Reviews

Rating: R (execution) Genre: Horror (Really a Christian thriller) Directors and writers: Cary Solomon, Chuck Konzelman Writers wrote: Unplanned (antiabortion film), and God's Not Dead (Christian drama).

Prepare yourself for a film that masquerades as a profound exploration but falls flat on its face. "Nefarious" is a Christian film attempting to pass off as a horror flick. We are taken on a theological verbal rollercoaster with a serial killer possessed by a demon on death row. The story revolves around Edward (Sean Flanery), who, on the day of his execution, undergoes an evaluation by the unconvincing Dr. James Martin (Jordon Belfi) to determine his mental competence. Brace yourself for an agonizing battle of wits, where Edward consistently outshines the supposedly competent doctor.

This film deceives viewers with its promise of horror, but it's nothing more than a dull and talkative affair. A staggering 95% of the runtime is dedicated to monotonous dialogue, with two specific focal points shamelessly pushing the filmmakers' conservative agenda: abortion and euthanasia being labeled as murder. And let's not forget the soul-crushing final scene, where Dr. Martin engages in a lackluster conversation with Glenn Beck that adds absolutely nothing of value.

Sean Flanery's acting starts off weak and blossoms as the film progresses, but ends up teetering between comical and mesmerizing. His portrayal of the twitching, arrogant Nefariamous, followed by the emotionally unstable and linguistically inept Edward, is utterly unconvincing. Edward can barely string a coherent sentence together, seemingly implying that only those with speech impediments are worthy of demon possession. The lack of urgency, absence of yelling or screams for help, and the contrived transformation from twitching to controlled all contribute to an overdone, unrealistic, and pretentious display. Flanery's acting may be colorful, but it remains firmly detached from reality.

The majority of the dialogue centers around Dr. Martin's relentless pursuits to extract information from Edward/Nefariamous. Though occasionally stumbling upon morsels of what he perceives as profound revelations, these crumbs fail to sway his beliefs or make any meaningful impact. A clip featuring Dr. Martin's proclamation about progress and tolerance while Nefariamous provides a weak rebuttal exposes the film's lack of compelling counterarguments. The absence of addressing pressing issues such as hate crimes, high depression rates, or flaws in the medical care system showcases the creators' limited critical thinking skills and research capabilities. It becomes clear that the filmmakers were more interested in pushing their narrative rather than engaging in a captivating, nuanced conversation that could provoke thought and discussion. It's disappointing that this scene is considered the pinnacle of compelling arguments when it brings nothing new or fascinating to the table.

Dr. Martin's supposedly "logical" beliefs are the ultimate betrayal of intelligence. Despite his abundance of knowledge, he remains frustratingly noncommittal throughout, lacking both critical thinking skills and the ability to make a firm decision. It's as if the writers couldn't fathom the possibility of an intelligent atheist capable of thinking critically and committing to their convictions.

This film is tailor-made for unimaginative conservative Christians with an infinite attention span. However, anyone seeking action or a film with a more balanced mix of elements will undoubtedly despise it. Those looking for a captivating and intellectually stimulating conversation will be sorely disappointed. Credit can be given to Flanery for attempting to inject some life into the film with his colorful yet melodramatic performance. Additionally, kudos to the movie's advertisers for skillfully misleading audiences into believing they were in for a horror experience. The writers deserve credit for presenting a slightly more realistic portrayal of a demon-possessed individual compared to other films in the same genre. However, these faint glimmers of merit cannot save "Nefarious" from its ultimately underwhelming and misguided execution.

In the end, this film's underlying message seems to be a reevaluation of the death penalty, in addition to the other controversial topics such as abortion and euthanasia. The film's efforts are commendable, earning a respectable "B" for ambition, though generosity can only stretch so far. Prepare for an unconventional and polarizing cinematic experience, that is meant to leave you pondering the boundaries of faith, the complexities of possession, and the power of human resilience, but may have you pondering why you wasted your money and time instead.

The series is based on the novel, 'Half Bad' by Sally Green. The reviews I read echoed the series is better than the book. The main complaint in the book was that it is anticlimactic. The series and book are similar but differ in terms of the number of siblings he has, the reason for his quest, the characters, and the relationships. The series took the skeleton of the book and beefed it up to make it more exciting. The issue is, the motives of the antagonist didn't make sense.

