NarniaIsAwesome

This is gonna be a long one... here we go...

First, I'd like to dissect every character one by one, starting with Diana. I'll get right to it: she's boring. Seriously, she's awful. Gal Gadot makes a great Wonder Woman visually, but her performance lacks a lot. She's just not fun to watch. She has cool scenes and stunts, but she doesn't look like she's having fun. While the film has its serious moments, it does have the sort of wild epic-ness that warrants a more excited heroine. Even when the script tries to make her "have fun," she just can't. I understand that Wonder Woman is supposed to be a more elegant character in general, but something about Gadot's acting just makes everything fall flat. I don't enjoy seeing her be awesome, because she's not enjoying it either. She's going through the motions of being cool, and just comes off like a depressed and generic good guy. Aside from her personality, the position they've put Diana in doesn't make sense. I refuse to believe that Diana hasn't changed her name in 60+ years. Wonder Woman is perhaps the most invaluable superhero; she is quite literally a "god killer." One can only imagine that there are many other gods, goddesses, and immortal beings who would want her dead. I was honestly expecting us to find Diana living off the grid in a low-rent apartment, moving around and working odd jobs to make ends meet (when she wasn't stopping petty crime, of course). But no, we get a rich, high society Diana who works at a museum, flaunting her inhuman knowledge and qualities - basically a sitting duck for her enemies. But enough about her.

Next, we have Steve... oh Steve... you're just the worst. Now, Steve doesn't do anything wrong - he's simply dull as a blank wall. He adds nothing to the story - well, his presence does, but not him as a character. He's expendable; you could swap him out with anyone else and the effect would be the same. Also, Chris Pine has absolutely no chemistry with Gadot; he was clearly only cast because he's considered eye candy for the ladies.

Now for the villains... this is where it gets interesting... the bad guys are way better than the heroes. As I said above, Steve and Diana are painfully boring and blank. However, this movie has some of the best villains I've seen in a recent superhero film.

Max Lord, played by Pedro Pascal, absorbs the power of an artifact called the Dreamstone, which gives him the ability to grant wishes. However, he also takes something from whoever had their desire granted. Obviously, this goes horribly wrong, and eventually the world descends into chaos. Max (who is loosely inspired by J.R. Ewing from Dallas; change my mind) is a surprisingly engaging character. The actor did a good job portraying him; I know he sounds boring but he stole the show every time he was on screen.

Finally, we have Barbara, aka Cheetah. Her story starts a bit slowly, even invoking the age-old trope of a stereotypically dorky girl who becomes confident. But Kristen Wiig actually gives the character enough charisma that she is more likable than Diana. This is what I talked about earlier. Once Barbara becomes Cheetah, she is the kind of character Diana should've been. She's cool and fun to watch, she looks like she's enjoying the battle, she has spirit - even though she was supposed to be evil, I actually enjoyed seeing her beat up Diana! Yeah, I know that sounds awful, but this brings me to my final point: what I liked most about this movie was the film's biggest flaw.

If I'm rooting for the villains, that means the heroes sucked (which they did). Don't get me wrong, bad guys need to be interesting in a story, but the heroes also need to be charismatic and awesome. I wanted to see Barbara succeed, and once she did, she seemingly surpassed Diana's level. Therefore, it was easier to dislike Diana.

Now, onto my final complaint: why on earth was this set in the 80's? Both the title and the marketing for this movie made it seem like it was no mistake that it took place in 1984. Clearly it was for nostalgic purposes, but that's just it... there's no nostalgia. This could've been set in literally any other decade and been the same. Now, I'm not saying it needed to be heavy-handed, playing cliche and overused songs every five seconds, but there is absolutely nothing in this movie that utilizes its setting. There is one opening scene that takes place in a mall, but it's entirely pointless and could be cut out of the movie. There were just so many opportunities to make Wonder Woman even cooler with this, like playing rock/synth music while she fights or having her duke it out with Cheetah in a theater while 'The Terminator' is on the screen. But there is nothing of the sort. Now, this wouldn't be so much of a problem if the year 1984 wasn't such a big part of the plug. If it was just called 'Wonder Woman II' in regular font, who cares. But when you call it 'WONDER WOMAN: 1984' with retro colors and title style, the audience expects more clever nods to the decade.

I suppose I've went on and griped enough; in short it's an okay movie but it could've been a lot better. I like some of what they did, but the rest certainly isn't what I would've done with it.

