with hidden talents. What's different about it? It does a good job of creating a mystery as to the protagonist's motivations. It also has well shot action sequences and cleverly planned heists. It feels like a cross between John Wick and Den of Thieves/Italian Job/Heat.

Though it's not at the level of a John Wick, it does require you to have a fair amount of suspension of disbelief. Our hero does have incredible shooting accuracy and amazing healing powers. Also, it asks you to believe armor truck heists happen all the time. You'd think after a string of heists in the same city in the span of a few months the cops would be on high alert and security companies would be better prepared but whatever.

Overall I enjoyed this film. It's Jason Stratham's best work since his other revenge heist film, The Italian Job.

I enjoyed the first Mortal Kombat but thought it was a little too campy and wanted something grittier and more down to earth. The trailers for the new version gave me the impression I was going to get it.

I did, somewhat. This film tried to be more grounded but unfortunately the poor dialogue and screenplay made it hard for me to take it seriously.

The strengths of this film were of course the special effects and action scenes. The inclusion of a few gory fatalies from the video game was especially entertaining. The decision to focus on Sub-Zero and Scorpion was a good one, as they are the two of my favorite characters. Kano surprisingly stole the show. He had all the best lines. The cast overall was fine, though some could've used a few more acting lessons. The actors did look nice though.

But that's about it as far as the positives. Maybe it's the weak script or poor acting but the film felt like a straight-to-video B-movie. I liked that the characters had regular names and I wished they had gone by those, instead of bluntly announcing their video game names later in the movie. It would've sounded less silly if their video game names had been used indirectly and more subtly. The soundtrack was non-existent. The best part of it was when it recycled a bit of the music from the the original at the end.

The original Mortal Kombat was good but it left much to be desired. This new version intended to surpass the original in quality but unfortunately ended up not even meeting it.

Actually, this film reminded me more of the 90s cult film Heathers where a troubled teen planned an attack on a high school as a way to get back at the world. But when a few reviewers criticized this film for ripping off Die Hard, I had to think about it more to realize the similarities. Sure there were similarities, but saying Run Hide Fight was a ripoff of Die Hard is like saying Venom was a ripoff of Dances With Wolves. And Venom had a lot more in common with Dances With Wolves than did this film with Die Hard.

And speaking of Dances With Wolves, remember Avatar, the one nominated for best picture? Otherwise known as Dances With Smurfs or Dances With Wolves in Space? And The Last Samurai, also known as Dances With Wolves in Japan? Boy, the critics sure did give those films a pass. Don't get me wrong, those films were also very enjoyable. Each added enough new twists to make them worth watching. But the critics giving those films a pass and not this one sure does show blatant bias.

The similarties between this film and Die Hard were minute and easily forgotten. That's because the cast, acting and storytelling made it such an intense, gripping film to watch. It's easily one of the best films of 2020.

As a side note, it's refreshing to see such an intelligent but obscure film like Heathers continue to be referenced today in film, TV and even in Tiktok.

Here's a movie ahead of its time. It's about stopping the intentional release of a deadly virus in order to prevent a global pandemic. The IMF wants it to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands. Evil doers want it just to make a buck. One of them owns the only company that makes the antidote and would like to see the virus "accidentally" released into the general public. Another wants it to simply sell it to the highest bidder.

When the pandemic hit, this film immediately came to mind. If you're into conspiracy theories and you're thinking about which country has benefited most from this pandemic, you might want to check it out. If not, check it out anyway. Thandie Newton is hot in this movie.

The general consensus is that MI:2 is the weakest of the franchise. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that after watching the recent forgettable MI films. I would put it somewhere in the middle. I know it's one of the weaker MI films, and yet, I keep coming back to it anyway. I wonder why. Actually, I know why. It's because of Thandie Newton. She's incredibly hot in it and she saves the movie. There is no other reason to watch it.

Well, there's another reason. Hans Zimmer's score, although it doesn't really fit in an MI film, is pretty good. Of course he writes a few familiar themes but he does introduce a couple new catchy ones.

Now the negatives. This doesn't feel like an MI film but more like a Tom Cruise movie. Gone or minimized are the rest of his team. It's all about Tom Cruise. Gone also is the original MI theme. It has a score that, while good on its own, seems out of place. Then there's the excessively long finale. It's tedious and doesn't make sense considering the relationship between Ethan Hunt and the villain. There is little relationship between them and thus not enough strong feelings are built to warrant an excessively long final confrontation. But Thandie Newton sure does look good.

In summary, this film has become more interesting in light of our recent situation. But if you don't care about that, you might still enjoy it as I have because you get to gaze at Thandie Newton.

