Reviews

Primarily, this movie should not be seen as anything other than a fun popcorn action flick with a ton of fan service. Following that notion there are standalone good things about this movie and certainly some bad.

As CG movies go, this one is neither great nor is it really bad. It's OK and it fulfills its primary intention - entertain the audience for an hour and a half (-ish).

The good elements are that the movie follows the lore of the game and it does that quite tightly. So, fans of the video games will immediately recognize all the reference points upon which the story is based.

The great thing this movie does is depicting Jill's coping with her RE5 past. Since we have not seen her since that game in the narrative continuation (aside from the RE3 Remake), it is nice to see some development for her character. And this is the movie's strongest point. Jill's internal struggles are what drives this movie to an interesting connection with the story's main antagonist. The need for coping with past problems and trauma is a very deep theme that RE Death Island tackles with. Even though it may seem superficial at first, upon further assessment, one can conclude that the way this theme is tackled is not bad at all. In fact, it is actually depicted much better than expected. The main problem is that the story has a lot of "filling" in places that can divert the audience's attention from this theme which is a shame.

The main problem with the movie is its unnecessary assembly of all main RE protagonists. The type of "evil" presented in this movie just doesn't seem to be that big that it warrants a full assembly of all protagonists. Leon's ark in this movie is just not necessary and could have been removed completely. If a bit more focus was present in the overall presentation of the general theme, this would have been a far better movie.

Also, I am not really sure why the movie was not made using the REngine as the graphics seemed sub par to the recent video games, and that is something to hold against the movie.

It is an overall improvement over Infinite darkness, and is not a generally bad movie. It has certain interesting themes it tackles with, but the unnecessary filling with characters and story padding with element derailing from the main interesting themes do hurt the movies overall quality. However, it is fun and it provides a great Sunday afternoon flick.

After I heard that Netflix was doing an RE show I was mostly excited as I had no idea where the show would take thing. After the first trailers I was cautiously optimistic (especially after the debacle of the new movie and the Anderson ones). But then I was baffled by the early reviews as it clearly contradicted the early feel the show gave out in the early trailers.

However, my cautious optimism grew into depression as I thought that I was yet again in for a disappointment. However, after the first two episodes I was starting to feel hooked and intrigued by the concept. As the story progressed it all seemed to find its footing and it landed just right almost every single time (albeit with a few exceptions that were just wrong - the clone thing just NEVER works but they just keep on pushing it). Henceforth, why all the bad reviews?

Primarily, the story is intriguing. It is still in its infancy and it is noticeable that a full blown season two is planned. The story is not fully rounded up and there are a lot of loose ends to be tied up as well as a lot of unanswered questions. But a good TV show should keep us hooked, should it not? The parallel storylines was risky from a screenwriting perspective, but the cuts were clean and never too abrupt (the editing really did a good job). There were segments when one of the timelines was narratively more interesting and the other one felt like a bit of a drag, but it was all for the good of world and story building. Could this have been made a bit more condense and could it have rounded up everything by the end? Yes. Was it completely necessary? No. Also, there are such little references to one another constantly and the relations between the kids and the parents is beautifully portrayed. The parallels are a bit on the nose, but subtlety was not the point here. Are there certain plot holes? Yes. It there plot armor? God yes. Do they disrupt the narrative? Not as much as you thing. It's not great nor perfect, but its good enough.

So, the story works in both timelines. Was it the acting? Actually, no. The performances vary from decent to superb. Decent on the kids side, superb by Reddick and Nuñez. Her performance was a bit robotic and cold but the finale shows her as she simply loses her wits and goes ballistic. The evolution from a cold hearted bastard to a full blown psychopath (al the way down to the little twerks) is astounding. Reddick does not exactly shine from the get-go but there are enough elements that make him stand out. Unfortunately, his full range comes to show in the shows narratively weakest point where he is burdened with portraying four characters. And that hurts a little as that part never really materialized as it should have. Balinska, on the other hand, varies from great at times to simply shallow. As the shows leading actress it is possible that this role proved a bit too much for her at times, especially when it came to the more dramatic aspects of the role. However, it would be a sin to say she did a bad job. She just wasn't at the same level as Reddick or Nuñez.

The music was composed with tradecraft, and complemented the story nicely. Especially the songs whose lyrics also served as interior emotions for the characters. A neat trick that served its purpose and provided a breath of peace amidst the sometimes extremely dark atmosphere.

Speaking of atmosphere, the duality of the atmosphere in the present and future is so blatantly black and white that one feels dirty and disguising after watching the present segments, but almost sterile and hospital-like while watching the past scenes. Neither gives the viewer a sense of calm nor should it. One is more physically disturbing while the other is mentally disturbing. They weirdly complement each other but still serve as direct contradiction to one another. It is weird, but it works. Its not orthodox nor usual for this kind of show, but it works.

So, where exactly lies the problem? Well, here's the catch. I fear this will not find an audience as it toys with the RE legacy too much. And that brings us to the main and most serious problem. Anyone who does not have a vast, and I mean VAST knowledge of the games legacy will not understand all the little nuances the show put in (the typewriter room, the Racoon city incident, the crocodile, the spider, the volcano reference, the names of the protagonists and antagonists, the Umbrella legacy, the chainsaw guy, Lisa, the tyrant etc. Etc.). So, for the uninitiated, this will be boring as they will not understand what exactly they are watching as not a lot of explanation is given for those holes. ON the other hand, the RE fans will not have enough of the RE legacy and they will not be satisfied just with the bits that are included (and there are a lot of them). I can personally understand that as I have been an RE fan for more than 18 years and have played all of the mainline games, but a full blown RE game to TV show is just not happening and we have to live with that. Unfortunately we have seen what it look's like when someone tries to go direct videogame to movie - you get the abysmal Resident evil: Welcome to Raccoon city.

To summarize, this is not a bad show. It has its flaws and it could have been better in a lot of ways. But it is not a bad show, nor is it a bad RE show. It just simply didn't find the audience it needed for it to be appreciated properly.

I truly hope for a season two, as the direction it took was incredibly bold and entertaining and I for one wish to see where they will take it further. If they mess it up, we'll just go play Village again and wait for the RE4 remake.

The Batman comes at a time that DC movies have a sort of a renaissance. After the general critical reception of Snyder's versions and debacle that was the Josstice league, a general revision of these movies was necessary. However, the last few installments (Joker included) actually strive towards the darker tone and less family friendly tone (as DC actually should be), and The Batman is no exception. However, even though this noir take based on the cult comic The long Halloween has its problems, The Batman is generally not a masterpiece even though it has potential.

There are two overall problems with The Batman: 1) the length and 2) the narrative.

Three hours is just too long for this kind of movie. It doesn't have the narrative juice to sustain such length and the result is an anticlimactic ending. When you drag the story to an almost unnatural length it is noticeable. The movie should have been cut to about two and a half hours and the theatrical version should have been a director's cut. However, WB probably went with a philosophy of directorial freedom based on the success of the four hour long epic Zack Snyder's Justice League. In this case, a bit of chopping would benefit the movie and it would fix most of the pacing problems (more on that latter) giving the movies climax a much needed adrenaline injection.

The other glaring problem is the narrative. Actually, the length and the narrative form a sort of cohesive problem, as the narrative can't uphold the length of the movie. So, somewhere about an hour into the movie, the narrative disperses into several plot threads that all seem to be connected but are to distinctly separated story wise and time wise that by the end when the climax hits and all of those threads should be connected back together, they just fall short of grandeur. A shame as this could have been a movie to topple Nolan's Dark knight.

On a semi-related note, the narrative does not do justice for certain characters and their relationships. All of them are beautifully portrayed and developed (in three hours it really is possible to do that and it would be a shame if the director failed at that segment with actors of this caliber) and they are also layered to perfection. However, the well known "love" story of Batman and Catwoman is so rushed and unbelievable that when it hits the screen the audience is actually baffled as to how or why this happened so fast and so unexpected.

And this brings us to the most impressive part of the movie - the acting. Even though the movie has a stellar cast with almost everyone given enough time to shine and display their acting abilities (Pattinson especially) the award for best performance has to go Dano and his performance as the Riddler. If Ledger reinvented the Joker, then Dano reinvented the Riddler to phenomenal proportions. It is actually a shame that more of the movie was not centered around his character and that his story gets diluted the most in the middle section of the movie as he steals the show in every scene he is in with the culmination being his discussion with Batman towards the end.

There are two essential segments this movie nails perfectly aside from Dano as the Riddler and Pattinson as Batman - the cinematography and music. Certain scenes and visuals will stick with you long after the movie has finished while the music is so catchy and lovable (even thought it is mostly comprised of two or three themes at most). Sometimes, the simplest things are best.

If smarter narrative decisions were made this could have been a perfect blend of Se7en, Zodiac and the Dark knight making it the ultimate Batman movie. However, the elongated movie and diluted narrative keeps it from achieving greatness. However, the seed for a new franchise based in this filming style is something to look forward to as it captures the very essence of Batman. Better luck in the sequel.

P.s. Make the sequel R rated. It's just unnatural that in a movie a serial killer murders someone with a hammer and there is no blood, and if you strive for realism, this should be a necessity.

After the quite disappointing WandaVision, I went into The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (hereinafter: FWS) with a dose of reservation not exactly knowing what to expect. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that the MCU is capable of creating an interesting and socially relevant spy thriller.

1) The story. Complex and multilayered. Every episode follows its characters and their psyche, their subplots and relevant side character to such perfection that by the end no one is left feeling left out of the overall narrative. The story leans heavily on Winter Soldier and Civil War, and most of their characters, but that does not actually hurt the story in any way. It feels more like a continuation than a newly introduced story. Henceforth, it was easier for the screenwriters to create this narrative arc opposed to them having to create a whole new one. They played it safe this time, and there is nothing wrong with that. It worked. Also, there are so many small details in this show that lift it and give it many more dimensions than the main premise, and by the end, when all of the branches are addressed, the viewer can be satisfied with the final product (the interactions of Bucky with the old Asian guy or Sam with Isaiah Bradley etc.). These stories have a lot more emotional weight and they were executed with respect for the characters.

Another very important part of FWS was the social commentary. The one thing that people find problematic regarding this is that it is supposed to be fun and Marvel does not do social commentary (to them I can only say go re-watch Black Panther and try to claim that again). It's important to emphasize that the execution of those segments was respectful and quite impressive as it was not the usual in-four-face style social commentary that can be found in most of the current TV shows. It deals with important issues like immigrants, position and treatment of minorities, revolutionaries and abuse of political power. These themes and issues are not only applicable to the US but are easily applicable to every country in the world. The message this TV show sends is important, intelligent and powerful. It is all summed up in Falcon's final monologue and it is a powerful statement from a powerful symbol. Henceforth, I believe it is important to do a little more listening to what the message of this show is than to simply respond to the fact that this show deals with political issues.