I hate it when film makers treat the audience like they're stupid. We don't need to be handed every piece of obvious information; we can figure it out. We have a brain. On the other hand, a film's job is to present a story to us, from beginning to end. The movie is supposed to be the entire experience; why make a film if people will have to Google the plot afterwards? If your story needs further explanation, you haven't told a story, you've told a snippet of a story.

This is one of the main reasons 'Tenet' is underwhelming. A confusing story is one thing, for it can eventually be figured out. But this script is actually murky, reasons and plotlines hidden and distorted with no explanation. What's worse, the characters always seem to know exactly what's going on all the time. They don't help guide us through the maze, they drag us through behind them.

The film's other flaw is how wasted the idea is. As stated in the movie, it's not time travel, it's time inversion. Quite different, but the only payoff we get is fighting a rich dude who's a jerk. I honestly didn't think there would be a stereotypical world-hating villain in this movie, but that's what we get. His presence mucks up what would've been a more interesting story. Also, the rules of going into time inversion are hilariously cliched - things like "Don't touch your past self or you'll explode" or "Hey, that person I saw earlier was actually ME!"

That being said, there are a few exciting action scenes and the reverse fights are kind of cool. The actors are doing their best and it's not their fault that you can barely hear some of their important dialogue (thank you, sound mixer).

I get the feeling this was almost a vanity project on Christopher Nolan's part. It's been a little while since he made one of his signature "complicated" features and wanted to make this one as artsy-fartsy as possible. Two or more viewings would be required to understand it properly.

As I wrap this up, remember that a good movie isn't one you have to watch twice. A good movie is one you want to watch twice. 'Tenet' is the former. If you want a good film that messes with time, just watch 'Back to the Future' again.

What can I say about "Twilight" that hasn't been said before? Despite the film's success, it is widely known that it's just not very good. Well, bite your lip and grab your sparkly boyfriend, and let's get started.

Let's start with the plot itself: a human girl, Bella, falls deeply in love with a vampire, Edward. I understand that it's probably supposed to be a metaphor for unconditional love, but it doesn't tackle the subject tastefully. If you take it at face value, Bella is completely okay with the fact that her boyfriend is DEAD. Throughout the film, Edward and other soulless characters explain that controlling their desire to drink blood is extremely difficult, and he even admits that he still wants to consume her. However, the tale moves on with Bella accepting this and trusting him implicitly. She puts in her life in danger several times by associating with the vampire family and getting in the middle of their feuds. Girl, at some point you need to realize that he isn't worth risking getting your head torn off. He is not even comparable to the Beast in any "Beauty and the Beast" story - there is no redemption shown. He is a ghoul.

Now for the characters, starting with Bella. As stated many, many times before, she is one of the worst female characters of all time. It seems that our story is trying to be sweet, and show how she opens up when Edward gets into her heart. But... she actually doesn't. On the outside, she is empty. On the inside, she is empty, also. There is no turning point where she truly comes out of her shell and becomes vibrant and happy. With or without her blood-sucking boyfriend, she is bland and depressed. She has no interests or character arcs aside from Edward. Honestly, this film does a terrible job at portraying a "shy girl." Shy girls don't gawk and drool at their crushes, and they aren't always depressed. It showcases only two types of girls: the snob (Anna Kendrick's character) and Bella. In other words, 'irritation' and 'emptiness.' To my knowledge, men are not attracted to either extreme, yet dreary Bella becomes the object of every boy's affection at her school.

Edward takes second place for Worst Character Ever. He is as bland and one-dimensional as Bella, except he sparkles. Aside from the fact that he is a nosferatu, he is the moodiest and most whiny guy I've ever seen. He stalks Bella, watches her sleep, gaslights her, sends mixed signals, and leers A LOT. But apparently it's okay because he's a vampire. Not to mention that Robert Pattinson just looks really creepy in this role.

Finally, we come to the movie itself. So, poorly written characters and plot aside, is it at least nice to look at? The answer is no, it's not. The film quality reminds me of a found footage horror flick: dark and shot at awkward angles. The acting is (obviously) painful. It's like everyone was acting at gunpoint. I actually don't blame the performers for this, as there's really nothing one can do with a script that requires such tedium. There's as much staring and gaping in this as there is 'looking up' in Spielberg movies. Also, the soundtrack adds to the nauseam, with odd and annoying guitar riffs throughout. On a final note, the film is just plain boring. Nothing really "happens" until the final act, and even then things are slow and uninteresting.