Not that it's a bad thing. The first two Terminators had a strong female character. Except in that case, it was done right. In this case, not so much.

The problem with this film, like so many recently, wasn't that it pushed a social justice agenda, but that it just wasn't very good. And when you got a mediocre film, any irrelevant issues being pushed act as a distraction instead of an enhancement to the story.

Anyway, about the film. It's certainly a watchable film, at least for the first two-thirds. The familiar faces and visually stunning action sequences alone made this film worth watching, despite the silliness of the last act.

What made this film worth watching was also what kept it from being better. The return of Sarah Conners and the original Terminator brought nostalgia but unfortunately took away time from the two new characters, time that could've been spent developing them and developing their chemistry. So when we got to the grand finale, it was hard to feel anything for them.

This was the second time they tried to reboot the franchise. Perhaps the third time will be the charm.

The Rise of Skywalker was a tour de force. It subverted expectations and pushed social justice propaganda. So why didn't the critics like it? These were the same things the critics cited as reasons The Last Jedi was a masterpiece. And The Last Jedi was clearly no masterpiece.

So what happened? I'm not sure. But The Rise of Skywalker did expose the critics' hypocrisy. When critics cited the subversion of expectations as a positive aspect of The Last Jedi, I was suspicious. It felt more like an excuse for The Last Jedi's poor storytelling and weak character development. But whatever. Then came The Rise of Skywalker, which once again, subverted expectations. And this time, the critics didn't like it.

The critics' response to The Rise of Skywalker confirmed my suspicions: critics don't really like their expectations subverted. Critics only like their expectations subverted when it goes their way, which is another way of saying they don't like their expectations subverted. The Last Jedi sacrificed good storytelling for cheap jokes and nonsensical plot twists simply for their shock value. Yet the critics overlooked these flaws and called them subverting expectations because The Last Jedi pushed fashionable propagandas.

The critics bashed The Rise of Skywalker because it subverted their expectation that the seeds planted in The Last Jedi would continue to develop. Instead, The Rise of Skywalker chucked The Last Jedi out the window, course corrected, and continued where The Force Awakens left off, as if The Last Jedi never happened. Perhaps this was the real reason for the critics' hate. They might've taken the erasure of their beloved The Last Jedi personally and felt it was a big middle finger to them. But I thought it was pretty funny.

The Rise of Skywalker was clearly better than The Last Jedi, but it was no tour de force. It felt rushed, the characters were underdeveloped, and action sequences were unremarkable. That said, JJ Abrams did the best he could to both fix the mistakes of The Last Jedi and create an entirely new film. And he should at least get credit for the effort.

This game tries to send the message the film Unforgiven does: that heroes aren't all good and villains aren't all bad. It's an interesting idea but the game doesn't successfully pull it off.

Although this game will disappoint many fans of the original due to the dark turn in the story, it is, believe it or not, for those fans. That's because the story isn't strong enough and the characters aren't likable enough to lure in new ones.

The visuals are stunning, the character interaction is realistic and the acting is strong. The gameplay will be familiar to the fans of the original as it hasn't changed much. Despite the dark nature of the story and non-sensical character motivations, it's engaging and will keep you interested until the end, which is more than I can say for most video games.

Now the negatives. The story is dark and has a few surprises, though they aren't totally shocking if you played the original. But it's dark ending lowers its replay value.

The game also introduces a new character who it tries hard to make you like and care about. It even forces you to play her for half the game. But it fails to convince you she's not a villain. That's because once you discover how weak and nonsensical her motivation is, you'll conclude she's completely nuts. By the end, you will see her as just some crazy thing that rhymes with witch. Her part would've been better left as a DLC. Instead, her inclusion makes the game feel short as you try to rush through it to get back to Ellie.

This game can still be redeemed if a more up-lifting sequel is released and this becomes the second act in a trilogy. Then it can be The Empire Strikes Back of the series and go down in video game history as a classic. But as it stands, it's simply a depressing game.

The original Resident Evil 2 for the first Playstation was ahead of its time. It had a combination of high quality graphics, gameplay, story and music that no other game had at the time. The atmosphere sucked you in and made you believe you were part of a movie. So when the remake was released for the Playstation 4, I was excited to see what they've done with it.

As far as the graphics, gameplay and creepy atmosphere, the remake didn't disappoint. It's a good looking game that allows you to move and look around the environment from different angles, unlike the original with a fixed camera position. However, as I played, I found myself somewhat disappointed. Perhaps it was my high expectations. Or more likely, it lacked something great games have these days: an engaging story and realistic acting.