The cinematography was nice, the story interesting, the acting met expectations, the scenes were nice and varied often, and the special effects at times were impressive. The negatives are the antagonist's motives, the pacing at time slowed to a crawl, and the brutality of the boy didn't make sense. While it's understood the blood witches and Fairborn witches don't get along, what is nonsensical is they are having all-out fights in a country with fain (non-witches). It's hard to believe these fights can occur with no suspicion from fains. Did the school administration notice a student went missing? Also, the war doesn't make sense. Why and who started it and for what reason? Another issue is how it ended, some people should've been laid to rest. Ultimately, the morals issues the book touches on are prejudice, stigma, and stereotyping.

The time span for the series extends over Nathan's life but only focuses on certain years of his life. Aside from the pacing issues at times and the illogical actions, the series is entertaining. It's geared towards teenagers or young adults.

A Chalk Line is loosely based on Josef Fritz. Look up his case after you watch the movie if you're interested. Keep in mind, Fritz was much more sadistic. I watch Spanish films to keep up my Spanish knowledge, but it's hard because they do terrible thrillers (my favorite genre). They all seem the same, slower pacing than necessary, beautiful scenery that's generally a gray cool tone, majestic houses, and people always making terrible decisions to move a plot.

The actors are fantastic, the little action is intense, the suspense is great, and the music choice was well done. A person who likes Spanish thrillers will love this film. If you find they test your patience, this is right in line with the others.

The ending is lackluster and out of nowhere. It felt as if, they ran out of air time and slapped a random ending on it to fit in the minute they had left. The conclusion feels disjointed from the flow of the film, and I suspect they deeply edited some scenes out by mistake.

Overall, the film is an easy watch, and most viewers less critical than myself will enjoy it. I have no patience for the pacing which, seems, typical for these types of films, and stupid decisions to move the plot is a pet peeve of mine. The low rating is mostly due to the forced climax and the falling action.

Robbers show up at a house to hideout from the police, only to find they may have chosen the wrong place for safety. For the majority of the film, we see the visitors slowly unravel in their own way. They are panicked, with intermittent sessions of calm, triggered by one person telling the other to chill.

We have no idea what is going to happen or why the house was a bad idea for about 60%-75% of the film. While we see some weird things happen, only subtle clues are sprinkled throughout to help us understand what's happening or going to happen. Since nothing major is revealed until close to the end, we are left in suspense.

"Hideout" is somewhat of a slow burn, but not too slow that you'll lose interest. At the same time, they could've edited thirty minutes out and not lose anything significant. Kyle is the key to noticing something is awry (if you're observant).

The creepy sound audio at times was too loud. The setting was simple, and they didn't keep the entire film dark like so many horror films do.

It's an easy-to-watch film, nothing phenomenal or mind-blowing, but not terrible either. Save it for a day you want to watch a slower movie that's low in action with limited gore.

Umma is a great story about generational trauma, overbearing parents, female roles in a family that are considered traditional but also damaging, PTSD, and cultural acceptance or isolation. Unfortunately, such powerful topics were put in a lackluster horror film. This film is more drama than horror, and not in the Korean drama way. I love Korean dramas, and I feel they should've implemented some of the techniques that work with some of the successful series that exist.

The movie consisted of jump scares that weren't scary and dark lighting and creepy sounds to set the mood. The actors did a great job with their parts. The main focus was healing, breaking generational trauma, and overcoming fears while forgiving our tormentors. Maybe this would've been better as a drama with some mystical elements. Or maybe they should've added more horror, folklore, and mysticism.

The blending of American and Korean culture and language was nice. Unfortunately, the Kumiho/Gumiho wasn't explained and unless you look it up, you have no idea why it appeared. That's the drawback of mixing two cultures, there's a chance of abandoning part of the audience that doesn't understand both. In the end, this is a great step in a direction, I feel can be improved.