2) The acting. Mackie and Stan are superb in their roles. Mackie shows real potential and shows his best in the leading role, while his dynamic with Stan is impressive, their chemistry is entertaining and the banter between them is a delight to watch. As both of them have been playing these characters for some time now it is easy to say that they are really into their roles and understand their characters so it will be interesting to see as to where and how these characters will evolve in the future. VanCamp gave, among others, the best performance in the show. The 180 degree turn in her character was unexpected and the way she was portrayed and written was delightful. The climax of her character's ark, the departure from her portrayals so far and the finale to her sub-plot was indeed a marvel to watch. Brule was standard issue, almost on autopilot so not much praise nor critique can be given there. His subplot involving the Wakandans was a bit much but for an overall 5 h runtime this particular stuffing was not so bad. A bit more was expected from Russel. He was not really given much to do nor was he developed enough to be an interesting character. However, his ark was important because of the impending legacy of Cap and a world without the original Avengers, clearly stating that just donning a mask is not enough. Was a whole narrative ark for that needed? No. Was it fun to watch? Yes.

All in all, FWS is, so far, the best show MCU has put out (including Loki). It is grounded, serious, relevant and smart. It can stand alone as a great spy thriller or can be viewed as a superhero flick. However you put it, this is a great show with smart writing, great and important messages, emotionally impactful, beautifully choreographed, edited and executed. The people who did this, clearly knew what they were doing. It's actually a shame not more of the MCU's shows are currently or are going to be like this.

WandaVision was envisioned (pun intended) as the start of Phase 4 of the MCU paving the general plotline and direction the post Infinity saga Marvel world would be going. However, there is a general lack of predetermined direction and vision (pun not intended) when it comes to this new beginning.

1) The story. It was interestingly marketed and executed as an homage to specific and noteworthy sitcoms of certain decades. The first three episodes do play quite well and bolster enough intriguing segments to keep you hooked and to watch on. However, the whole premise falls completely apart after episode 4 when the viewer is presented with the reality. I can also understand the need to create a much needed contrast to the inside of the Hex, but the show never really returns to the original presented form, referencing much more than actually paying homage to certain sitcoms. So, even though we are presented with an interesting execution, the viewer is left wondering as to why this concept was not followed through to the end. Less than half of the episodes in the entire season are sitcom based, while the rest are just usual and not really smart plot machines.

The other incredibly intriguing segment is the absurd amount of sub-plots and filler characters (more on that later). Most of them had nothing important to do or were inconsequential to the overall story ark. To top it all of, the final reveal of the "villain" is so unintelligently introduced that one has to consider the importance or general necessity of such a character to exist. This kind of show needs time and space to develop, and the writing must be intelligent enough to leave breadcrumbs for the viewer so that by the end when it all ties together everything makes sense. WandaVision, for the most part, doesn't make sense...at all.

WandaVison is, unfortunately, very poorly written. Plot holes and narrative leaps in logic are so common that by the very end, the viewer is not even entertained as much as annoyed with yet another character and/or plot crashing from out of nowhere (e.g. White Vision?!).

2) The characters. Speaking of poor writing and poorly executed plot-points, the viewer is presented with an incredible amount of new and old characters that both should and should not be present. Olsen does her best to portray the mentally injured Wanda and she, for the most part, executes her role very well, but she never really hits the right notes for her story to be emotionally impactful for the viewer. It is, for the most part, just an execution of emotions, without proper conveyance of them to the viewers, so the final element of the House of M does not have the emotional weight it actually should. Bettany is, as usual, intriguing and much more human than the Vision we are used to, but in the end is a little dull. He, unfortunately, is not leading material. I do not mean that he is a bad actor, I mean that Vision is not a character that can or, actually should lead a movie, let alone a whole TV series. Their dynamic was, for the best part, well executed and there is actual chemistry, but the final reveal and the ending just didn't have the needed weight it should have had. Crying over imagined characters from someone's mind is just not emotionally intriguing. Especially when those characters were mourned up to that point, when it was actually necessary (in Infinity war). Parris was a nice addition but her character was completely lost in the storyline and the entire sub-plot about her gaining powers just by going through the barrier was unfinished, unexplored and unnecessary. Hahn did the best she could with what she had but there just were not enough elements throughout he series to navigate the viewer to her as a "villain." Her reveal is not even shocking as much as unexpected in a bad way. Finally, the S. W. O. R. D. Bad guy - Stamberg - is so one-dimensional and presented without any relevant explanation for his actions and/or standpoints that he comes of as just plain bad writing. If a character is just there to be bad than you are creating a black and white scenario that just doesn't flow with this kind of complex narrative.

All in all WandaVision highlighted MCU's biggest current problem: a general lack of direction and/or idea for the post-Infinity saga world. The characters are not intriguing, their actions bare no weight and the writing is sloppy and one-dimensional at best. It is common knowledge so far that the new storyline will revolve around a Multiverse and multiple branches of reality etc. But it is important to remember that this kind of story needs intelligent writing. Many have failed when tampering with this plot and I fear the MCU is not going in the right direction. WandaVision showed us that the MCU is far beyond intelligent if this is what they are serving to us as the next Phase.

RE: Infinite Darkness continues the not great not terrible RE CGI movies. There is nothing specifically new nor special about this movie, regardless of the fact that it has an interesting premise.

1) The story. If one has followed at all the RE CGI movies so far, nothing new can be found here. It's pretty much the same story as it was in Degeneration and Damnation with a few different portrayals of the story. It's actually a shame as the general premise is quite interesting, especially regarding the war with China, subtle comments on the general political climate and US and EU foreign policy. But, regardless of that interesting plot, the general direction this mini-series takes regarding it premise is dull and unimaginative. Also, one very specific point should be pointed out. As this was a mini-series (running for about 80 min in total), the narrative leaps and general gaps in logic are so vast that even the most hardcore RE fans will not be able to accept them. The viewer has a feeling that there is so much missing story-wise at so many times that one feels this should have been a video game where the 80 min of runtime should have been the cut scenes.

2) The characters. If one has no prior knowledge of RE lore this will, as well as all other RE CGI movies, be even less interesting. The movie relies on fan favorite Leon and his charismatic appearance and actions. However, regardless of certain interesting small references, there is nothing that seriously connects his character to the plot (unlike Chris in Vendetta). Henceforth, his presence is fun to watch, but only if one has played RE2 (remake or original), RE4 and/or RE6. Claire on the other hand is wasted as a character as she has literally no impact on the story or progression. Her involvement is pure fan service so that the general RE fan audience can say they are watching Leon and Claire again in an adventure. Despite her idealistic view directly contrasting Leon's viewpoint (briefly addressed at the very end), there is nothing particularly interesting about her. These interesting brief segments give us a glimpse of what this story could have been, making the general impact of the series even more disappointing. The rest of the characters are, unfortunately, bland, unimaginative and one-dimensional.

3) The editing/general execution. I am still not sure why this was made as a mini-series. If one makes a mini-series, take the time to develop the story, the plot, the character, have some filler episodes, keep the viewer invested in what is going on. Bluntly put - have a smart script. The decision to make only 4 episodes running at about 20 min each was, in my view was a mistake. The execution of the story and general one-dimension of the whole narrative would have been better suited as a CGI movie (as was done for so far).

I am not sure for who this mini-series is intended. The original RE fans will hate it as it is closer to the RE6 execution that the masterful RE2 remake. The hardcore action fans will be bored as they have seen this story and this type of execution in literally every RE CGI movie so far (as well as the games).

If this is only the first season, many, many changes must be made, especially in the screenwriting department. I believe it is time that we put aside the general direction these movies take and make a decision to make a bold and smart move to develop the story and characters in a way they are developed in the video games. Just avoid bolder punching please.

Some time ago I have written a review for the theatrical version of Justice league stating that it was clearly not the intended vision but we were served with a quite decent WB animation like flick that was entertaining enough. However, as part of the Snyder cut movement, I too have been longing for this version to come out so that the world can finally see the conclusion of MoS and BvS.

1) The acting. Compared to the first version there have been significant changes and improvements in character depiction. Almost all of the main characters are darker in tone and execution but are way more layered and have much more depth. The only one that has remained identical is Flash (his silly, goofy persona fits perfectly in both version, which says a lot about how Ezra Miler portrayed the character). Wonder woman is characterized with less emotions and more aggressiveness (resembling the BvS version) than the one seen in WW or WW84. Of course, it is hard to go back to the version previously known when these characters have branched out in different ways in their own movies respectfully. Aquaman was a bit of a rough cut in this version, straying almost a mile from what we saw in his standalone movie (a movie branched from the theatrical cut) but his likeable and "dude" persona is still present, only toned down. Cyborg, as was my opinion in the theatrical cut, was phenomenal. In this version, his portrayal only intensifies. His general place in the overall story is pivotal and Fisher understood this, portraying the character similarly but with much more style, coolness and depth in the Snyder cut. By far the most tectonic departure was Batman. I am still not quite sure if this movie was supposed to be a contrast to BvS where he had no faith and his humanity was lost somewhere (until Superman brings it back to him) but Affleck's portrayal in this movie is that of Bruce Wayne, and not Batman. Sure, we get Batman fighting and doing cool stuff in certain segments but the essence of the character in this movie was Bruce Wayne and not Batman. Steppenwolf is now a menace to be respected and frightened of. We are presented with a demigod that literally destroys everything around him and is unparalleled in strength and brutality. This is one of the pivotal reasons why the Snyder cut works and the theatrical doesn't. It has a masterfully crafted, written and executed villain.

2) The story. Interestingly enough, the overall ark has not changed that much. So any further developments in the DCEU, regarding Justice League movies, can calmly continue the story. But, to be completely honest, this situation resembles the tale of Achilles and the turtle. If told right, it is a philosophical debate regarding Zenon's paradox. If told incorrectly, it is the same story, but the first one just makes more sense. That is also the case regarding the two stories of Justice League. The Snyder cut makes more sense and is a much more complex and intriguing story. The continuation of the story is not questionable nor are there necessities to be explored in different manners in the future. The Justice league defeated Steppenwolf, Darkseid is coming for us and Superman is resurrected. We have a fighting chance... or do we? But, for the sake of the movie itself, the Snyder cut is told in more detail and all of the actions of all of the characters are now completely understandable. We were given the answers to questions like: what are the motherboxes, why is Steppenwolf here, who drives him, why and what is to come next if the JL fails. The story also brilliantly sets the table for standalone features (which can be linked to the Snyder cut, the differences are there but they are not game breaking that the characters and/or stories are incompatible) and the continuation is clearly visible and possible.

3) The music. Even though Elfman did a great job, Holkenborg kicked the ball right out of the park. He heavily leaned on Zimmer's themes, also improving upon them and adding interesting and complex segments that fit the tone and depictions of the movie. Both soundtracks are good, and both fit their movies respectively. I just prefer the latter one.. in every way imaginable.

4) Editing. The most common critique is the length of the movie. Personally, the 4 h runtime was not a problem as the movie has a very beautiful and linear flow, making breaks and smartly pausing by introducing chapters (resembling a comic book). If this was to hit theaters, it is completely noticeable which parts would be cut out and which parts would be shortened, but in this format, it is really not an issue at all. As a matter of fact, I intend to watch it again today, the very next day after seeing it for the first time. So no, the runtime is not a problem specifically because of the format it was released on.

