Change Your Image
Hiair
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (2024)
Turn your brain back on, and leave the theater with what's left of your neurons.
When exactly everyone lowered their basic standards to underground levels? Tell Bryan Cranston's dying wife that the world will be safe because a giant super hero monkey with a transformers arm will team up with a caped crusder lizard to kung fu fight monsters, and the earth is hollow and has a giant monkey city in it, then come back and tell me how well that fits together as part of the same "universe". "Monkey hits lizard, good , don't say otherwise or me throw poop at you!" If that's your level of intelligence you will love it, but don't watch it or you will get worse. Please don't defend this movie by asking us to "TURN OUR BRAIN OFF", if that's your defense you already lost the deabate, why don't you ask the writers to turn their brain on? "FUN" is not synonymous of "STUPID", it wasn't, it doesn't have to be, and we already passed that, oh that's right "-1" wasn't Hollywood... here we go again... OF COURSE ITS FAIR TO COMPARE IT WITH "-1", every movie with dinosaurs is still compared to Jurassic Park, people can compare it with Barbie or the Smurfs if they want, but this one doesn't even stand a comparison with GODZILLA 2014 which is part of the NOT MARVEL "universe" it belongs, and its the one has to be mandatory compared to. Don't turn off your brain for Hollywood again, enough is enough. This movie is to GODZILLA 2014 what BATMAN AND ROBIN was to BATMAN 1989 AND BATMAN RETURNS or what Moonraker was to James Bond. They started as something believable and serious and someone else turned them later into goofy cartoons. Being a fan of GODZILLA and tokusatsu cinema and tv doesn't mean that I cannot distinguish quality from trash, and as a healthy fan I always want QUALITY, NOT QUANTITY, I don't consume and blindly deffend everything because it says "Godzilla" on it. Yes, the Showa era exists, Toho is embarrased of it, any fan knows that, do you? They consider it as the lowest point of the franchise and that's why Godzilla has never been that goofy; at least in Japan, ever since. BUT This is NOT a Showa era Godzilla movie, its supposed ti part of the serious american Godzilla 2014 version, which exists because the American 1998 version was so terrible and goofy that they decided to scratch all sequels and reboot it in a serious direction with the 2014 version. But 1998's was more believable than this new one, why is 1998 not equaly praised? The Showa era; as goofy as it was, was its OWN thing(mess) separatted from the original's canon, Godzilla has been reseted in Japan at least 3 times, but this ultra goofy american cartoon is NOT its own thing, it is supposed to be a CONTINUATION of a movie where Bryan Cranston, crying with a broken soul, had to sacrifice his wife and colleagues to save the city and his son, and he had to say goodbye while she was dying in front of him, a movie where they tried to give weight and REALISM to a creature of more than 300m height and thousands of tons in weight, where they tried to put on screen the consequences of its destruction and existence in the REAL world. That was the selling point, realism, that was what was promised to the fans, it delivered that promise but not as well as GODZILLA-1 did, yet it was a stept on the right direction, how did we get from that 2014 movie to this? How is that a progress? Goofy movies are fun and have their space in cinema, a bigger place than what they deserve, no doubt of that, I love "so bad are good movies" as much as the next man BUT.....BUT.....but I repeat, that is when they ARE THEIR OWN THING and not a continuation of something that was relatively realistic and serious. And this one goes an extra mille triplying down with stupidity which makes it insulting to even kids intellligence. After so many times complaining about studios telling us to "turn off our brain" when did you, the raging fans decided to obey and celebrate that? Have some integrity! GODZILLA-1 and everything from Nolan prove that movies can be intelligent and entertaining at the same time again, no excuse! Specially GODZILLA-1 reminded us 4 important things:
1 - You can have an intelligent, engaging, and even inspiring story and visual spectacle at the same time. Thay they cannot exist together is an old lazy writers' lie.