I would sum up with a conclusion... but I think you know where I stand on this...

The title and trailer for this film looks quite intriguing, both mysterious and frightening. Unfortunately, the movie itself is neither.

It tries to build suspense (only after spending 15 minutes introducing us to some wildly annoying characters), but that suspense ends up leading nowhere. The plot itself is cliche, and we honestly don't get a satisfying payoff. As my father said at one point, the only thing that would make it worthwhile is a Predator showing up.

I thought I had the twist figured out early on, and honestly, it was awesome. But of course I was wrong, and all I was left with was lots of yelling, the longest basketball game in recorded history, and a lady that reminds me of Chris Enss.

In short, skip 'The Vast of Night.' Opt for an actual 'Twilight Zone' episode - or even 'Chicken Little, for that matter - instead.

To start, I usually finish a movie, even if it's bad. I will not judge a film without seeing it through and cultivating my opinion of it all... but 'Pan' is another story.

It is nonsensical, goofy, and poorly edited. In the first 3-5 minutes I was concerned that the 'Food, Glorious Food' song from 'Oliver!' would kick in. Then, from nowhere, flying pirates appear and are accepted by the characters without question.

I usually avoid spoilers in my reviews, but I must mention one more scene. After the boys are taken to Neverland (again, without question!), everyone - including Hugh Jackman, as Blackbeard - sings 'Smells Like Teen Spirit.' I swear, I'm not making that up. They just.. sing it. In Neverland. In the 1940's.

So, how would this work? Was the song actually written by Blackbeard, and was later stolen by the members of Nirvana, who used to be Lost Boys? Did Blackbeard time travel to the 1990's and become obsessed with grunge rock, taking the culture back with him? Who knows.

I'd have a long wrap up, but I think my point is clear: stay away from 'Pan.'

Based on a novel, this NetFlix horror cashes in on the success of John Krasinski's similar yarn about a world full of hearing-sensitive monsters, only it somehow pulls it off better.

First of all, we get more backstory of how the disaster came about. It shows us the eerie and all too real scenario of news broadcasts warning us of attacks, and people trying to grasp the new reality. Secondly, the pterodactyl-like creatures here seem more believable than Quiet's spider-aliens. This is why we shouldn't go poking around in caves.

Finally, the characters are marginally smarter than Krasinski and Blunt. They catch on quick, keep loud toys away from their children, and have the good sense to keep their shoes on!

So, "The Silence" is a pretty good thriller, and you just might like it more than "Quiet Place."

This NetFlix venture is obviously trying to be the new "Stranger Things." But the Duffer Brothers make it look so easy, the writers forgot how tricky it is making the "kids-versus-otherworldly-evil" trope actually interesting.

The show takes us to the town of Matheson, which I can only assume is named for Tim Matheson. Three annoying siblings discover the magical keys in the childhood home of their dead father (who is a Keanu Reeves clone). It just so happens that the mansion is called Keyhouse, AND their surname is Locke - how convenient for the show's title! The whole affair suffers from cliches and shocking reveal moments that elicit an "Oh," instead of a "What?!?"

The keys themselves are used to do things like get ice cream, read up on England, fix broken mugs, and pull pranks! If that doesn't get you hyped, wait until they put aside the magic to have fundraisers, make B-movies, dye hair, and go out for the longest coffee date in the history of mankind! In its defense, it does make turning keys look really, really satisfying.

My point is, the characterization and plot are flimsy. I wasn't so much on the edge of my seat as I was sinking into my seat. Maybe opt for fixing that leaky faucet or sweeping the porch instead.

The biggest selling point of this film, to me, was the idea of re-making a classic feel-good show into a horror movie. It truly is an imaginative approach, and certainly relevant given all the remakes/reboots of the movie's decade. That being said, it is not without flaws and oversights.

The characters are fairly interesting, and the plot does exist. There is a mystery and everyone's situations payoff and come together in the end. So kudos for that. But there are traces of lazy writing and some annoying plot holes, if you think about it too much. The performances depend on the person. Michael Pena, who portrays Mr. Roarke, is excellent in his role, while Michael Rooker is quite hammy as a rogue jungle-detective.