What happened to the music? It was a big part of the original and helped create the mood. Since many aspects were updated, I thought the music would be too. Sadly this wasn't the case. I was looking forward to hearing the original music again, updated, but it didn't happen. In fact, there's hardly any music to speak of.

Other elements that hindered this game included the overly long boss fights, unreasonably resilient zombies and an indestructible guy that chases you around.

While the magic may have been lost, it's still a fun, good looking game. Just don't play The Last of Us before this. You might be disappointed with this game if you do.

Every once in a long while a game comes along and changes everything. The game may be for some the only reason for buying the console. Resident Evil 2 for the original Playstation was one such game. The other was The Last of Us for the Playstation 3.

While the survival horror genre is nothing new and parts of the story may seem familiar, this game offered plenty of new things to make it stand out from the rest. A lot of effort went into the making of this game and it showed. Nothing was half-assed. Every aspect of the game, such as the graphics, gameplay, story, acting and music, were several levels above anything that had come before it.

The graphics was ahead of its time in 2013. It was one of the best looking games for the Playstation 3 and still holds up well today. The music was unusually good for a video game. But that should've come as no surprise as the composer had done work for several films, including the Academy award winning Brokeback Mountain. And lastly, it was the acting that put this game far and above the rest. The behavior of the characters and the interaction among them all felt very real. Oftentimes I forgot I was watching an animation.

This game was a pleasant surprise. I never thought it was possible to find a collection of developers, actors, artists and musicians that could be so passionate about making a video game. But I'm glad I was wrong.

It was great seeing Morgan Freeman as the President again. He was a natural at it in Deep Impact. I remembered his calm, soothing voice when he told the public in the midst of an impending meteor disaster, "There will be no hoarding. I'm freezing all prices. What costs a dollar today will cost a dollar tomorrow." Those words and that film came to mind during the recent events. But I digress.

Angel Has Fallen followed the same path as Wolverine and Rambo. It spent more time exploring the human side of our hero. And like those films, it felt contrived and unnecessary. Take this part out and you won't miss anything. Because of this element, Angel Has Fallen was a film of two halves. The first half was about Banning and his past. It was slow, dull and nonsensical. And the fact that much of the action was in the dark didn't help either.

The second half was a different movie altogether. That was a good thing because it became similar to the previous Fallen films. The second half pretty much redeemed this film with some intense action sequences and good chemistry among the main characters.

The verdict? Definitely the weakest in the trilogy but still enjoyable to watch. Just skip the first half.

If you're looking for an updated version of The Invisible Man using the latest in special effects technology, this ain't it. In fact, this could've been easily made in the 1930s. Not that it's a bad thing, but the title suggests a re-make of the classic film of the same name but with updated special effects.

In reality, this film was more a re-make of the 90s film, Sleeping with the Enemy, than the 30s film, The Invisible Man. Obviously, the first mistake of this film was its title. It was less about an invisible man and more about a woman trying to get away from her controlling husband. It's a good film but not the great Invisible Man re-make I was expecting.

Another problem was that it started out slow. It took a good half and hour before anything happened. Shaving 20 minutes off this film would've improved it.

Overall this film was suspenseful and entertaining but it really wasn't about an invisible man. It's a good thing it was released online because it's not worth seeing in theaters. For a better Invisible Man re-make, watch Paul Verhoeven's Hollow Man. Very enjoyable and totally underrated. It's 20 years old but its special effects can hold its own today.

This is an excellent film with an accurate portrayal of historic events. I had misgivings about it when I had heard the director of Independence Day would be doing it but he actually did a great job at staying true to history while making it entertaining. He didn't simply focus on the heroism of our American soldiers but also covered other aspects that contributed to our success such as code-breaking, strategy and sheer luck. He crammed a lot into a 2 hour film. Many historical names, places and events were mentioned in passing and if you're not familiar with this battle you might miss them. But no matter, you'll still get the gist of this film.

The aerial battles were beautifully shot and the attention to historical accuracy was incredible. This film did justice to the code-breaking aspect and treated the Japanese with respect, even though they were the enemy. Because of its historical accuracy, this film could pass for a docudrama. On the other hand, it covered a lot at the expense of character development, although it did manage to focus on a few protagonists.

Roland Emmerich's Midway is a historically accurate, beautifully shot film with none of the fictional romantic soap opera that weighed down the 1976 version or Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor. It's puzzling that critics didn't like it. Perhaps they forgot this film was a historical drama and there's no room for a fictional event or character to promote their social justice agenda. They complained about the lack of character development. Again, this film needed to cover a lot of history in 2 hours so something had to give. That said, many of the characters were adequately developed, which is more than I can say for The Last Jedi. Oddly, critics overlooked the non-existent character development in The Last Jedi and laughably praised it anyway. Midway is a far superior film and is just another film that's exposed the critics' bias. Ignore the paid critics and take it from me, someone who hasn't been paid by any studio to write this review: Go see this film!