5) The direction. One either loves or hates Snyder. There is no in-between. He is a visual storyteller and the amount of visual detail in this movie is remarkable. Most of his movies require multiple viewings to full comprehend and take in all of the little elements he put in them. I believe that this movie is the same even though the flow of this movie is much less complex than the previous ones. It is so straightforward and simple in narrative that it requires very little debating and/or thinking about certain segments (unlike the neck breaking in MoS or Martha scene in BvS). So, this movie is much more wider audience friendly than the previous ones, which is exactly why this is the version we should have received. The logic behind mangling this version the way they did is a complete mystery to me. The one thing that really does stand out are the fight scenes. They are choreographed to perfection, thought of, methodical and nerve wrecking. Every hero has exactly the same amount of time as everyone lese, and there is no struggling for screen time or absences. The fight scenes graduate progressively and climax in a phenomenal way. The punches are not held back and every single character has an important role in every fight scene. Unity in its finest. But above everything else, the fight scenes are extremely entertaining.

All in all, we are finally presented with the true version of the Justice league. The one that really sets the story straight and sets everything on its way. It is really hard to find a flaw in the movie, to complain about something because the movie is simply put - really perfect. It has no delusions of grandeur, it is grounded, entertaining, straightforward, it has masterful character buildups and interactions, a ferocious villain and ties most knots together in a single understandable universe. Grab popcorn, grab a soda and just go and have fun. This movie will give you exactly that. If you loved what came before, you will adore what you are now presented with now. If you didn't like what came before, you will be entertained enough so that you can't say you didn't have a good time. Not a lot of movies can achieve that.

As a finishing note - let this be a great lesson for future studio interventions. Artistic freedom must not be meddled with. Artist's visions must be seen through because only when you believe in your investment, even though it may take some time, will you get you investment back... and much much more. For now, thank you for letting us experience this movie. To Mr. Snyder I say this - your movie is the single greatest DC superhero depiction of all time.

As a lawyer I must say that there a really few instances of true justice in this world, but this one... this is what true Justice looks and feels like.

WW84 comes at the very end of a turbulent and quite depressive year. It has been delayed numerous times and frankly, we kind of expected it to be something it was never originally intended to be. I can understand that we needed a hero for this year and that we hyped up the movie exactly because of this reason but - It's just a movie.

1) The acting. The characters are textbook comic book characters. They react and respond to certain situations so bluntly black and white that it is entertaining to watch. Most of them (more on that later) do not show any character development nor do they try to pull out anything more than the script offered them, which is quite sad especially because most of these actors could pull a hell of a lot more than they did. Pascal was entertaining and his eventual mental downward spiral is portrayed beautifully, especially as he was given enough screen time to fully flesh out his portrayal. However, the script does not fully explore his intentions and/or motives, and the only reason we are presented with is a little too thin to actually be completely believable. Pine, as usual, had fun with his character and the reverse from the first movie (her showing him a new world) was entertaining but for not more than a scene or two. Even though his character does have some impact on the story and gets certain segments going, he felt a little redundant and overused at points. His eventual demise is neither emotional nor impactful leaving us with a feeling that he could have been used in a smarter way. However, he was fun to watch. Wiig on the other hand gave the performance of the movie. When someone thinks character development one should think of her in this movie. Literally every scene she is in she presented us with a new persona of the same character. From the clumsy and talkative beginning to her final animal form fully physically portraying her inner feelings was a sight to behold. The way she changed not only her persona but her voice, her walk, her physical appearance was stunning and we can only hope to see more of her in the follow up movies. Also, the contrast between her and Gadot (all the way down to their dresses and hairstyle was astounding even if not so subtle). I am convinced that Wiig is the one person in this movie that takes the helm on "what makes us human" motto of the DCEU. Gadot on the other hand was almost absent. This might come as a shock to some (explaining why exactly the grades are so low) but she was overwhelmed by Pascal, Wiig and Pine to such a degree that her character was not given enough time to be a dominant character of the movie. This can be blamed on the script that simply does not give her enough time nor space, which is a shame because her portrayal is kindhearted and good spirited but not altogether as dramatic as it should be. Hopefully we will see her develop a bit more in the following movies.

2) The script/story. One thing people seem to have most of the problems with is the script which actually baffles me as to why that is so. If one has ever read a DC comic book, this script should not be considered problematic at all. Yes, there are certain unrealistic segments even for a superhero movie (flying to Egypt in a fighter jet was a bit much) but most of it functions really well. The story is a bit long (150 min) but it takes its time to develop and get you invested. Could certain segments have been shortened or cut out - yes. Did we need a 15 min intro that had almost nothing to do with the plot - no. Was the getting used to the 80's bit for Pine a bit cliche and unnecessary - yes. But was all of it entertaining - YES. And I believe that was the whole point. The story lacks in one department and that is the motivation and intention of the main villain. The reasons he does the things that he does are almost entirely unexplained except for his childhood montage segment, but if so, that is a very thin explanation. The movie, even though its premise is intriguing and can be viewed from various viewpoint (even a theological one), does fail to explain the motives clearly and will leave some viewers (well, most viewers to be precise) a little baffled as to why something was done and what was the endgame. However, the scale of the exterior struggle of the world, compared to the interior struggle of the main villain at the end was quite intriguing and fun to watch.

But the most important part of the story is yet another take on the human psyche and question of what makes us human. This was personified in Wiig's character and her portrayal, fully showing us what people without power do when being granted with almost unlimited power. Another great part of the story is a millennia old proverb - careful what you wish for - because of the potential aftermath of those wishes. No one actually thinks of what a certain wish could cost them and when they finally find out, it is too late. So, the DCEU continues to beautifully explore the inner struggles of humans and understanding of the human psyche.

3) The music. Maestro Zimmer did not disappoint, but he was using much of his prior compositions, incorporating them in scenes from this movie, instead of concentrating on new ones. A bit more was expected, especially in regards to Cheetah's theme, but the incorporation of Beautiful lie was a welcome surprise.

All in all, WW84 is not a bad movie. It is certainly not the best the DCEU released nor will it be considered the best WW movie. However, it is entertaining, funny, carries a great message and is gorgeous to watch. The story and script could have been a bit more developed and certain segments could have been shortened but in all fairness, it was a perfectly good superhero movie for a Saturday evening. So, let's view this movie as it was intended to be viewed and not as what we wanted it to be.

As the Enola Holmes flick hit Netflix, I was just as excited as the next person seeing Brown in the lead role, as well as Cavil as Sherlock and a handful of other famous actors in prominent roles. The very concept is intriguing, fun and in most part - entertaining. However, it lacks certain elements that will make it a really interesting and memorable September flick, potentially spawning numerous sequels.

1) The plot. There seems to be a bit of a hard cut in this department as the movie actually follows one quite interesting plot point up until half of the movie. For some, to me unexplained reason, this plot was entirely abandoned and another was commenced entirely. The two plot points were intended to be connected, as the ending of the movie insinuates, but the way they are told is completely unprofessional and I am not sure as to what exactly happened here. The first plot - finding mother - is abandoned almost at the peak of its depiction, indicating that something sinister is at hand. The other - finding the lost marquess - is dull and uninteresting up until the very ending of the movie that reveals why exactly he was being hunted. The two plots were supposed to co-exists and bring up an unified ending, but the movie never does that. It simply abandons the first one leaving the viewers with a final rushed scene trying to explain what happened with her mother, but it doesn't really do that at all. It is up to the imagination of the viewer as to what was going on, and an average viewer over the age of 15 will have no trouble concluding a quite sinister and frankly, disturbing plot. It is a shame that this was not explored more as this would have been a much more interesting movie in the end. Secondly, the very underlining theme of female emancipation is extremely vivid even though the movie never really states what the crucial segments are - the suffragettes, the right for women to vote and so on and so on. But the implications are all over the place, leaving one to wonder why these crucial segments were not explored more openly. Henceforth, a movie that starts quite interestingly dissolves into a young adult teen fiction that will not satisfy anyone over the age of 15 (but with today's standards I will sooner go with 13).

2) The acting. The hypnotising acting abilities of Brown are the sole selling point of this movie, and they are rightfully so. Her range of emotions and depiction of them is staggering. Her ability to convey almost exactly what she is feeling and how she handles much greater professionals then herself is phenomenal. The "breaking the fourth wall" scenes are by far the most entertaining as you can actually see how much fun she is having playing the title character and how she actually dug deep into the complexities of what and who she is playing. Her career is in an upright spiral and I do believe it do go even higher. Cavil on the other hand was... dull. It is almost a joy to see him play Sherlock but there is a fundamental problem with his portrayal - he didn't play Sherlock... I am not aware as to who he played, but that was not Sherlock. Just one look as to his approach is enough for a casual viewer to determine that he is a bit lost within the character and goes for the silent type, but I detect a bit of constraint to his portrayal. I am not sure however, if that is to be the screenplay and direction or his lack of understanding of the character. Given his latter work, I am inclined to think that it is the screenplay and direction. Claflin, however, did a spectacular job portraying the period piece "gentleman" that thinks women are baby machines and kitchen material. His portrayal is frenetic and intense at all times, but, the same as Cavil, his portrayal differs greatly from the original material. If he is to be a representation of that time's male (and n some cases female) mentality, then it is a job well done. Also, when confronted with Brown, it is quite visible that they are a perfect character match portraying different mentalities and standpoints. Also, it is an incredible shame that this segment was not explored in more detail.

3) The directing/editing. The movie was edited quite nicely up to about half of its duration. Up from there, as stated above, the editing becomes more and more in the service of prolonging a movie in the worst way possible. The two interwoven story-lines should have intercepted sooner and should have been told simultaneously, climaxing as they come to a full crossing. This was not, however the case, and it is only to the blame of the director for not creating this intriguing and generally, often used method.

All in all, this is really a young adult movie through and through. It is engaging for the most part, interesting at points and generally entertaining. It deals with important and difficult issues but never fully addresses them. It uses interesting techniques that it does not fully develop and starts plot points that it does not finish in a satisfactory manner. However, despite these notions, this is a full rounded and finished movie. It is just a shame it was not a bit more rounded and straightforward. In the end, anyone older than 15 will have a problem with it as it will serve for a rainy Sunday afternoon if and only if, nothing else is available.

The last of us 2 is much like its predecessor, a gritty, noir, emotional roller coaster that takes very very bold risks in terms of storytelling and character development. Is the game any good? Yes, it very very much is. Is it as good as the first part, not even close. Does that make it a bad game? No, it most certainly does not.

1) The technical aspects. The game is a technical powerhouse. There is not a single glitch, a single pixel out of place, the graphics are out of this world (at certain points it can be argued that the graphics do represent photo realism), the commands are flawless, there is not even a microsecond of delay in character movement and reactions to player commands. The cut-scenes are beautiful and do not feel overly long nor tedious, they are directed with high quality and the acting most certainly creates a feeling of a very powerful connection with the characters. However, it is important to notice that the game does not offer anything new (except the jump mechanic, but I will not consider that a novelty in a 2020 game). The whole gameplay is perfected to the utmost limit but is almost exactly the same as in the first part, leaving a feeling that a bit more innovation could have been used in the gameplay. Also, after a certain amount of time in the game the player can get quite a fatigue from the usual hide and stealth cover taking out enemies to the full blown Rambo experience (according to player preferences). The game at points feels a bit stuffed with encounters that do not offer much variety in their execution and can sometimes leave the player with a feeling of just wanting to traverse forward (the so called lets-get-this-over-with). However, the boss battles are a welcomed novelty.