But one must give the filmmakers credit for refraining from an R-rating, especially given the previous success of titles like 'Joker' and 'Us.' The horror here is pretty creepy without being stomach turning.

While it is not faultless, 'Fantasy Island' is a step in the right direction as far as creative re-makes, and horror that isn't just for gore fans. I hope Blumhouse can take lessons from this and learn to improve upon this model, instead of just giving up due to a fair amount of negative responses.

Most films are made by a group of people, people with a vision and a goal. There are storyboards, script revisions, and re-takes. But that is not how this movie came to be. This film was created by a blender. Yes, a blender, like in the kitchen. The only two ingredients used were "Stranger Things" and stupidity.

The story takes us back to a questionable 1968, being as it feels more like the 1980s. It has a real "Stranger Things" vibe of a group of nerdy, outcast friends who have walkie-talkies and face monsters and evil in their small town; only difference being that the Netflix series has more developed characters instead of the cookie-cutter kids here.

The "scary stories" actually end up being the film's biggest failure. They are absolutely ridiculous, which takes away from the creepy feeling that makes you think, "It could happen to you." The monsters end up being so cheesy that they are almost comical.

The one thing the movie does do right is give the lesson that just because someone is a victim, doesn't mean they are necessarily a good guy. But other than that the whole thing is a ripped-off mess of cliches.

"Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark" is not scary, and for what it's worth we never actually get told a whole story in the dark. A more accurate title would be "Skippable Stories to Half-Tell in the Dark (or Daylight)."

Good grief! What a mess. Well, maybe not a mess, but a cheesy mess - a chess? The plot on its own has potential to be funny, but the way it's executed is pretty nauseating.

It's not down to earth, but it also doesn't completely give in to the madness and become one of those crazy but rather witty comedies. It's just sappy and wacky, expecting to be loved for its irritating, forced "charm."

The characters are unlikable due to their unrelatable NYC lifestyles; how many of us accidentally fall in love with our attractive business rival because we've been having heartwarming chats online? I'm not trying to be cynical, but I do hate sappiness.

The film attempts a 90s version of a Doris Day-Rock Hudson farce, but without the charm and humor. The last 15-20 minutes takes a helpful turn that should've happened much earlier.

Point being, you can take or leave this romantic comedy.*

*Romance and comedy not guaranteed.

I'd like to start by saying that this movie failed hugely at the Russian box office, and they didn't even make back their budget. So keep that in mind as you read this review.

Everything about this on-screen experience is perfect. It's one of those rare movies that I wouldn't change anything about. The story, the characters, the cinematography are all perfect. This tale of a Duchess falling in love with a dragon-man would never be made in America, because it is so well made.

The plot is one of the best I've ever seen; it moves at just the right pace and its contents are amazing. The way everything plays out, from the action to the love story, happens so naturally. The actors are terrific, not to mention the fact that quite a bit of the film only features the two leads, a fact that dooms most movies but here it works. They do a good job at being sweet together, but without getting 'Bella-and-Edward-style' creepy and sappy.

The whole look of the ancient royalty is ten times as submersive as a land depicted in a Disney movie, because things look real. The castles and costumes are "historically accurate" (which I'm assuming is Disney's least favorite phrase), making you feel like you really are there and not on a Hollywood backlot.

The only way to put it is that you must see this film to believe it; it's charming, fun, exciting, and free of cheesy formulae. What a shame it was recieved so poorly. It's truly not everyday something like this comes along.

When you make people wait six years for a sequel to one of the highest grossing films ever, you've got to give it your all. This is what Disney did with 'Frozen II', but perhaps they overplayed. Well, let me go into more detail.

The premise of Elsa being called by a lovely voice, causing her to go in search of answers about her past, is a clever turn of events. The Arendelle sisters have an interesting enough backstory to make their origins the focus of the entire sequel. The film achieves this, but somehow the personal mystery gets a little undercut by pointless politics. It's still a fine plot, but I think more explanation concerning Anna and Elsa's parents, and the girls' own charisma, could've held it together alone.

The songs are good, but none as good as the tunes from the first one. The only ones that really stand out are Elsa's 'Into the Unknown' and 'Show Yourself'. I think part of the reason these melodies are successful is beacause they are during important scenes, and explaining powerful emotions. Most of the other songs are just sitting there, with no purpose, just kind of stating the obvious. I'm guessing the composers felt pressed to churn out "the next big 'Frozen' song" and put together some generic stuff for kids to lip sync to.