Emily The Criminal is a crime thriller written and directed by John Patton Ford. It is a straightforward r- rated film, Emily is trying to survive and get a better paying job to pay for her mounting debt. She gets involved in a credit card scheme, and we see the consequences. The plot is simple and based on a type of fraud that does exist, but no dummy shoppers were interviewed for the movie, nor does it relate to any real life events. The acting is great, the dialogue fitting, the scenery works, the lighting and colors weren't taken advantage of as it could've been. Costumes didn't tell a story, but it fit the characters.

The scenes seem mostly realistic, give or take some incidents. They aren't over the top situations with martial arts fighters and several people coming out of the woodwork. The criminals aren't a part of some major organization, or some special mafia. It has a very grounded feel, as if to say, this could be you. At the same time, we see Emily is a consequence of the raw deal society dealt and her temper and impulsive nature. At the same time, many of us have wanted to say some of the things she's said, but kept our mouth shut to avoid conflict. Is she a criminal or a survivor? Is she the problem or the result of a festering issue? Regardless, Emily is a classic example of a person who's tired of playing nice and playing mean as a woman, is considered even more egregious.

Hence, the reason we don't often see women as villains or antiheroes...it's not sugar and spice and everything nice. Emily and Youcef have great chemistry, but it's obvious it's surface level. Emily is also easy to root for, while being easy to despise.

The movie is well-written and directed. I still wouldn't recommend it because it bored me. I can't understand why I was so bored. It has everything it needs for a great movie, but I wasn't moved. I couldn't even say what could be done to improve it. It's possible it's just not for me and it's not the movie.

Overall, despite it not feeling substantial, the film is entertaining to some degree and lightly touches on a serious topic, while shedding light on a scam I didn't know existed. It isn't an impactful drama digging into school debt, deadpan jobs, or life after felonies. The focus is dummy shopping and a glimpse into who might get involved in such activities and the pros and cons of the lifestyle.

The Luckiest Girl Alive is a drama mystery thriller based on the novel of the same moniker by Jessica Knoll. Mila Kunis plays Ani who is transitioning in her life. She is trying to get a better job, she's getting married, and her fiancé wants them to move out of state for his new job. All of this occurs while a documentary is being made to dig into a tragic event that occurred at her school. The writer wrote a clear plot with narration from Ani as we see her in present day and flashbacks of her in the past. This movie isn't like the crime mystery movie or psychological thriller we commonly see. It's a mystery in a sense that we don't know what happened, and we find out as the story unfolds. It's rated R for depictions of violent content and sexual material.

The rhythm of the film is even and smooth, with crumbs of information thrown out to us as we try to understand why Ani behaves the way she does, or why she's grappling with telling her story. The overall theme is shame, guilt, fear, and wanting acceptance. The movie touches on serious topics that may be controversial for some, without digging into the topic itself. The costumes were perfect for every scene, especially when you compare the clothing with different segments of her life and age. This movie relied heavily on clothes to help aid the storytelling, as opposed to colors, lighting, or scenery. The overall message the movie sends is that some things are more complex than it seems, trauma cannot be buried with gold, and hiding behind acceptance and approval will cause you suffering, no matter how much you have, or how successful you are. In short, be authentically you, accept your flaws, heal, and have the courage to not be perfect for everyone.

The characters are all likeable, even the villains (for lack of better words). It shows how great people can do awful things, and it shows a realistic version of how nuanced humans can be. I fear some people may not be able to truly understand that, because the movie doesn't explicitly explain this or give backgrounds for everyone.

The movie was the best length for the story it needed to tell. At the same time, people who don't observe others much and haven't experienced any trauma by people close to them, may need a miniseries that digs into the relationships more. I didn't read the book, but I have enough experience to understand her relationship with her mother, but I doubt everyone will. At the same time, this movie would suffer from being too long and too slow if those details are added in.

In all, the movie makes an impact and tells a story that needs to be told. None of the characters strike any strong emotions. We see imperfect people who are likeable and unlikable doing their day-to-day activities as any human being does. I think that gives the audience the choice to decide how they feel.

I'm artificially increasing my rating, since some people rated the film unfairly due to their bias. I have not seen the original so I can't speak on it, but I will see it one day.