2) The atmosphere. The last of us 2 is, in its very essence, a very atmospheric game. The surroundings are very much a character of their own, every store, every room tells a different and unique story related to the sector in which it is located and with the people it is affiliated with. The overgrown world, the decay of almost every building leaves the player haunted with images of what that world looked like once and into what it turned out to be today. However, the very sight of skyscrapers overgrown with vegetation and almost melted into the ground is so beautifully horrific that one can't seem to look away. It is, in essence a beautifully horrifying atmosphere in which you enjoy all the sorrow in the fullest.

3) The music. The maestro from the first part is back (thankfully) to create yet another masterpiece of music for this hauntingly beautiful game. The guitar segments are most impressive and are the scenes that invoke the most emotions. It is as if three or four notes create a guitar as a crucial part of the story (and it really is). There are not so many memorable sounds like in the first part, but that just reflects the overall tone of the second game.

3) The story. The one thing that almost unilaterally divided fans was the story. We can debate that the first game dealt with love and the second one with hate but in all essence this game did something that most sequels actually do - it goes bigger, larger in scale and more bombastic. It, unfortunately succeeds in that department as it tells a tale from two perspectives in three timelines (an extremely difficult story-writing task). But it does succeed in telling a very compelling and interesting story. Not a single segment of the game is story-wise redundant. Every cut-scene, every dialogue, every sentence has its weight and importance to the overall story. It is also a story not easy to digest as it will leave you thinking for a long long time after you finish the game. Themes such as loss, anger, regret... all have a central impact to the player while playing the game, and especially after the game has finished. Certain elements of the game (especially in Abby's case) reminded me of Dostoyevsky's Crime and punishment, and the inability to cope with the fact one has committed a murder. Abby's story is as much about revenge as it is about redemption, redemption that she, in my point of view, does not find. Ellie, on the other hand, is just as much a normal kid as she was in the first game, representing a normal teenager trying to rebel against the world (that no longer exists). The thing that hurts the most is the flashbacks - the most important, impactful and emotional segments of the game. The relation between Joel and Ellie are so strong in this game (particularly because Joel is brutally murdered in the very beginning) that the player feels that a wrong story has been told. Seeing what their relationship was, leaves the player wanting more of that, but I believe that these scenes are so much more impactful exactly because of their scarceness throughout the game. In the very end, it is not hate that drives Ellie to kill Abby, but love that spares her. The simple flashback of Joel playing his guitar, and the very last thing she said to him was the one thing that stopped Ellie from being Abby. However, no matter how hard anyone tries to explain it, Abby is not a likeable character and she is not meant to be. She did atrocious things (as did many others) and she is trying to find redemption, but the players will most certainly not grant her that. If given the choice, I am not sure that most players would leave Abby alive at the end. And that is a very scary thought, especially as we are presented with all the negative outcomes of revenge throughout the game itself (the most powerful one being the contrast of the farm with Ellie and Dina before and after the California finale). On another hand, the story has one major flaw. After the two storylines intersect, the ending is gruesomely prolonged for another three-four hours. The final battle with yet another survivor group is tediously long and entirely unnecessary for the climax to occur. That is almost the only story segment that has no consequential meaning to the overall plot and is therefore extremely boring to play through.

All in all, The last of us part 2 is a phenomenal game. A technical and mechanical perfection riddled with phenomenal collectables, Easter eggs, character acting and presentation. The story is extremely complex and difficult to digest with most segments leaving players to think a bit too much as to what they have just witnessed and trying to teach them something that, simply because they are human, they are having a hard time learning.

Closing remark - inferior to the first game in terms of story, but a great game non the less.

Trying to put aside all the emotions and feelings that are soaring through me after last nights premiere of the Rise of Skywalker (RoS) I will only refer to my last two reviews of the sequel trilogy (The Force Awakens 9/10; The Last Jedi 10/10) which show a clear fondness for the sequel trilogy. This final instalment was supposed to wrap up the new trilogy and be a definite conclusion of the entire saga (not an easy task), and it failed in every single aspect. Not only is this a bad Star Wars movie, it is simply a bad movie.

1) The story/screenplay. Somewhere around 40 min into the movie I had a very distinct feeling that something was missing. It was almost as if I had seen the first part, am now watching the third part, but the middle is missing. It is a feeling that J.J. Abrams decided to disregard almost everything The Last Jedi set in motion (without a single explanation). It is clear that he had a vision of the new trilogy that he was not allowed to go though with, so he had to cram this one with enough story content for three movies. And the end result is a convoluted mess with so much side stories and characters that have no reason to be there or have a goal or are relevant to the story at hand in any way (e.g. despite the fact that I loved seeing Lando again, he was just there for fan service). The ending (the last 1/4 of the movie) was almost a remake of the Return of the Jedi - using almost the same lines and imagery but to way less effect. The absolute catastrophe, story-wise, is the implementation of the Emperor who was used in such a tragically bad way, without any explanation and reason for his existence and implementation into the story. The most insulting aspect of his being in the movie is his relation to the main characters. It came out of nowhere, went nowhere and resulted in an idiotic climax that was unrelated to anything the previous movies (including the original trilogy and the prequels) set up. Kylo Ren was underused, undeveloped, lost within himself and without a logical and reasonable way-point for his character. Even though Driver did a good job Kylo Ren suffered as a character in this move so much that his final depiction is in complete contrast to everything seen so far. Why was such an intriguing character destroyed in such a horrendous way is beyond me. Finn and Poe are useless and irrelevant to the story. Poe's "backstory" is short and insulting for the viewers intelligence while Finn is a character that should have died a long long time ago because he simply had nothing to do for the entirety of the movie (similarly to the Last Jedi). If watched closely, his character had so much unresolved elements in the movie that one wonders what happened to the rest of his story. Why did he say certain things, what is his relation to Rey, why is it so powerful etc. Other characters suffer the same fate story-wise. Also, the movie introduces new characters (some of them could have been more imaginative but all are flat and one dimensional) and rids itself of old ones so fast that it leaves the viewers wondering what exactly is going on. The amount of content that the screenplay had was impossible to put in a single movie. It resulted in a barely watchable movie with sequences trying to tell 15 min of a story in 30 seconds, and going on like that for 140 min... you do the maths. All in all, story-wise this movie is a blatant disaster that never should have left the storyboard.

2) The Acting. It is almost noticeable that actors know what they are working with. They were unmemorable, lacking flare and emotion (the one thing the Last Jedi did spectacularly), and simply trying to get this over with. Their dialogue resembled, in some cases, Wiseau's the Room - leading nowhere and relying on cliche so much that it barely resembled a human-like conversation. There is not a single memorable line in the entire movie. The ones that are there are simply dull, unimaginative and simply put - bad. When the actors just spit out the lines without believing in them (unlike the Last Jedi) one can be sure that there is something very very wrong with the movie.

3) The editing. Justice League had bad editing, but at the end it was a watchable movie. This was edited so badly that it was an unwatchable movie. As stated above, the movie consists of thousand of 30 second shots that are trying to tell 15 minutes worth of story. It is so fast paced and so chaotic that the viewers do not even get a chance to contemplate on what they saw because the story rushes so fast without stopping. This is a case example of a movie edited badly.

4) The music. I will just leave it tat this - not even John Williams could have saved it this time.

5) The ending. The ending is a profound and powerful attack on the viewers intelligence. It somehow wanted us to disregard the last two movies and the last two hours of the third one, outright lying to itself. I remember a time when being a Skywalker meant something. I am not sure what it means anymore.

All in all, this movie is terrible. I rated it 5/10 because it is a Star Wars movie. If it was something else it would have easily been a 3/10. The story is garbage, unimaginative, recycled Return of the Jedi without a logical flow with the last two films and with additions that have no logical reason for existence. The ending is outright insulting and dumb. The acting is mediocre at best and the editing is one of the worst I have ever seen.

I sincerely hope that this movie fails in every way imaginable. Something similar happened to EA with the Battlefront II and that lead to a powerful fan backlash. That backlash lead to Jedi Fallen Order (which is a phenomenal game). Maybe if this fails we will get the peace of mind we deserve somewhere in the future. Better yet, maybe Star Wars will get the peace it deserves. For now it seems the Sith have won. This is the worst movie of the year and the worst Star Wars ever made. Shame on all of the people that worked on this.

At the premiere I have had the privileged to attend last night there was not a single seat left available. Every seat in the theatre was taken and with good reason. The hype and anticipation of Phoenix as the Joker is reason itself for a mass viewing at the premiere, but there is a very very important thing to keep in mind - differentiate his masterpiece life role portrayal of the character from the movie itself (which is incredibly difficult).

1) The story. There actually is none. This is not a story driven movie so the entire movie hinges on the performance of the actors and the development of its characters. This year we have been treated with fantastic story driven movies (e.g. Endgame) with a complex narrative and satisfying development, as well as spectacular character driven movies (e.g. Once upon a time... in Hollywood) where the movie was held together and carried out solely on the backs of its characters and magnificent actors. Joker leans heavily on the latter completely eliminating any resemblance of a coherent and fluent story (which is not a bad thing if you have characters carrying the movie).

Joker unfortunately played all of its cards on Phoenix and no one else, leaving the entire movie feeling extremely empty and missing an important counterpart to the iconic role (in any shape or form). The very reason Joker functions in the DC universe is because of his relation to Batman and the balance between the crazy and the lawful (and vice versa). Eliminating any positive counterpart to Joker as a character actually gave the audience a sense of what it would be like to have the Joker without Batman.

As a result, what we are presented with is an insight into the Joker's psyche and it is dreadfully depressing, dark and sickening (literally). There is not a single silver lining or positive element present in this movie. The amount of negativity thrown on to the Joker (as the character) rivals the amount of negative energy this movie attacked the audience with. It was, however, the movie's sole intention to be like that but as a result, it will not be everyone's cup of tea. Unfortunately, the movie has not balanced the crazy, the lawful and the hopeful (as a good DC movie should [e.g. see C. Nolan's Dark Knight]) leaving only the crazy and depressed. It is, however, spectacular to witness the external portrayal of anarchy hitting Gotham parallel to the mental breakdown of the Joker. That comparison, as well as the almost dark messianic final scene, is one of the true highlights of the movie.

2) The Joker. The way Phoenix portrayed the character is simply put phenomenal. His portrayal could easily rival the magnitude of Ledger's but, it is important to note that this is not a comic book portrayal (unlike Ledger's). This was a raw and realistic portrayal of a psychopath that simply snapped and committed atrocities. His downfall can be beautifully traced from the introductory scenes to the spectacular finale and the differences were so minimal in some segments that they were difficult to spot (but were there). All up to his specific laugh that differs from those heard so far because it is difficult to listen to. The Joker always had a specific laugh, but this time we are treated with a laugh that disturbs the very core of the viewer. It is an unnatural, ill and psychotic laugh that will not easily be forgotten. It is also very difficult to watch him execute most of his plans as he is mentally breaking down at every single one of them, and the crying is especially difficult to observe because of what we saw prior to that. His portrayal is filled with sadness unlike the prior renditions.