The animation and landscape is, of course, wonderful. You can always count on 'Frozen' to have beautiful natural sourroundings, not to mention great gowns. Disney would do well to market clothing inspired by Anna and Elsa for grown women, not just toddlers.

I sort of got the feeling the makers were trying too hard to give us something elaborate, when the viewers would've been happy with a more simple basis. But ultimately, 'Frozen II' really is fun, if a bit complex, and Olaf is hilarious, so it's plenty entertaining to take in(-to the unknoooooooown!).

I've never read the book 'Dracula' or seen any other movie adaptation, so this was my first experience with the classic. A local venue was hosting a showing as a Halloween event, so I attended.

The film itself is a bit dull, especially if you don't have much patience. It is even more tedious than movies from the 1950's or 60's. The story is actually pretty simple, so there's not a whole lot to convey. There is virtually no soundtrack, which can make the experience seem slower, but also keeps it from being too cheesy. Sometimes what really ruins an old horror picture is the over-dramatic score. The performances aren't too bad, considering most acting at the time was done in a more theatrical, hammier way.

But there's plenty of laughs to go around, whether they're on purpose or not. One of my favorite recurring gags is whenever a bat appears on a balcony, a character waves his arms around frantically, as if shooing away a gnat.

If you're a fan of classic films, 'Dracula' isn't all bad. But if you're short on patience or prefer a faster pace, perhaps you should choose something else for your Halloween viewing.

Since I genuinely enjoyed 2017's 'Fate of the Furious,' I was looking forward to 'Hobbs and Shaw' all year. Johnson's and Statham's recent projects have been great, so my hopes were high. Unfortunately, this film was a big letdown.

This movie is nothing like the 'Fast and Furious' franchise. Every character is cliche and every stunt is epic, but still somehow dull. Hobbs and Shaw's rivalry gets tired and is rather puzzling (those two actually have a LOT in common!) and their entire comedy together consists of cartoon style banter. Vanessa Kirby was halfway decent, but you know you're in trouble when Hobbs' mom churns out the best performance.

The plot is in waaaaaay over it's head. The sci-fi element of Idris Elba's genetically enhanced villain is too much, not to mention his sadly awful performance of cliche monologuing and evil cackling. His motivation is cheesy and has been very overused in recent film.

The action is huge and unrealistic, but it's not well done or fun at all. It's generic, moves too fast, is over quickly, and you've seen it all in the trailer anyway. I was shocked that this franchise failed to bring something new. Even the trip to Samoa (where people love Stallone's 'Cobra'!) managed to get botched.

Sadly, 'Hobbs & Shaw' is not up to par, making it more rental worthy than theater. Here's to hoping the next Fast movie is better.

In this review, I will divert from my usual writing style and simply list things that 'Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny' has to offer. Let us begin:

"Kids"

Creepy Narration

Sweaty Santa in Florida

Lazy Santa in Florida

Santa's Sleigh stuck in sand

Children freezing in midair

Kazoo music

Inexplicable appearances by Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn

A guy in a monkey suit trying to pull Santa's Sleigh

Farm animals being shoved into Santa's Sleigh

Santa telling the children a story about Thumbelina

A teen girl at Pirate's World (a Florida Amusement Park 1967-75)

Unsafe rides

The story of Thumbelina being told on a speaker at Pirate's World being imagined by teen girl

Insane animal costumes/puppets

Annoying songs

A large, horrifying rabbit that recklessly drives a red car with a siren

A mad dog

Santa and the Bunny abandoning the children on a beach

And if that doesn't say "Merry Christmas", I don't know what does! Merry Christmas, everyone!

Of all the cheesy 80's cop shows, 'T.J. Hooker' is my new favorite! I love movies and shows that are so bad they're funny, and this a perfect example of that.

William Shatner plays the titlular character, a mediocre cop who gets hailed as one slick guy. Shatner has that same quality as others like Alec Baldwin and Steven Seagal: the ability to be comical without even trying. His facial expressions and acting gild the lily. The other stars of the series (Adrian Zmed and Heather Locklear) aren't much better.

The show has plenty of corny, lovable quirks, including but not limited to: tubular 80's action soundtrack, sloppy stunts, HUGE explosions, awful dialogue, orangutans, break dancing, and did I mention 80's music?