Wow. Where to start. The filmmakers doubled-down on the elements that made the first film weak: strong ties to the Avengers films, a magical suit that did all the work, and other-worldly technology that belonged in a Harry Potter film.

The plot was familiar but that's ok. I just wish they'd kept all the action back in Spidey's neighborhood. There was no reason for him to travel halfway around the world to fight his battle. I also wish they had kept references to the Avengers to a minimum and tried to make this film a Spider-Man film, not another Avengers film. I wish they'd kept the suit basic spandex with minimal functionality to showcase Peter's special skills instead of turning it into another Ironman suit which gave powers to anyone who wore it. And I wish they'd kept the technology at a more believable level instead of making it do whatever a 9-year old kid can think of. But alas, it wasn't meant to be.

On the positive side, the performances by Tom Holland and Zendaya were great and their chemistry looked authentic. Too bad this wasn't enough to save this mess of a film. 90+ percent on Rotten Tomatoes? C'mon, you've got to be kidding me.

This was essentially a sequel to St. Elmo's Fire but with a lousy soundtrack which made its weak script more noticeable. I passed on this in the 80s when it came out because the trailer looked boring. I decided to give this a try since I got tired of watching reruns of my favorite sitcom. Top marks to the trailer for accurately representing this film. It was boring. The only reason this film made any money was it capitalized on Rob Lowe's and Demi Moore's rising stardom.

Let's get to the negatives. The story was unoriginal but that's ok. Many good films don't have original stories so this film had potential. But what makes them good is they have something new to offer, such as a clever script or good chemistry between the protagonists. This film had neither. Nor did it have a catchy soundtrack like the one in St. Elmo's Fire to save it. David Mamet wrote this? The writer of The Untouchables and House of Games? I couldn't believe it. To be fair, he only wrote the play on which this film was based. Somebody else wrote the screenplay. Something definitely got lost in the translation.

And now the positives. Actually, I could only think of one positive. Demi Moore. She was half-naked for quite some time. And this was before her boob job. This fact alone made this film worth a rental, or rather, a download.

Critics attacked Sony's Venom for its flaws while they excused Disney's The Last Jedi for the same flaws because they "subverted expectations". Why the hypocrisy? Admittedly, The Last Jedi was aesthetically better, but it was buried by a mountain of flaws. Venom was a much better overall film which easily overcame its flaws. Perhaps Sony should learn from Disney on how to pamper (i.e. Bribe) these paid critics. But I digress.

Venom was Sony's answer to Deadpool. Though not as graphic as the R-rated Deadpool, Venom still succeeded with its cast, story and humor. Given the negative reviews by critics and my doubts that a movie about a blob from outer space could be any good, I had low expectations. But Venom easily won me over.

Key to Venom's success was the performance of its lead actor Tom Hardy. In this fast-pace, action-filled, CGI-heavy film, Hardy managed to add realism to it in his grounded portrayal of Eddie Brock. His performance brought empathy and likability to his character. Caring about the protagonist is essential in any story, especially one that's been told before.

Strengthening this film was the addition of Riz Ahmed (Nightcrawler and Rogue One). Ahmed is a talented actor who managed to turn what must've been meant to be a two-dimensional character into something more believable. Along with a strong cast, Venom had a clever script, a good story, and tense action sequences.

There's even a catchy song by Eminem written specifically for Venom. This was a refreshing surprise. Up until this song, the closest thing we had to an original song for a Marvel film was The Foo Fighters' Walk for Thor in 2010. But that came from a previous album.

The story might've seemed too familiar and might've reminded us of the cult-classic sci-fi film, The Hidden, or the more recent The Incredible Hulk, but Venom introduced enough new elements to justify its existence. And it would've been nice if the film had explained how Eddie Brock (and his girlfriend) could survive and co-exist with the symbiote while others could not. Also it would've been nice to see a more convincing explanation of Brock's quick transformation from a selfish, publicity hunter to a selfless humanitarian.

Venom was refreshing change and a nice kick in the rear to the Marvel franchise. It's so good I didn't mind the cartoonish CGI Venom. But I would like to see this improved upon in the next film. I would also like to see the graphic violence turned up to Robocop level. I'd put Venom in the top 5 of all the Marvel films released this past decade.