It is noticeable that the character was treated with much respect in portrayal and direction, but such a powerful performance needed some relief. The movie offers none and that is its main flaw. He was unparalleled by other characters (who had great potential). Beetz had a spectacular character that could have done wonders to the story but was left gruesomely unfinished and disrespectfully left out. The detectives (Whigham and Camp) could have given the movie a completely new dimension of neo-noir that was simply put a missed opportunity. They had all of the needed characteristics that could rival the lawful to Joker's crazy, but were left as side characters on the very margin of the movie. Conroy was bland and forgetful, unimaginative and completely undeveloped. The reveal that presents the final punch for Joker is, after about an hour and a half of psychological beating, simply put - bland (and I am still not quite aware if that was the point). Finally, De Niro's beautiful performance gave a spectacular homage to his own portrayal in King of comedy. The only problem with his performance was the end of the movie where he had to defend societies standards and principles against the Joker. It was a right move to give this role to De Niro as he is an actor that can really pull this off, but in this segment he failed, not only against the Joker, but in delivering a sociological defence to the psychological attack of the Joker. This scene, this final pivotal scene should have rivalled Batman's: "Not everyone snaps because of one bad day...." from the iconic Killing joke. Unfortunately, De Niro's execution simply didn't have the kick it should have. Was it intentional? Maybe. If so, a bad, very bad decision.

3) The music. Dark and sad. Beautifully follows Jokers downfall and portrays his inner struggle in such a satisfactory way that the theme stays with the viewer long after the movie ends. The music's power is especially noticeable in the "bathroom dancing" scene.

4) The Joker legacy. This one is purely subjective. One either follows or doesn't follow the preset story. The Killing Joke comic book was iconic exactly because it was raw and dark, so following it more faithfully should have been the taken direction. Unfortunately, the director and screenwriters decided to toy with certain segments when they wanted to, and eliminate pivotal segments without much explanation as to why they did that. So, one either follows (as loosely as they want) the story or doesn't, but this kind of blend will not really sit well with most DC fans.

The Joker is a good movie but nothing more. It is miles away from the perfection that was Nolan's Dark Knight (and any comparison must end immediately). It has screenwriting and plot holes, it has underdeveloped and unused characters, no counterpart to the Joker or any positive and/or light segments. But it will go down remembered as Phoenix's triumphant performance followed by a spectacular soundtrack that both must be awarded with the highest of prizes.

All in all, this is a very difficult movie to watch and enjoy, But it is a triumph in acting. The movie invoked fear and anxiety and hit all the right places in order to do so. However, that does not make it a spectacular or grand movie. It just makes it difficult, at time even too difficult to view. So, proceed with caution while entering the cinema as you will probably not be amused but disturbed for the most part. Congratulations to Phoenix on that.

About a year and a half ago (I believe) we were served with a truly remarkable yet slightly flawed adaptation of IT, one of Stephen King's best novels. Splitting the narrative into two movies was a good idea, as a 1100+ pages novel would be quite troublesome to adapt into a single (watchable) movie. However, these two movies should function as a whole yet they do not. This movie, by definition, cannot be defined as a horror (because there is none) but more of an adventure/mystery movie with certain fright segments. But first thing's first:

1) The acting. The casting was top notch! Chastain and Mcavoy were brilliant casting choices but Hader was the one who stole the show alongside Ranson. Ryan and Mustafa were not bad choices either. However, only Hader and Ranson gave their characters some flair or character. Hader stole almost every scene he was in and the chemistry he had with Ranson was extraordinary. Ryan was nowhere to be seen. He simply lost himself in the midst of the other characters and was left completely unexplained. Mustafa was, specifically due to bad writing, simply a character that was poorly written and deviated from the source material almost entirely, leaving the audience with a completely wrong impression about him. As for Mcavoy and Chastain, this is a prime example of - I simply do not care - way to portray a character. They were unimaginative and uninspiring, she was emotionally blank and distant, especially in scenes with Ryan (he only segment where she should not have been) and Mcavoy simply had a busy year and I guess this movie was the last in line. There is no other explanation for his lethargic portrayal of Bill. Regarding Skarsgård, he did, again, a great job, but suffered due to a tragic lack of screen time and overuse of CGI.

2) The story. All they had to do was follow a simple and linear path King had in the book. Remove certain side stories and the main story-line is here. Why they decided to intertwine the adult stories with (again) their child counterparts is completely beyond me. Those segments destroyed a coherent and cohesive narrative, leaving the viewer with a sense that they are watching dozen small scare segments tied up into one. The smart idea would be that the grown-ups revisit all places the kids in the last movie got spooked and continue from there (why that was not the case is, again, beyond me). Not to mention that the part with the kids were not scary at all, and those segments were, at points, extremely CGI-ish so they take the viewer from the experience. Also, certain segments that should have provided decent scares were nullified by comedic elements (e.g. the "Just call me Angel of the morning" segment). Also, Pennywise was almost absent from the movie which is a shame as this part of the story should be considered his revenge, and it was everything but that.

Another great misfire was the direction and editing of the second half of the movie. Once the Losers split up in the movie, the direction and storytelling is all over the place with no sense of where the director or screenwriters were going or what was the overall importance of certain scenes. Most segments from this part were not in the original novel and that is really noticeable (even for someone who has not read the book). Ironically, for an almost three hours long movie there are story parts that are left unexplained (e.g. why is Beverly's key her totem) and characters left undeveloped (e.g. Bowers). On the other hand there were scenes that should have been completely left out of the final cut (e.g. It's second kill in the movie). Taking all that into account, it is no wonder that the movie is almost three hours long but the disappointing thing is that it would have functioned much better as a two hour standalone sequel focusing solely on the adults and only here and there referencing the kids.

3) The general lack of scares. This one I find most interesting. The movie is not really a horror flick (unlike the first one). However there might be a logical explanation to that. My girlfriend noted that as adults we do not scare that easily any more but are much more prone to anxiety and stress. She also stated that this movie should, taking that into consideration, be viewed through the eyes of adults, whereas the first one should be viewed through the eyes of a child. Henceforth, the first one is scary and frightful and the second one is not, but makes you feel tense and anxious at points. Considering that, maybe the lack of scares can be contributed to the prism of the eyes of the beholder - child/adult. Albeit, Pennywise did say - You've all grown up.

Finally, the battle with Pennywise is overly prolonged, lacks a definitive climax and is unceremonious. The latter being the fault of (again) hacking the character into several groups and (again) putting them into yet another stream of small segment scare scenarios. The end of Pennywise is, unfortunately, just the same as the rest of the ending - bland.

4) The direction. It could be a trait, but I still find it much more of a lack of experience. Movies should not feel as if they are interconnected small segments. The movie lacks a flow and is at points a bit lost in itself. This can, but doesn't have to be, the directors fault. However, as the first part has the same feel to it, I will be contributing it to a directorial trait that has to change in the upcoming future (especially taking into account that he is directing the upcoming FLASH movie).

5) It's actually entertaining. Despite all the negative aspects of the movie: the duration, the messy editing, the generally uninspired cast, the badly timed jokes and humor etc. It Chapter Two is a highly entertaining movie. It has a high re-watch value, it is light, it is funny and easy to comprehend. I am not sure if that was the goal of the movie, but if it was, it surely succeeded in it in every aspect. If it wasn't, well, it just accidentally achieved a high entertainment value. And that is not something many movies can say about themselves these days.

All in all, if you saw the first IT, see the second one. You will not regret it and you will have a good time. A shame that time was not a bit more scary.

Simply by reading the title of the review, one might think that I am disappointed or underwhelmed by the movie. Those readers could not be more wrong. The fact is that I am more than satisfied by what I saw, but am in a state of complete shock by not fully understanding what it is that I actually saw last night.

The "Tarantino love letter to L.A." is not a bad movie by any means (not that there is a bad Tarantino movie), nor is it a masterpiece, but every once in a while Tarantino gives us a movie like this, with a concept we did not expect (dare I say understand) and a "story" that is completely out of this world. Once upon a time... in Hollywood is a movie just like that.

The acting. There is something about Tarantino that drives his actors to perform at their absolute best. DiCaprio (who I usually cannot stand with his trademark over the top performances) is an inch away from grandeur in this movie. His persona as Rick Dalton, his fragile personality as an actor and his almost perfect roles in the movie as well as the transition from one to the other is simply superb. Among others, he had the most complex and difficult role to pull off (with more than a dozen roles to play with not much screen time for all of them). His internal and external monologues and struggle to become something more that just a TV cowboy actor is (first) written beautifully and (second) executed in a splendid fashion. The contrast between his life and the roles he plays is a spectacular thing to witness, and I would enjoy to see it again (many, many times). He broke from his (Scorsese) typecast roles and actually showed the world that he can be a character actor (and a great one at that).

Pitt was a complete contrast to DiCaprio. His character was tough, rugged, strong, down to earth, good looking (it is Brad Pitt after all) etc. By contrast to what his character was to be, his execution is more that just muscle-for-hire type of role. He understood that his role was to support DiCaprio's (just like their characters) and he executed it perfectly. The few single segments (especially the Ranch scene) he had, he literally stole every single second without breaking a sweat. The intriguing thing is that he did not, once in a 160 min movie, raise the tone of his voice or change the pace of walk (even in the most nerve-wrecking moments). He showed style and class in a role that was everything but style and class. His brute force is shown very briefly during the movie but is effective enough to make the audience understand with what kind of brawler they are dealing with (even if most of the characters in the movie didn't).

Robbie has established herself as an AAA actress long ago. She is well suited for action, comedy, drama, comic book adaptations etc. Here, she proved that she is also capable of pulling of a tragic character with very, very little screen time. Her presence in the movie was more of a viewing experience (with drastically sharp and almost uncomfortable close-ups) and "eye-candy" than a multi-layered character (like DiCaprio or Pitt). But, contrary to belief, that was the point of her role. She was to be viewed as a happy, beautiful, full of life and joy character, a prototype of the up-and-coming star in that time. The fact that we all know what happened to her is what makes her such an in-corrupted character that we simply love seeing. Their triangle (the psychology of DiCaprio, the strength of Pit and the looks of Robbie) is what makes a good actor - then and now. Lose one of those and you have one of the three characters' fates on your hands. Tarantino knows this, and that is exactly what he wanted to show us. That is his formula for driving actors to perform beyond their possibilities with such ease.

The story. As Once upon a time in... Hollywood is a character movie revolving around the three characters (and a whole bunch of other ensemble cast brilliance cameos) the story simply fades away. To put it quite truthfully, there is no story. This is a period piece, done to perfection in almost every segment, especially the atmosphere and surroundings. The run-time is not a real issue because it is not felt in any way as the "story" always changes and moves in ways that you don't see coming so it's never really boring. Herein I will use a strange construction that - it entertained me just like a Tarantino movie should, but the movie itself is not entertaining. It requires the viewer to think and carefully watch for every nook and cranny he put in there so that you can put the pieces together and understand what he actually tried to tell you. This will prove to be a chore for most moviegoers and most of them will not give this movie a second chance, which is a shame, because only upon second viewing will this movie really explode as the audience will know on what to put their focus on. It is brilliant, but it is not for everyone (this is not the MCU).