In the episode, 'A Child Is Missing', Hooker heads to solve a case in Mexico along with a guy named Gomez. Those are traits used in Shatner's book Tek-War, which was actually written by a ghostwriter. It seems William has few ideas of his own!

If you are looking for something truly interesting, don't mess with T.J.. But if you like cheesy 80's fun, I recommend this! SPOOOOOOOOCK!

With all the newer projects Disney seems to be starting, it's nice when they take a break to follow up with characters from the past. The 'Toy Story' films started in 1995, and they're still thriving. For some franchises, this would be redundant, but 'Toy Story''s characters and plot are lovable enough to make it more than just work!

It's ample to say that the movie is a lot of fun, with both old and new characters who are very entertaining. The voice work is amazing, and doesn't feel cheesy and forced like in some animated features (really, voice talent is just as important as acting!). It's also nice to see people like Tom Hanks (Woody), Tim Allen (Buzz), and Annie Potts (Bo Peep) be the stars of the show; so many cartoons now want to cast stars that are faddish, like Justin Timberlake and Miley Cyrus.

And like most Pixar films, especially this franchise, be ready for plenty of emotion. The story is simple but sweet and touching, balanced with humor.

Ergo, I very much enjoyed 'Toy Story 4' and it is by far the best film I've seen at the theater all year. I highly recommend it and hope this marks a continuation of the series!

An epic Godzilla film with a showdown against all his classic rivals sounds promising, right? Sure, but only if it's a well made movie.

Most of the monster action of the film is so pompous and busy it's not always fun to look at, although the CGI creatures were pretty cool - so it's what you'd expect. But the action is not what I'm here to talk about. The movie's biggest flaws come with the story and human characters, which I will delve into now.

Kyle Chandler plays Mark Russell, a nature photographer who somehow knows a LOT about bombs. His ex-wife Emma (Vera Farmiga) is a scientist bordering on evil, whose plan to 'cleanse' the Earth is Thanos-esque. Their daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) is a stereotypical "kid who goes in the middle of the monster battle and needs saving." Also along for the ride is Dr. Serizawa, whose seemingly 50 sayings of "Goochula" need to stop.

So, Dr. Emma uses the Orca (what exactly IS the Orca and how does it work, you ask? Too bad! We don't know!) to wake up the monsters so they can flatten the Red Sox stadium. But things get messy when guys eject out of their plane at the wrong time and make stupid faces for their I.D. photos. Another delightful trope is that every time a monster goes on a rampage and the alarms go off, people announce things like, "What's wrong?" and "Something's wrong." You don't say?

So as you can see, I thought this film was mediocre and a touch comical. I say call the guys at RiffTrax; we've found their newest project. The only thing that would've made it better is if an orange tabby cat ran past Kyle Chandler and dropped off a newspaper that read, "Godzilla vs. Kong!"

'Avengers: Infinity War' undeniably impressed me, given it's cliffhanger ending. I was anxious to see 'Endgame' and see how things wrapped up. As you know, the plot consists of the heroes trying to patch things up after Thanos' destruction. I will try not to give too much away in this review, because spoilers can be, well, spoiling!

While the film is quite exciting and surprising things do happen, all I could think about was getting to the end, when everything fell into place. The final outcome was not what I would've done with the story, but it's nothing to complain about. Also appearing is a peanut butter sandwich (you'll see).

It's quite exciting and full of both drama and humor, along with cameos from characters we haven't seen in a long time. It's acted fine, nonetheless I still think the performances in 'Infinity War' were far superior, for some reason.

However, I found that I didn't enjoy this installment as much as 'Infinity War'; I suppose not being a full-on Marvel fan made me surprised but not too sad when characters died then. I was simply impressed with how plot developments were actually made! Marvel usually suffers from 'nothing ever happens' disorder, where they get too afraid to make something big occur for fear it will upset the fans. In that department, 'Endgame' is also an improvement.

It may be the end of the explosive, cast-of-thousands Marvel movies, but it's of course not the end of stand-alones and spin-offs. 'Avengers: Endgame' is a fine little movie, but I know regardless of what I've said in this review you'll see it anyway. So I say, "Have fun."

Being a HUGE fan of the original Mystery Science Theater, and everything the MST alumni have done since then, I was looking forward to the new reboot of the show. The original, while popular, was still something that only a narrow group of people had a taste for. It was nice to hear that it was getting a comeback on a big streaming network like Netflix. But that honor has it's setbacks, too...