2 - People do like human characters, when they are well writen and important for the plot. These movies dont work without them, they are the ones that suffer the consequences of the destruction and as the audirnce we need that.
3 - Millions of dollars on visual efects are worth nothing if points 1 and 2 are not checked.
4 - Not everything has to ripp off of MARVEL.
If you are a filmmaker who loves bad dumb movies create your own franchise and quit destroying others with continuations that are not even part of the same genre! Does Jar Jar Binks fits in The Godfather's "universe" (everything has to be called a universe now, thanks to Marvel)? Cake on face jokes? I didn't think so neither.
IF you as most fans have complained of movies for being shallow, dumb and for treating the audience as "stupid cattle", but you deffend this movie precisely for being all that, don't you dare to trash Batman and Robin, Transformers, anything from Michael Bay, Uwe Boll, Fast and Furious, Jurassic World, sharknado, Birdemic, The Room, again, because that's called DOUBLE STANDARDS. TURN YOUR BRAIN BACK ON. This movie is terrible and that's NOT A GOOD THING.
Oppenheimer (2023)
It's gonna BOMB! (No pun intended)
Why IMAX? Contrary to all of the previous Christopher Nolan films that managed to deliver intelligent stories and visual spectacle at the same time, there is nothing visually spectacular to behold here, yet they are announcing this as the "must see in IMAX experience". The movie is a political drama of people talking in rooms that has too many gratuitous nudity but almost nothing of The BOMB in action, which is what most people expect to watch on the giant screen given its premise and because it's a Christopher Nolan movie after all, the marketing clearly exploits those factors.
The other factor going against the movie is its rating. The movie is R rated; a rating that could have been used to justify the showing of the destruction and horrors of the bomb that people expected to watch, specially during the scenes when Oppenheimer imagines them; just like Terminator 2 managed to do it splendidly over 30 years ago, but instead it is used to show those unnecessary sex scenes that could have been removed in order to get a PG-13 rating and sell more tickets to profit from the IMAX expense. I have heard that they decided to not be explicit on such destruction and horrors in order to "not offend anyone on the audience". Sorry, but it's a movie about making a bomb, that's what bombs do, create horror and destruction, and the movie clearly knows it, it's very well explained in its dialogue but it decides not to show it. When you choose to make a movie about such sensitive topic it is already too late to care about offending someone, everyone who is going to watch it already know what they are getting into anyway, so why not to remain objective and go all they way showing what you are supposed to show in a movie about "Oppenheimer"? Spielberg knew what to show and what not to show in "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan", both deal with sensitive topics and fulfilled audience and critics expectations.
Talking about Spielberg, this movie it's like if "Jurassic Park" focused on the creation of the dinosaurs and the people who created them, they hatched, then the movie jumps in time until people return from the island and talk about what happened when the dinosaurs escaped, instead of showing us.
"Show don't tell", Nolan and Spielberg were great at it.
Would that "Jurassic Park" version be interesting? Yes, but if you care more about genetics than entertainment, just as Oppenheimer is interesting if you care more about physics and politics, which is not many people among the general audience.
But the movie was shot on IMAX, so it's clearly intended to the general audience but what is shown on it doesn't justify its IMAX format, and is R rated.
So who was this movie for?
The movie is long and there is not enough spectacle to keep the interest of general audience that come to see the explosion.
It is also too expensive to have been made just to please a small audience that only cares about the politics behind the bomb creation.
Christopher Nolan could have find the right balance to satisfy both audiences, he proved he can do it for almost 20 years in a row, but he had to eventually fail at some point, this is that point.
It worries me the box office of this movie will put IMAX and film in general in a bigger risk of disappearing. It was meant to be the one to standardize it and Nolan was the one who knew how to do it the best.
So in conclusion... Is the movie bad? No, but is definitively a lot less of what everyone is expecting when they see the words "Nolan" and "Oppenheimer" together.