The directing. There is a reason Tarantino is such a great director. He understands every set-piece, every character, every song ect. and what they represent and he know exactly how to show it to the audience. He does have an annoying trait as of late - the length. If this movie was 20-30 min shorter, the pace would be a bit more fluent and the characters would even out in their screen-time. But, as it is a trait, one cannot hold it against him too much.

The atmosphere. This is what this movie is actually about. Feeling the atmosphere and life and style of the last days of 1969. The production value is through the roof, Tarantino knows it, and uses it to extreme lengths. He effectively immersed the audience in that time and gave them a ride they didn't expect (some of whom may have desired a different ride). But the feel of the movie and the suspense that is rising in the viewer (without a real explanation why that is happening) is superbly written, edited and directed.

The ending. The signature Tarantino style aesteticized violence comes to full effect here, and with good reason. The tension that was building up throughout the movie actually explodes in the end. It is extremely meta and with more symbolism that the entire movie altogether, but is just a joy to watch (as this is actually Tarantino's way of saying - this is what I would do to those who did what they did back then). The final shot leaves the viewer wondering if it actually takes place in real time or if it is a surreal setting or is it something else. All in all, the ending will infuriate some, but that was not really the point. Look deeper into the meaning of the ending and you will see what it actually stands for.

All in all Once upon a time in... Hollywood is not a masterpiece upon superficial viewing. It is not the best that Tarantino has ever made, but is far, far from the worst. It is a great movie with all the right buttons pushed except for that last one - the one where you have to think about what you saw instead of letting him show you everything. That button he intended for the audience to push for themselves. Only then will this be a masterpiece. If that button is not pushed, it's just a great movie to enjoy (over and over again). So, upon second viewing, try to push that button, it's worth it. Trust me.

Hyper-realism. Until this point only available on Nat Geo channels and Animal Planet. However, when Chernobyl hit the TV screens, hyper-realism is no longer a documentary channel exclusive. Chernobyl is dark, difficult and hides nothing from the viewers. It is, by some standards, the best depiction of USSR policies and by far the best sociological drama I have seen in a very, very long time.

1) The story. For those uninformed of the tragedy and how it transpired, it is best to view this show without much information. The less you know, the better the impact the show will have. Everyone is familiar with the tragedy and the aftermath, however, the show deals with it in almost all of the segments of the tragedy. From the very explosion, covering the imminent aftermath, the clean-up and consequences of the explosion up until the very ending and the revelation of how an RBMK reactor explodes. The show holds nothing back, even at the cost of gruesome and disturbing imagery (of which certain elements could have been left out, but that is just a personal preference). The show perfectly balances it's five episodes and dictates the pace of the narration to the point of absolute perfection. Every episode has a primary goal which it accomplishes by the end of the episode. These goals vary from - denial and cover up; the realization of the magnitude of the catastrophe; the aftermath; the clean up; the truth. The story also perfectly balances the difficulty of dealing with such a problem in the USSR, especially criticizing regime's approach to the problem. The episodes feel coherent and balanced in direction and pace, never losing track of the goals and messages they are meant to be sending to the viewers.

However, hyper-realism comes at a cost. Even though the story has no narrative flaws nor does it feel incoherent, it contains segments that are unfinished. The primary examples are the miners and the animal squad. The first were meant to be some sort of relief from the difficulty of the story but after that episode they are not addressed any more which is a shame as their story segment needed a clearer conclusion. The animal squad was a bit underdeveloped. Their story has a very important message and has incredible weight but, just as the miners, feels a bit unfinished. The second problem is the lack of a dramatic spike in certain elements. Drama series require such elements in order to maintain tension. Chernobyl, however, is a series that has continuous tension at the same level from start to finish, so the further grave and mortal dangers feel just the same as the rest of the show. The tension is there, it just never changes it's level. If the creators varied the tension in certain points as they did in the "three men water segment" this series would be completely flawless.

2) The acting. Without a glitch. Top notch and perfect. It was a very smart idea to cast acclaimed dramatic actors such as Harris, Skarsgård and Watson to carry the show as their performances really portray the overall feel of the series. Their acting is deep and profound, as well as full of meaning and allegory. Harris is not just a typical scientist fighting the military way of thinking, he represents an ideological struggle against a system doomed to fail from the start. Skarsgård does not only represent a party man, he represents that the system can and must change. Watson represents the will to change the system with knowledge, but lack of power to do so. None of them leave their roles, go over the top nor do they disobey their characters at any point. It is also visible that they wanted to create characters who would simultaneously impact the viewers as the series itself. Other actors did a splendid job as well, especially the ones with minor roles (e.g. Ferns) but the one that really stands out is Paul Ritter who did such a beautiful job portraying the villainous Dyatlov. A splendid job.

3) Direction. There are very few episodes in tv history that have such flawless direction in their entire run-time, but Chernobyl has managed to create five of the most perfectly directed episodes in history. There is not a single scene out of place, no loss of the main story, full character development, perfect depiction of the tragedy from start to finish with side-stories and political connotations and criticism. Johan Renck is a master of the trait and should be awarded for his work.

4) The music. This one will be set to personal preferences. Even though the music fits the series perfectly it's sole purpose is to make the viewer tense. Again, if this was used only in certain segments it would have been much more effective and it would have had a much stronger impact. However, a continuous use of the same music in order to make the viewers continuously tense becomes a little too much somewhere around episode four. A few lighter tones and much softer notes would have made a more emotional impact in certain scenes.

5) The finale. "What makes an RBMK reactor explode?" scene is one of the best tv series finale of all time. A single sentence, executed with flawless perfection by Harris, represented the climax of the show, the historical connotation of a political system and a warning to the world, politicians and scientists today. The effect that segment of the final episode had on the viewers is right up there with The Winds of Winter, Ozymandias etc. However, taking into consideration the historic and political connotation that the final episode of Chernobyl has, one could argue that it is the greatest finale in tv series history.

In the midst of a hyperinflation of tv series, as well as the disappointing endings tv series have recently provided their fans, Chernobyl leaves all who view it in a perpetual state of awe and utmost respect for those who made it, lived though the tragedy and survived and for all those who died because of it.

Absolute perfection.

I was introduced to this show a while back, sometime when the first trailer was released and was intrigued by the premise, characters, actors, the witty dialogue etc. Knowing that the novel was a sort of cult classic, watching Good omens was an obligation.

1) The story/premise. The premise is ingenious -t he Antichrist coming to Earth and it is up to two "friends" and Angle and a Demon to try to prevent it with all Heaven and Hell breaking loose around them. And if the story had held on to that premise, and only that premise, the end result might have been a bit more cohesive. Unfortunately, we are also presented with several subplots and side stories that should serve as layers to an already complex story. Upon first viewing, these side stories, in lack of a better word, destroy the main premise. It is somewhere after episode three that the story completely falls out of place and is almost impossible to keep track of what is going on and, most importantly - why. Episodes four and five contain so many decisions and actions from the characters that make absolutely no sense (which could be explained by the over the top writing of the source material), but most of the situations that occur have little to no explanation at all. The culmination of the story is so convoluted and over the top that it loses any sense of drama and tension and the viewers are left wanting a much needed Deus ex machina solution that never happens. The ending untangles itself so unceremoniously and with such ease that is almost incompatible with the rest of the story. Also, the final episode drags on for so long while providing full endings to all characters (most of which the viewers don't care for) that it feels not like the last episode is nothing more than an overly long extension of episode five. A shame, really, because this could have been a cult classic show that could have sparkled a debate from the fans if a departure from the source material was needed - which it almost certainly needed.

2) The Acting. Sheen and Tennant were built for these roles. A veteran TV actor such as Tennant knows exactly when to hold back, when to go full frontal, perfectly balances the witty and hilarious with the gloomy and dark manner of his character. However, there is one problem. He is put up against Michael Sheen who doesn't really care that he is staring in a TV mini-series. Sheen approached every episode as a full feature movie and held nothing back. His portrayal of the Angle was flawless (even in the more story thin segments) and it is really noticeable that his acting is a note higher than every one else's. Even though he actually gave Tennant the much needed space for the portrayal of the Demon, Tennant never leaves his trademark acting stance and flamboyant personality, so the end result of such an acting duel is that Sheen outshines Tennant in most of the scenes. This is accomplished by Sheen moving far away from most of his known roles and manner of acting. Other characters are actually not even worth mentioning. Their acting was flat, uninspiring and at most parts dull. Most of them didn't even get into character let alone give a believable performance (this goes especially for Arjona and Whitehall and their "romance" story-line that made absolutely no sense whatsoever). The notable exceptions are McKean and Hamm, with Hamm being the more noteworthy as he actually had a character with some meaning and a sense of direction. McKeans character, however, falls out of nowhere, goes nowhere and ends, well, nowhere. This abundance of unnecessary characters took the focus away from Sheen and Tennant at the most important parts and made them almost irrelevant in episode four and five (which is not a good thing).

3) The direction/editing. The direction is all over the place, the editing was probably done by several people without each of the knowing what the one before had done. The cohesiveness of the story doesn't exist, it completely loses track of itself after episode three and never really finds itself again afterwards. The combination and simultaneous flow of multiple story-lines was done by someone not very skilled and the end result is messy, convoluted and hard to follow. Most scenes play out for far too long, certain scenes are unnecessary and some scenes that should have dramatic weight to them simply do not because of the tsunami of narrative problems this show has. It would not have been a bad idea to try and create a movie instead of a mini-series. At least in that format the director and editor would have had certain restraints necessary for depicting such complex narrative.

All in all, Good omens is not a bad show. It just didn't deliver on what it promised. Maybe the hardcore fans of the novel will be pleased (and most of them actually are) because the show follows the novel to the letter, but in this format narrative changes were necessary. This is a case example of a source material being adapted in the wrong format. A two and a half hour movie would have done the source material much more justice, the narrative flow would have been much more cohesive and the ending could have had a real impact on the viewers. Like this it is just a time-killer show that deserve a second viewing only if nothing else is on the TV.

Could have been brilliant, instead it's just good.

There have been few movies in history that created this kind of hype - a sociological and emotional mass hysteria that covered the globe. An expectation that surpassed all others, an ending that everyone was expecting yet caught everyone by surprise, shock and awe. Endgame had a lot of expectations to fulfill, and it surpassed them all... light years from what was expected.

Never has a year passed so quickly and with so much hype. The end days before the premiere were filled with nothing but expectation, fingernail biting and prolonged stages of sleep deprivation and theory development. If one was being scrubbed by one's boss - it didn't matter - Endgame is in a couple of days... if one was ill, one got better on the day of the premiere. Endgame had an effect that was so much more than a movie. It was an event of a generation, an ending to a decade long story and the finalization of all the character's arks. And yet, it had to be a sequel worthy of Infinity war. How was this possible to achieve all that in a single movie?