First of all, the jokes are spoken too fast. Strange as it may seem to pick on small detail like this, I must insist that timing is everything with riffing. Jonah, Crow, and Tom shoot off four jokes every 30 seconds, without taking time to pause and let the movie play out. Sometimes on the old one, Mike, Joel, and the others would be silent for a little while, waiting for the perfect time to interject. But that is just a reflection of the times we live in now: go, go, go, with no time to be settled.

Another issue is that the jokes are not as witty as they once were. This is not surprising, as most of the original writers were not involved. The original writers were all basically the stars of the show; the actors, puppeteers, and voices. Now, the writers are 'Hollywood people.' and this is not a good thing. They have lame 'Hollywood' humor, something that the old MST mocked.

For the final two complaints, I say that the camera is too close to the screen at all times, whether they are in the theater or doing a skit (again, something odd to point out, but let me assure you it is not trivial). And finally, the actors seem to have no real talent. You can tell their heart's not in it, they're just reading the comments. They have no enthusiasm and no talent for funny voices or imitations.

In a nutshell, no matter how big of a budget you have, and no matter what large streaming website you go through, the only thing that really matters is heart and talent. If you appreciate those things, watch an original episode with Joel or Mike instead.

Let me just get right to it: It sucks! It stinks! It's a rotting pile of old brussel sprouts (my apologies if you like brussels) mixed with wet dog fur and topped with old braunschweiger for good measure. Okay, now that I've summed it up, let's get to the meat of it.

For starters, it's a Marvel movie, and a Thor movie, of which I am not a fan. But that aside, I tried it anyway. *sigh*

The characters are simply deplorable. It seems that each and every one of them is raunchy, over the top, and just plain unlikable. The worst of the lot is Vallkyrie (Tessa Thompson), whose name doesn't even make sense because it refers to her occupation. She is rude, drunk, and violent. Thor is, as always, completely annoying. His constant cheeky remarks quickly get tiresome. Hela (Cate Blanchett) is a typical villain, with no color or originality about her (well, she has antlers, but still). Loki (Tom Hiddleston) requires no complaint, but also evokes no praise either. Then we come to the Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum), who literally owns a space junkyard. My critique of him alone, should I write it, would be several pages.

The plot is awful; you care nothing for what's going on. The action is too busy to even look at. I usually go on a bit more, but all I can say is 'Thor: Ragnarok' is "Yuck!!!"

After practically falling in love with 1977's 'Pete's Dragon,' there's certain things we've come to expect from this magical story: humor, songs, likable characters, and of course, whimsy. Although the idea of a 'Pete's Dragon' with a bit more action and "epic dragon stuff" is fine, we still need that Disney fun to make it all come together. Evidently, David Lowery, (who both directed and wrote the remake) forgot this all together.

For starters, the original was set in the 1900's, providing a colorful background for the story, while the remake is set in an early 1980's town, and not a very fun one at that. Pete seems to dwell in the forest for no apparent reason. The original Pete lived in the woods because he was hiding from the Gogans; he wasn't a Mowgli-style wild boy incapable of speech! The opening scene is very traumatic and very unnecessary. And the CGI Elliot is nothing special. He is furry, which is very strange. Last I checked, dragons were reptiles, not cats.

Bryce Dallas Howard is extremely off putting as Grace, the new Nora. She doesn't sing, she doesn't dance; in fact, she's a hard core forest ranger (how charming). Instead of having a funny, bumbling father like Mickey Rooney, she has a creepy, clinically depressed father played by Robert Redford, who would be more lovable if he wasn't in the movie at all. Then there's Oakes Fegley as Pete, who can be mistaken for a girl sometimes. The villain of our story is a lumberjack, Gavin (Karl Urban), who sets out to catch Elliot and prove his existence (how dare he want to make eye opening scientific advancements!).

Among the film's other issues is comedy found where it doesn't belong. Isn't people toppling off gurneys hilarious?!? No? You're right. If you saw a dragon outside a hospital window when you were 10, you would smile, right? No? Correct again.

To summarize, this dreary revision of 'Pete's Dragon' will probably induce nothing but blinks and snores.