The Batman (2022)
7 Rip-off with racism added.
Just invert the roles, make everyone black white and everyone white black but keep the same exact script.... Do you think Hollywoke would allow you to even shoot that movie? Get woke GO Broke!
I assure everyone that this movie will follow the same path as Disney's "STAR WARS - THE FORCE AWAKENS", everyone will be fooled into love it at first but after analyzing it people will gradually start to hate it.
Castlevania (2017)
From Castlevania to Wokemania
It took it 2 seasons to go full woke (and full boring), that's a record for Netflix.
The first two seasons were fine, It made up for the horrible immature "Teen Titans Go" dialogues with a great story. It had excellent engaging, almost operatic moments, but also had plenty annoying woke moments here and there that just like any anachronism in period pieces takes one out of the experience. And this is full of forced woke anachronisms.
From season 3 on it gets "The Last Jedi treatment". Sypha Belnades becomes a super overpowered Rey Mary Sue that can take down an army with only two of her fingers exuding toxic feminism every single time she is on screen.
Meanwhile Trevor Belmont has become a Jar Jar Binks sideshow clown that has been reduced to a secondary character in his own franchise and he is only there to be constantly belittled by Mary Sue Belnades. The writers clearly expect that to be "funny".
All leaders in both sides are now very masculine females, all hostile towards their male counterparts like admiral Holdo; all occupying positions and wearing clothes that no way in earth they would have been allowed to wear in the century the story takes place. They could have include them justifying their positions by explaining it was because the situations forced them to fill the shoes of men, making them heroic, but instead they are inserted as if this was normal which is what wokeness does with period productions.
The open presence of misandry, necrophilia, genocide, even pedophilia can be justified in any R rated production as long as it is presented as the wrong things they are and therefore only the villains commit such acts, but here every single female character is a misandrist even in the heroes side, insulting and be their male protagonists every time they open their anachronistic mouths.
It is so much misandry and male humiliation that this series gets away because its produced by Wokeflix. If we swap the sex of all the characters and females were treated like dogs forced to wear literal collars this series would have never even been green lighted and writers would have been fired for suggesting such "abomination".
Credit where credit is due; the two forgers story arcs; Hector and Isaac (who was originally a redhead but here he has been blackwashed) are the ultimate show stealers and the only ones that had mature dialogue in them. But they were the only characters that had a story arc on the entire series. And of course, credit to the artwork in the animation which was exquisite and sometimes really breathtaking, but so it was on Kevin Smith's She-Man and we know that cannot save any series from sucking.
I don't recommend this series for the video game fans since it has too little to do with them; it looks right but it feels wrong. And for the rest of the audience I recommend to watch only the first two seasons, they have a great ending that should have been the definitive ending, the rest is woke filler.
The Lion King (2019)
Somebody took away the Lion's heart, along with its b@lls.
Sterile, soulless, rushed and pointless. Having had real animals perhaps they could have obtained some sort of emotion out of some.
You could say that it could work like a 3d filter for the original hand drew film if you prefer technique over artistry, but the original script and some imagery gets watered down.
The whole movie seems like the recording of a cold reading of the original script with some downgrades here and there to make it more baby "safe" while the Hans Zimmer's 1994 soundtrack is being played on the background.
No elephant graveyard; no nazi references, lines like "Murderer, you don't deserve to live" cannot be found in here. "Scar, brother, help me" is reduced to "Scar help me" to avoid children to think about the fact that the villain is killing his own brother.
It is curious that there is a lack of close ups that could have helped the character emote anything. The color palette is mute as any other movie out there which is odd because this one wanted to appeal to a younger audience than the original's.
If you leave wondering how they extended an 88 minutes long script to 118 minutes while having all the characters lines rushed, the answer if simple, they added a lot of walking.
Time is not an excuse, so how can a shorter animated and older version be more mature and express a lot more than a modern adaptation? It was made by very different people.
keep your home video copies of the original film safe before this new Disney decides to retouch it to make it "saferer and betterer".