1) The story. Unlike Infinity war which was much more a character driven movie (especially Thanos and the gang on Titan) Endgame is a story driven movie. The entire movie is split in three segments: a) the beginning; b) the middle; c) the endgame. The beginning is a bit rushed, uneasy on the casual viewer, expecting too much from the audience to follow in one moment. But then, it slows down, takes it's time with a realization that these characters are at their end and the story converges into a goodbye of sorts from their most important counterparts and their most important segments from the last ten years. This is Endgame's most triumphant segment - the realization of the magnitude of its characters and their meaning in the end - their own humanity and importance that they have for the viewers. However, Endgame holds its most powerful aspects 'til the very end. The climactic battle with Thanos and his army (again) is one that can easily rival Lord of the Rings or the Hobbit or Kingdom of Heaven etc. But, the magnitude of the battle and the number of heroes involved makes the endgame battle so powerful and overwhelming that it leaves the viewer in a perpetual state of adrenaline fulled with hype from start to finish. It is almost impossible to keep track of where all of them are and what they are doing but that is the best part - all of them are completely involved with everything they got - whatever it takes. Even the all-girl battle segment is entertaining and shows how much Marvel respects all of its characters no mater how small their role in any movie was. Up until the end, when Endgame shows it's true colors as Infinity war's successor, when it emotionally destroys almost everyone watching the movie. The final demise is the perfect and flawless ending for one of cinema's most recognizable and lovable heroes. The difficulty of his demise is, at this point, unprecedented. Endgame builds itself all the way up to a spectacular and unforgettable climax that resolves itself in just the perfect and (un)wanted way - perfection.

2) The acting. Closely connected to the story are the actors that live the characters they are playing. There is no more acting with these people, the literally are those character down to their very core, and we have lived with them. Though better or worse, through all the trials and errors, thought all the sorrow and pain up until the end, when all of their strength combined (not only as characters but as actors and as people) they gave us an end worthy of legends. An ending that should be studied in movie history books and taught as a principle of movie making. The original Avengers, the ones that made comic book heroes real and important, are the ones that will be remembered after this movie. And they should be regarded as the heroes they have played. What hurts the most is the fact that these people really have feelings for each other and in their goodbyes and tears one really feels sorrow and pain. The soul stone segment and the phone call segment are perfect examples of these segments. But the love that bursts from the screen at the: "You rest now" scene and the tears that flow afterwards are not acting. These kind of emotions do not psychologically constitute as acting - they are real and they are powerful. Because of their connection in such a way do the viewers feel and connect so deeply with some of their demises.

3) The direction. To keep such a mastodon of a movie at bay and in such a coherent way is truly masterful. The Russo's directed the movie so that three hours feels more like an hour and a half (maybe the quantum theory is true after all). With so much to be told, and to be told with such respect, no ordinary director could have made this the way they did. It is also important to remember that they have directed MCU's finest movies - The Winter Soldier, Civil War, Infinity War, so they have more than enough practice. Henceforth, their balance of character driven story arks and finishing a ten year old story really makes one wonder how such perfection was achieved. Even though the first 20 minutes of the movie feels a bit too rushed with editing being a bit rigorous, the rest of the movie feels incredibly easy and fluent.

4) The music. Silvestry actually did not make two soundtracks but used all the important tunes and themes used so far and combined them into something new and powerful. The start of the Endgame battle music feels and sounds like adrenaline being injected right into ones spine, while the eulogy of the godfather of the MCU sound and feels so emotional and powerful that in comparison to the strength felt merely seconds before creates an emotional burst in the viewers unprecedented in modern cinema.

All in all, this is a near perfect movie. A flawless, emotional, powerful ride from start to finish. It is unlike anything one has ever seen or felt while watching a movie. Endgame was, is, and always will be one of the best movies ever made. It will remain in movie history as the most important ending to a story and characters beloved by millions. One does not see Endgame, one feels it, breathes it and lives with it. A long, long time will pass before anyone ever makes something even remotely close to the perfection that is Endgame.

This is a type of movie that will split the audience and critics in two groups. The ones who hate/loath it and the ones that adore it. There will be almost no middle ground, and the reason for that is extremely vivid. The movie does nothing to appeal to all persons, it simply plays out the way it wants to, weather one likes it or not.

The story. A biography of Cheney's life and political career could be told in numerous ways. The sole focus on the 9/11 attack and the decisions made based on that attack could have been a center, but this movie decided to go a bit sideways. The audience is presented with Cheney from the very start of his political career to his very end. Since we are talking about a man whose political career spanned for more than 4 decades (give or take) a smart way to depict that was needed. McKay decided to go with a multitude of short scenes depicting the most influential and important segments of Cheney's life and political career. The overall result is a never dull and constantly moving piece of work that doesn't allow one to take his/her eyes of the screen (for you will surely miss an important segment). The focus does switch somewhere at the middle of the movie, when the Bush Jr. administration segment comes in. At that point the movie drastically slows down and depicts in more detail certain important aspects of the new millennia history. Of course that is the point when Bale's "Satanic" depiction of Cheney comes full frontal. The switch in the character and the story is almost shocking and the way McKay directed it and Bale played it, only emphasizes that shock. The most interesting segment of the story are also the metaphors and comparisons to the wildlife. The one segment at the very end of the movie depicting the beating heart in the background of Cheney's most controversial life decision really sticks with the viewer. However, certain segments could have been explored more, some elements could have been omitted, but it would, in that case, been a very different movie. I am still not sure if I have viewed a political satire or comedy or a drama with just a good sense of humor. But, whatever it was, I liked it.

The acting. Most biographical movies do not linger much on the story because their real power lies in the depiction of characters. When you have Bale as your lead and Adams to support, you are surely on a winning streak. But, I do not believe anyone expected their performance to be this good. Bale is on the road to win his second Academy Award (however, due to the sincerely strange choices in the last few years, there is a chance he loses - and that will be one of the Academy's greatest mistakes). His method acting brought him so far into the mind and soul of Cheney that at a certain point one looses the idea that they are watching a movie instead of a documentary. The way he portrayed Cheney's decent into absolute darkness and malevolence throughout the movie is astounding (helped profoundly by the cinematography and lighting). However, his most powerful moments are the ones when he is making decisions and giving orders. His presence is violently disturbing and profoundly scary, especially in the "Leek it." and other similar scenes. Adams on the other hand was just superb. Interestingly enough, the Adams Bale tandem works splendidly (as portrayed in American Hustle and the Fighter). However, even though Bale is the lead and the movie does deal with him mostly, her presence is noticeable at every turn. Every scene she is in, she constantly fights with Bale to take dominion over the scene (which could have been a disaster but worked out perfectly - just as the Lynne and Dick in real life). The viewer simply cannot help himself and not hate her. She is mean and vicious in all the wrong ways, unlike Cheney/Bale who is mean and vicious because of political reasons. Her performance should most definitely win her an Academy Award because she truly stood al pari with Bale in every scene (and that is no simple task). Rockwell was a laugh. He portrayed Bush almost exactly as the real one acted - lost and frightened, surrounded with the most powerful and vicious people in the world, making all the wrong decisions in the wrong time. A truly stellar performance. Finally, Rummy. The one that I thought was the greatest miscast in movie history tuned out to be one of the movies best performance. Steve Carell did Rumsfeld such an honor with this portrayal that it is a shame he didn't have more screen time. The candor, the energy, the rudeness and warmongering is portrayed with such ease that it was a joy to watch. The make up department also did a splendid job making him look almost exactly like the real Rumsfled. All the way up to the final scene and his eventual demise, Carell played Rumsfeld with spectacular ease and joy, which made him a joy to watch.

The editing. Probably the most divisive aspect of the movie. In order to create such a fast paced and entertaining movie, short fast paced scenes are needed. It will not be everyone's cup of tea but, for a movie like this to work, you really need crazy and unorthodox editing.

The music. Perfectly fitting. Simple but powerful, emotional but strong. The theme of the movie that plays during the finale and the infamous "Nod" scene stays with the viewer long after the credits roll.

All in all, Vice will not be the most beloved movie of all times, but it will definitely be remembered as the best Bush administration biopic to date. If you are looking for a hard drama, avoid it. If you are looking for comedy, avoid it. It you are looking for a classic biopic, avoid it. But, if you are looking for a perfect blend of all three, this is the movie for you. Taking into consideration the other nominees, I do feel that Vice should win most of the important awards this year because it really is the only classic Oscar worthy movie we have seen in a long time. Near perfect.

Aquaman is good. Not brilliant, not fantastic, it's good. It might not be the grade it wanted to get nor was it the top it could have gotten, but Aquaman is in its core a good movie. It achieves what it set out to achieve: entertain and dazzle with stunning visuals and great performances.

1) The story. Aquaman is the first movie after the Justice League debacle (in all fairness to the cast and crew, JL was not what it should have been). So, Aquaman had to come up with a story that was not an origin story (yet needed to be one), be a sequel to a movie that disappointed hardcore DC fans and restore their faith, and tell a unique and entertaining story worthy of the first ever live action Aquaman movie. Strangely, it succeeded in all of those fields. The story is multilayered with a more than a few plots intertwining and moving forward simultaneously (as well as the origin story/flashbacks alongside the Atlantis origin/history). This might sound convoluted, but the way the story is told actually doesn't hurt the storytelling. There are almost no plot holes and all characters (with the slight exception of Black Mantis) are given enough time to provide us with their background, philosophy and motivations. Unfortunately, the downside of this is the overall duration of the movie (143 minutes). Even though the movie doesn't feel very long and there are just enough action sequences to keep the dynamic going, there were certain segments that could have been cut a bit short (maybe for an uncut edition later on). It would be unfair to judge the movie by its length, especially because there were many points that needed concluding, but a few more riskier editing choices would have made this movie and its story far superior. Also, because of this, the final battle that is spectacular in all fairness, didn't have that necessary final epic kick this type of movie is known for. Everything blows up and all hell breaks loose, but I found the one-on-one battle afterwards to be much more satisfying and epic (mainly due to Momoa's and Wilson's stellar action performances).

2) The acting. This movie rounds up much of the old school masters (Dafoe, Kidman, Lundgren, Wilson) and a few very promising newcomers (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Heard). Dafoe was given a beautiful little supporting role that he embraced with such joy that it was a delight to watch him. Lundgren, regardless of him being best known for B-movie action roles, executed all of his lines and expressions with such ease and fluidity, in such scholar like style that he actually awed me most of all. Even though erased almost halfway though, Abdul-Mateen II did a decent job. Nothing spectacular, but he set up a good character for the sequel(s). Also, the Sicily fight is one of the highlights of the movie. Kidman was, unfortunately, very bland and unceremonious. Her God-like posture and wooden acting took me away from her character most of all. She also had no chemistry with Momoa or Wilson and her storyline was the one that could have been written and finished better. The almost Deus ex machina ending with her feels way to happy endish and took much from the dark and gritty fight between Momoa and Wilson. On the other hand, another performance for the acting school books is the one executed by Patrick Wilson. His understanding of the character is phenomenal, and his execution spot on. No line is overacted, no expression is unneeded. All of his gestures, the tone of his voice in every scene is perfect to the point of perfection. He, alongside Dafoe, gave the best performance in the movie. Heard was a bit underwhelming. She has a beautiful character to play with but never actually takes her to new levels. She took no risks in depicting Mera and that is a little sad. As she and Momoa lead the movie, and taking into account that his presence simply dominates every scene he is in, Heard should have done more. Like this she is just good. Momoa however had a dual quality. His presence in the movie is breathtaking. He lives and breathes Aquaman with every cell in his body. He has fun while doing it, but he just does not have the same quality of acting as the others (which is quite understandable given he is still a sort of a newcomer compared to the others). Every scene he is having fun and is telling jokes or is fighting or threatening others is a blast (especially when he yells parts of Haka), but when he has to execute high drama like scenes, he simply vaporizes. Put up against Wilson or even Heard, he looses his intimidation as the acting of the other party outdoes Momoa's. But, as all of the DCEU characters, he is the best live action incarnation of Aquaman. Put plainly, he is awesome.