Den of Thieves is an obvious remake of the 1995 Pacino/De Niro film Heat, complete with a bank robbery, a spectacular shoot-out in LA, focus on personal lives, and a final confrontation between the hero and the villain. Den even copied a few lines right out of Heat. That this film is an unofficial remake of Heat shouldn't discourage you from watching it. It's actually quite good.

Den of Thieves improves on parts where Heat fell short. Although Heat did have two superstars and an awesome shoot-out scene, the script was weak and the film dragged at times. Den does a better job of integrating personal life with the cops-and-robbers life. The script is better, the dialogue is more natural and the chemistry among the actors is better. And Den holds its own in the action department. Den does have a glaring plot hole created by the inadequate explanation of how one robber managed to regain the leader's trust so easily after being interrogated by the police. But despite this, in many ways Den is an improvement over Heat.

Let's not kid ourselves. The Last Jedi was made for a particular audience. It just wasn't for the right one. To say the filmmakers tried to carry out an artistic vision without regard to outside opinions is complete bogus. It's obvious the filmmakers made this film for a specific audience. Which audience? Who knows. But one thing's for certain, it wasn't for the audience that loved the original Star Wars films.

Let's face it. If this film didn't have the Star Wars name behind it, The Last Jedi would've simply been looked at as a silly science fiction fantasy film for kids. For sure, The Last Jedi looked great and had pretty special effects. But only kids could be satisfied by that alone and ignore this film's serious flaws in logic, continuity, and storytelling. Granted, The Last Jedi had some of the best acting of all the Star Wars films. Sure it had good acting, but so did Geostorm.

And, no, a second viewing didn't make my opinion of The Last Jedi any better. That actually made it worse as the second viewing exposed more flaws.

So if you're gonna pick an audience to make a Star Wars film for, why not pick the audience that made the originals so popular in the first place?

The style and action will remind you of John Wick. This should come as no surprise as both this film and John Wick were directed by the same guy, David Leitch, a stuntman turned director. Kinda cheapens the title of director, doesn't it?

Actually, Leitch is a capable director and better than a few others out there. This former stuntman's specialty is, of course, action. It's the action that highlighted Atomic Blonde. Unfortunately, everything else was just filler.

Despite some cool, although unrealistic, action sequences, this film dragged. The plot seemed simple yet difficult to follow. Perhaps they were trying to follow the book but some of it could've been cut out. All I got was our protagonist had to retrieve a stolen NOC, er, I mean, secret agents list before it became public. And there was this whole interrogation bit to sort of narrate the film and some mumbo jumbo about a double crossing. But none of this mattered and should've been left out for pacing. This 2-hour film could've benefited greatly from a nice trimming of about 30 minutes.

To be honest, after a dull first 15 or so minutes, I simply fast forwarded to the action scenes, including the lesbian scenes, and I suggest you do the same. You won't miss anything and you'd greatly enhance your viewing experience.

Spider-Man: Homecoming could've been great if it had been a stand-alone film. Instead, its constant references to the Avengers weighed it down. It's tied so closely to the Avengers it should've been called Spider-Man: The Seventh Avenger.

But coming to the rescue were Tom Holland and Michael Keaton. They were great. Also, having Spider-Man be younger, more playful and witty was a refreshing change. I don't read comics but apparently this new depiction of Spider-Man was more inline with the comics than previous depictions.

Ironically, if this Spider-Man reboot was supposed to stay truer to the comics, it only did so in some aspects. At least it did get the main character, Spider-Man, right but if you're looking for more, you'd be disappointed. Other characters were changed slightly. Their ages and races were changed. And Spider-Man's suit is now tech created by Stark. It's practically another Ironman suit that does all the work.

Despite this film's strong ties to the Avengers, its ham-fisted attempt at political correctness, and a Spider-Man suit that does everything for whoever who wears it, the strong performances by Tom Holland and Michael Keaton made this film enjoyable to watch.

Tom Holland was great. Then again, I thought Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield were fine too. If there's one thing I've learned from watching all these Spider-Man films, it's that anybody can play Spider-Man.

And this is considered one of the better DC films? DC must be cursed. Perhaps my expectations were too high when I found out Patty Jenkins was directing but this film was a big let down.

Wonder Woman is a cross between Thor and Captain America but not as good as either. The casting of Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor was fine as both actually had good chemistry. Unfortunately, the script was poor and they didn't anything good to say. Add to this a boring, illogical story and average action sequences, you have a huge missed opportunity.

Strangely, Thor and Captain America, films which Wonder Woman borrowed a lot from, were far superior to Wonder Woman yet were rated as inferior on IMDb. This unfair rating and the inflated rating of many mediocre films have made me lose faith in the IMDb rating system.