Memory: The Origins of Alien (2019)
Worth watching BUT can we keep politics away from entertainment?
Stop putting your agenda nonsense were there wasn't, I remind you that all the characters were genderless in the shooting script and their dialogue and actions remained the same after casting. Ridley Scott just chose a female to play Ripley because he thought "why not?" "It would be more interesting". Period. I saw his interview.
It is pointless to find symbolism and relate any movie to other sources if the director din't intended nor was influenced for, and its a lot more pointless is to claim that the interviewers personal point of views are the actual way the movie must be interpreted.
If the movie were about male rape the alien creature would be explained to ONLY rape males and leave the females alone. But it can rape anyone and that's the universal fear appeal of the film. Don't shrink the universe to local politics. Shame on you Wolf for be happy for the male deaths in this movie. Swap the genders in any situation and if that now looks bad then that was not equality.
The documentary contains a lot of unnecessary personal points of view; some of them fascinating and one of them utterly stupid and offensive. Points that are as valid as your friends' or the next person.
On the positive side, it contains very interesting interviews with the people who actually worked in the film and shows a lot of fascinating imagery that makes it worth watching.
Green Eggs and Ham (2019)
More of the same
Why do every single; every, every single character in today's kids entertainment has to be a snarky, sarcastic, smartass, unfunny comedian that uses a high vocabulary regardless its age and keeps the same emotion of indifference no matter the situation they are in? Are all these new writers attempting to rip off Han Solo without knowing how to rip off the aspects that made him likable?
Green Eggs and Ham (2019)
More of the same
Why do every single; every, every single character in today's kids entertainment has to be a snarky, sarcastic, smartass, unfunny comedian that uses a high vocabulary regardless its age and keeps the same emotion of indifference no matter the situation they are in? Are all these new writers attempting to rip off Han Solo without knowing how to rip off the aspects that made him likable?
Hotel Transylvania 2 (2015)
"Old = Bad, New = Good"
The movie is absolutely enjoyable and genuinely adorable when we expend time with Dracula's gang and his grandson teaching him how to become a vampire, but it becomes absolutely insufferable when they cut to Dracula's daughter shenanigans who despite having had a character arc in the firs movie she still as dislikable, spoiled and disrespectful as she was. Or very other time they make Dracula look like a fool for staying true to his traditions as if they were wrong.
Including that kind of characters is not a problem in a movie, but in this one they are part of the main leads and it makes it clear that between the "Old School" ones or the teen ones you are supposed to be on the teen side y continuously bashing the others and never the teens. which makes you feel wrong for sympathizing more with the "old school" but much likable and deep monster gang.
Just like the first movie, but now in larger scale, this sequel keeps telling that adults are dumb and their values are outdated while worships irresponsible teenagers whose biggest merit is to expend hours on the cellphone and skateboarding and telling their parents how wrong they are for not think like them.
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Almost Perfect! Almost.
Disney ruins what could have been otherwise a PERFECT cinematic finale for a decade of great films with that one forced feministic scene. You know which one.
This is why; lets rewind back to the first Avengers movie to the scene when the whole team is gathering preparing for battle; THAT CLASSIC SCENE that was in every trailer and promotional material, we saw all the avengers being "assembled", males and female getting ready for a stand in battle, then we saw a second "assemble" in Age Of Ultron, the a third one in Civil War, now lets jump to this new scene.... where are all the males?
wouldn't have been double "cool" if we saw all of our heroes females and males homaging that first movie scene showing off how much the group has grew since then?
What was the reasoning; story wise, behind the female characters for doing that specially in the middle of a fight?
Instead of bringing together the two genders as EQUALS, DISNEY decided to split them and chose the females over the male ones, "for reasons", and now the movie will be terrible dated.
On the topic of gender issues in media a wise celebrity once said: "Swap all the genders of the characters in that movie, if their actions look bad now then that is NOT equality"
Nothing can be perfect; just like with The Lord Of The Rings The Return Of The King; another great epic finale for a film series, the movie could have been without that infamous Legolas vs. Elephant scene.