3)The directing. Wan is a superhero! He is a god, a legend, a titan, a master. Even though his specialty is horror, his masterful skill at keeping a movie like this so compact and solid is astounding. He never looses his grip at what this movie is supposed to be. Every scene is fixed, no improvisation, with scalpel-like precision. Certain scenes that seemed to be one take shots were so perfectly developed and performed they literally take ones breath away. Beautifully orchestrated (in every sense of the word) directing makes Aquaman a movie worth seeing over and over again.

4) The music. R. Gregson-WIlliams does a great job. He really got certain characters and their themes, but it is noticeable that he had much more fun and much stronger ideas in creating the villain tunes than the hero ones. Simply put, Aquaman needs a better theme. But a solid job was done altogether.

All in all, Aquaman fixed most of the problems Justice League created. It also created a path the DCEU should follow in a very VERY straight line and not deter at all. This was a correction exam for the DCEU and it passed. Aquaman is fun, entertaining, with SPECTACULAR visuals (even though most of it is pure CGI) and is a pure delight to watch. Certain characters could have had better execution, some story lines could have been omitted or shortened, and the music could have been a bit more innovative. But all in all, Aquaman is simply a good movie that deserves to be watched over and over again in the highest possible quality and it will always deliver exactly what it sets out to deliver - a good time.

We have witnessed much of the classic movies receive sequels as of late. Blade runner, Star Wars, Jumanji, Predator are just some of the most recent examples. Halloween follows that trend and exceeds in every possible way.

The most important thing to know about this movie is that it is a sequel, but it is also a kind of remake/reboot of the franchise. Halloween has turned into a comedic and laughable franchise turning Myers into nothing more than a cliche of what he actually was. For years, the Halloween movies degraded into total chaos and every sequel that was released was worst than the previous one. In all fairness, Zombie's rendition (but only of the first movie) was decent but lacked the necessary spookiness the original had. And so we come to this, in lack of a better word, masterpiece.

Halloween 2018 completely disregards every prior movie and sequel after the original (doing rightfully so) and continues 40 years after the ending of the original. It succeeded in rewriting and changing everything we know and come to expect from a Halloween movie. And after 40 years, that says a lot.

The acting. Curtis returns to her iconic role and creates something perfectly new and fresh. She created a good blend of Sarah Connor toughness and the original Laurie Strode. That not only gave the audience a new insight into the already known character, but presented us with a totally new character. The position Curtis found herself in was not easy, but she delivered with style. Unfortunately, there were not so many scenes where she could have shown all of her new traits, but the ones where she had, she used perfectly. It was just a joy to watch her after all these years play the same heroin in a completely different way. Greer was her usual self. There really was nothing so special about her character or performance except for the finale where she provided the audience with a great twist in her character. A shame because her character had a lot more to give and was given a lot more time to shine. Matichak on the other hand was good enough for the role she was given. Unfortunately, having to deal with the likes of Curtis and Greer put her a little on the margins but she actually did quite a decent job. Their trinity against the Shape not only makes for a great viewing experience but it provides the viewers with strong and independent women against pure evil (and that is done much better than most of the movies these days). The rest of the cast were forgettable, as they were supposed to be. But the one thing this movie does splendidly is the portrayal of The Shape. It is hauntingly scary and disturbing, and we have not seen it this intimidating since the original movie. Congratulations for returning it to its original form and formidability.

The script was decent enough, nothing extravagant or flamboyant. It kept to the original form, using only simple and basic plot lines. This movie actually learned from the original and keeps the original form - simplicity. That is what worked 40 years ago, and that is what works now (interestingly enough).

The overall direction/editing and music. This movie functions from its first to its last scene without a hitch. The way the movie progressed and how the story builds up to the climactic finale is just phenomenal. It actually uses the tension and the slow burning first part to keep the audience on the edge of their seats just to literally explode in the final act. The final confrontation is nerve ripping, it is tense, it leaves you wanting more and more, and the movie gives you even more than you wanted. One cannot help but feel grateful for that approach and almost forgets the movie drags on a bit in the middle (there are some editing problems visible at the 2/3 of the movie). But, one of the most intense elements of the movie is the music. Carpenter outdid himself (again), using very familiar tunes, and adding a new layer to them, a new tempo, but still keeping it all very, very simple. This movie is the prototype of less is more technique.

All in all, Halloween 2018 is a movie made as a redemption for 40 years of terrible Halloween movie sequels. It is also a reboot/remake of the franchise. It created a new storyline, opened up new ground for discovering new plot lines and further exploring new characters. Is it a lot? Yes it is, but Halloween does it all. It is a movie made with so much love and respect that one just has to admire it. Learn from it, respect it and really, see this movie as often as you can. It is the best horror/thriller movie made in decades.

There was a lot of hype surrounding this movie. Some of it was good, some of it was bad, but everyone wanted to see what Venom was going to look like. The first trailer was promising, mystic and dark, the second one was more lighthearted, showing us what exactly the movie was going to be like in the end. And it didn't disappoint.

The critics are hating the movie, the audiences are loving it. And that is saying a lot. There is a lot wrong with this movie, a lot of things are not done as they should be done and most technical parts are not well made. Still, somehow, when put together, the movie miraculously functions. It's entertaining, funny in the right way, dark when it needs to be and dynamic when it needs to be. In the end, Venom is actually not a bad movie, regardless of what the critics are saying.

But, credit has to be given to the critics for some points.

1) The acting. Besides Tom Hardy who did a spectacular job everyone else is almost unnoticeable. The dynamic between Hardy and Venom is what keeps the movie going. How he executed the duality of Brock/Venom is perhaps the sole reason why this movie needs to be seen. Being capable of such a transformation in one movie is staggeringly good. The very idea that he will be exploring this dynamic further in the sequels really makes one excited. Unfortunately, his relation to other characters is almost non-existent (more on that later). He gave his heart and soul into portraying Brock and Venom and their relationship that he actually forgot to build a relationship with everyone else. Riz Ahmed is bland, without much point or meaning besides serving as a villain to the story. A shame because the character did have some interesting aspects. Williams was good as usual with all of her femininity and vulnerability combined perfectly with her strong and determined character mixed with a spot-on execution of dramatic lines. She and Hardy do share some scenes together and some chemistry is noticeable but, especially taking into account the importance of her character at some points the viewer is left feeling like much more could have been done with her character and especially regarding their relationship. Like this it is just left a little cliched.

2) The script. Even though the movie has a very good flow, it's doesn't feel unnecessarily prolonged or dragged, the script needed more layers to the characters and story. It also lacks innovation and risk and in the end feels like just another origin story that we have, at this point, seen way too many times.

3) The directing and editing. Almost no regrets at this point. The only thing that does at one point feel a bit clunky is the third and final act of the movie that simply comes out of nowhere. The first part is interestingly slow, the second is by far the most entertaining one, and the third shows all the grandeur of modern-day CGI. The only problem is it came way too fast and ended abruptly. I guess some segments were left at the editing floor.

4) The music. The real shame of the movie. Up to the end credits and the Venom song there is actually nothing interesting or noteworthy for even a single whistle. That is a real shame for a superhero movie, and Venom deserved a specific tune.

All in all, if one just reads these lines the conclusion would be that it is a mediocre to bad movie. Interestingly - it's not. It's a fun movie that you can watch over and over again, laugh at the same scenes over and over again, enjoy Hardy's stellar performance and wish it was part of the MCU. Venom is worth the watch. More than once.

Deadpool 2 was widely expected and audiences had high expectations regarding the movie, especially since Deadpool was such a blast. I understand all the hype and cult following of Reynolds' over the top crazy and adorable persona, but a movie should be much more than one character thrown into several different situations... Unfortunately, Deadpool 2 was exactly that - several (extremely) funny combined sequences that do not even slightly resemble a functional movie.

So, braking this lunacy (in lack of a better word) into several segments seems like the only logical way to review this movie since the movie itself has no logical structure whatsoever.

The acting is, by all means, top notch! Reynolds was born to play Deadpool, Brolin created a formidable foe (considering the amount of time he had), Beetz was superb etc. Since the movie itself is structured around characters and their personalities, it is not a surprise they all did a magnificent job. But, that also carries a problem. There is an overabundance of characters that have absolutely no place in this movie. The entire X-force sequence feels like it was a leftover from one of the rewrites. The way it dispenses the characters of the X-force is hilarious, but shows that the screenwriters had no actual idea what to do with all of them. A shame, especially since the whole concept is a generally good idea (can you imagine a team led by Deadpool?). On the other hand, giving Brolin, an actor of the highest caliber (the almighty Thanos) several lines and just a few sequences is a waste of acting. Simply no one believed him to be THAT threatening and mean. Unfortunately, the main villain is underwritten, underused and created a hole in the movie where the bad guy should have stood. Using someone as Dennison to fill that role was a good idea, but he just couldn't perform in the way needed to fill that big of a hole. So, even though the movie doesn't care (at all about anything), the general lack of care at this specific instant created a flaw that was just unnecessary. All in all, regarding the story and characters - NO coherent story, underwritten and underused overabundance of character, and a screw you attitude about it all. Risky, didn't pay of, created flaws.

Considering the movies upside - the humor. Even though the movie brings you to tears with laughter, at certain points it feels recycled. There are several instances that killed the joke and/or pun simply because it was already seen in Deadpool. Making it more gory or more explicit or violent is just not doing the joke much good if it feels already seen. In its defense, there are not a lot of these segments, but they are EXTREMELY noticeable.

The music was generic not even interesting. Bland and forgettable. Nothing special with a recycled Deadpool rap song.

The editing was done as best as it could have been done. Considering the lack of a coherent story or narrative line to hold onto (even though Leitch does quite a good job handling the chaotic narrative) it's a miracle that a coherent movie was even produced. So, congratulations on that.

The thing we all must confess is that Deadpool timed it's release PERFECTLY. We are all still in shock and awe with the monumental Infinity war and its sorrow and dark filled ending, so Deadpool simply had a job to make us laugh. It succeeded in that with triumph. But, understanding it had only one job, it left almost every other aspect to wonder on its own, and that may have been a mistake.

A decent sequel with a bunch of laughs but... all in all, we really expected more. Not a movie...