Written by Lewis Carroll in 1865, 'Alice in Wonderland' is the story of a sweet but smart little girl who travels to a strange dimension called Wonderland, where some cute and some crazy creatures bring her to defend her sane knowledge, and ultimately stand up to a corrupt Queen. This movie... is not that story.

In this version, it is more like a sequel. Alice, now nineteen, escapes back to Wonderland amidst an unwanted proposal. Once there, her old "friends" - and when I say friends I mean nightmarish CGI monsters - celebrate her return because it means she will slay a dragon. Alice, however, believes and hopes she is merely dreaming (you and me both, girl).

There is actually no problem with the plot or characterization, because there is none!!! Director Tim Burton was obviously too busy making sure the cast was detached and the visuals were nauseating to worry about that.

Along for the insane ride is Johnny Depp, the King of Insane Rides. His interpretation of the Mad Hatter is even more mad and less comical than that of the book. Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen is incredibly annoying and has absolutely no charisma. Anne Hathaway is also somehow irritating as the White Queen; she suffers from "Sickening Sweetness." Crispin Glover also stars as the Knave of Hearts who works as the right hand man of the Red Queen (she was his last hope after 'A Match Made in Space' didn't sell many copies). And finally we have Mia Wasiikowa... or Wasakowki... Waiokaski... oh, whatever! as Alice, who can only be described as pale.

As for the CGI characters, there is a mouse named Mallymkun. But don't get excited - this isn't a cute, fun mouse. In fact, this mouse plucks out eyes. To be honest, I really don't know if it's male or female. The Tweedles are... stupid at best. And the hookah smoking caterpillar, Absolem, who was utterly confusing and slow in the book, has now become an Aslan-like voice of wisdom. Then there's the Cheshire Cat, who is creepy but somehow steals the show.

If you decide to watch this film, beware. It is disturbed, deranged, and dare I say offensive? But if you do decide to view, make sure you have sufficient headgear and other protection to avoid stray pieces of insanity.

I've known for a while that almost any other country can make period/fantasy films better than American companies, but this just proves my point. Not only is 'Princess Maleen' foreign but also made for television. Yes, it's German, it wasn't on at the big screen, it's only an hour long, but it makes recent Disney projects look like squat. Sorry, Largest-Fantasy-Company-in-the-World, you've been beat.

The first amazing thing about the movie is that the story is not well known in America. And that being so, I won't tell you exactly what it is.

The acting is good, and the costumes are historical but beautiful. Not to mention the scenery, which is breathtaking. It doesn't have that "Disney magic," but that's almost a relief because it feels more genuine and real.

This film, along with all the others in this German fantasy film franchise, are must-sees. If you appreciate underappreciated fairy tales, you will not be disappointed.

Not being a superhero fan, I was surprised when I was impressed with 2017's 'Justice League.' Aquaman was actually my least favorite character, but the trailers for his own movie showed sea monsters, and that sold it. So I saw it.

For starters, the script (written by David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick and Will Beall) is absolutely awful. Not only can you predict the outcome of the story from the moment the title comes up, but the dialogue is bone chillingly bad. It is even full of cliches like the "du du DU!" music that plays when the villain says something "scary." It also contains things that I never wanted to see or know, like an octopus playing drums, and the fact that apparently Aquaman doesn't wear deodorant.

And then we come to the cast: a fair enough group tainted by terrible lines. Jason Momoa (Aquaman) quotes his ill-timed one liners with all the dignity of smoked ham. So... yeah. Amber Heard (Ariel-Meara) graces the screen as your standard "tough superhero girlfriend" with all the dignity of, again, a smoked ham. Patrick Wilson (the evil Orm) is generally a talented actor, but is ruined by cliche "bad guy" yelling. Willem Dafoe is impossible to take seriously after his role in 'Mr. Bean's Holiday.' Dolph Lundgren rides a giant seahorse - and that's about it. And finally we come to Nichole Kidman, who looks lovely and doesn't botch her lines or performance. She should be apologized to for working with these people.

The visuals are amazing, if a bit overwhelming at times. The most impressive advancement of Atlantis is their waterproof make-up. It's almost 2 hours into the movie before we see the creatures promised to us in the trailer. They are truly the highlight of the film and mostly the reason for my 3 star rating.

This is a long, lingering, rather dull movie and only watchable if there's nothing else to rent at the video store: Carson Clay's 'Playback Time.' I mean, uh, 'Aquaman!'