An even bigger crime is that nowhere is a dedication or in memory to Stan Lee to be found nor before nor after the credits. Why?
Dumbo (2019)
See An Elephant Fly, on the background.
Disney once again delivers his forced politics and feminazism through his one dimensional cartoon characters that are flatter than their actual cartoon counterparts while leaving the lead ones on the background of its lectures.
The movie vilifies rational thinking and prices vandalism; the supposed heroes of this movie made more damage than the supposed villain ( like that little girl at the end of Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom ). Disney thinks that because they are the lead their actions are automatically justified and the audience must think so.
Just like Alice In Wonderland 2010, Dumbo is a total tonal mess:
Tim Burton + Disney = No no.
Yes, The Nightmare before Christmas despite not being directed by Burton worked, because it was more Burton's than Disney's, therefore Disney disowned it back then and sold it to theaters under the Touchstone Pictures banner. It wasn't until Burton and the Nightmare Before Christmas reached cult status that that Disney beg him to come back.
But that movie fitted Burton's always present dark and gothic/german expressionistic sensibilities which don't fit with anything else that Disney has ever made.
A Burton and Disney attempted balance is the equivalent of a cinematic Frankenstein that you can tell which parts belong to who's and which don't belong with each other.
Two stars, one for the always great Michael Keaton that sold me all of his bad lines, and other star for Eva Green's Oscar nominated costume design.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)
This apple fell way too far from the tree.
"All the sudden, the second I read his book I realized that we WEREN'T dealing with MONSTERS and this was not going to be a genre of horror, SCIENCE FICTION-FANTASY; or back to the famous monsters of Filmland Magazine culture, but instead this was a really CREDIBLE LOOK of how dinosaurs may some day be brought back right alongside modern mankind, and that really fascinated me and immediately set my own template for NOT making this a MONSTER MOVIE."
- Steven Spielberg on Michael Crichton's "Jurassic Park".
Terminal (2018)
Good casting.
Never saw such an immature, annoying, unoriginal and unengaging screenplay/direction since my days of film school back in 2008.
All the recent reviews defending the movie are obviously posted by the director's circle of friends, if not himself.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011)
It didn't deliver
"IT ALL ENDED" an I felt Nothing! Thanks to Mr Yates for making such an insipid and heartless series of movies. It was all about action to the next action, then a plot hole, then the next action, blah blah blah, plot hole, wait, was that a dead Weasley in the background? was him George? we won't know unless we read the book, hole, next action. The guy is Just a Technician, NOT a Storyteller!!!!! Yates assumed that everyone in the theatre read the book before they entered, which must be 80% true, but in adaptations from books to movies the movies must stand by themselves, and not to require to consult the book to understand what the "bloody hell" happened out of camera, forgetting the unexplained "holes", the movie, his movies from the 5th to this last one" become so mechanical in the way the story were told, and seemed so rushed", Yates forgot to bring up the emotions and feelings in the characters, I wanted to be emotionally touched by Dumbledore's death in the 6th but he died like a dog and i didn't see a bloody tear in any of the characters "no funeral for the headmaster?" even when we had a funeral for some x dude called Cedric in the 4th?'I was expecting George's death to be a big EMOTIONAL event in the movie, I am not bloody sure if he was George at all because they didn't mentioned his name. Yates focus importance in events, in taking the story from one point to the next, forgetting the emotional psychology that should be in the characters. Many are saying that the books are too big to be totally faithfully adapted to the big screen, BULLSHIT, Lord Of The Rings was bigger and it delivered! why, they had a director that knows how to tell the stories from a more human and intelligent point of view. others said that we expected too much from the movie, Come on, Its "HARRRY POTTER" it HAD to be BIG! not just in scale of "events". As any other movie conclusion one expects to be emotionally thrilled and moved.