Jacob's ladder (2019) is a trippy psychological thriller. Because I am a huge fan of psychological thrillers and I do tend to like trippy, weird, moody movies; this one was right up my lane. If you're not into strange films where you don't really understand what's going on, then don't watch it.

The movie is similar to a mixture of several films: Soul Survivors (2001), Carnival of Souls (1962), Animas (2020), and I'm Thinking of Ending Things (2020). It has the same confusion and feeling of despair like (Mother). If you haven't watched any of these films, this might not be your genre.

Summary: Jacob Singer is vet and surgeon that is dealing with some demons that escalate when his brother dies in combat. When he does find his brother alive, his world starts to deteriorate rapidly. Are these things truly happening? Watch the movie to find out.

The film is fast-paced, moody, with dark color imagery. The acting was great and the actors were perfect for their roles. I love movies that keep you on your toes, but as a person who has watched several psychological thrillers for well over 20 years, it's very easy to figure the film out. This isn't some high production well-made film such as A Beautiful Mind but it's still worth a watch.

If you have watched Animas, you will understand the craziness going on in the film. Films like this one, Animas, and Mother try to give you the surreal experience, the dread, and fear of what the main character is experiencing. They are off center and we are put off center so we can feel as confused as they do. At the same time, if you pay attention to details, you will get a hint of what's going on. I'm guessing, the makers want you to experience the revelations the same time the main character does.

Movies that have us grounded where there is some weirdness and confusion going on but, we're not completely caught off guard; generally, are well liked and do better with the audience, such as, "I am thinking of ending things". However, Michael Ealy did a magnificent job grounding us to the scene.

If you're into psychological thrillers that are trippy and artsy with some added horror then you'll like this film. The development of the story is also for a unique taste and generally aren't well liked...most of the time. On rare occasions really strange, off kilter movies will be a hit, like "Mother". Those who understand it, love it.

If you hated "Mother", you'll hate this film. If you need things spelled out for you, if your biased, prejudiced, or grumpy, you'll hate this film. If not, then you like, maybe even love this film.

Ultimately, a great watch, but isn't memorable. The focus is mostly on the horror and the disorientation. I felt the relationships needed a little more exploring. However, considering the entire structure and the possible objectives, I understand why they edited the movie the way they did.

A School for Good and Evil is an action, comedy, drama, with some fantasy thrown in. It is similar to movies such as The fantastic Beasts and Harry Potter. Except not on the same level, and this movie tried to be a comedy, which made it campy. It's difficult putting together several different genres that bring different moods, so I'll give the writer credit for trying. The film is pg-13, so keep in mind this is for a young audience. It is about friendship, love, finding yourself, and acceptance. It's a fun show that is easy to watch with flamboyant costumes, bright scenes, and histrionic behavior. The film has heavy hitters such as Lawrence Fishburne, Charlize Theron, Kerry Washington, and Michelle Yeoh.

Agatha (Sofia Wylie) and Sophie (Sophia Anne Caruso) are friends that find themselves in the school for good and evil. They both feel there have been a mistake and try their best to have it corrected. Throughout their time at the school, they go through their own transformation.

The film, while 2hr and 10 minutes, feels rushed. It's possible it would've been better as a miniseries. Agatha did a great job, but magically she didn't do much and seemed useless. Sophia Anne Caruso was great sometimes and awkward the others. She was a poor casting choice because she wasn't consistent with her acting abilities. Her character was also inconsistent. Sophie's emotions were shallow and volatile. One moment she is happy, another angry, another nostalgic, and then angry again. It was strange how rapidly she spiraled, it wasn't organic, and seemed forced. It was also painfully obvious Sophia Caruso didn't feel comfortable trying to look or be sexy.

The character development was thin, and it's hard to understand how quickly some of the feelings develop. The positive side is, it's a different take on fairy tales, which I love. I'm a large fan of the older, more original fairy tales. I love that they mentioned Hercules as a fairy tale, I listened to his story, a week ago. The most original Hercules is a tragic tale far removed from the popular renditions. Getting back to the subject, the overall film is entertaining and easy to watch. Lower your expectations, recognize it's a kid movie with poor character development, and don't expect Harry Potter level writing, and you'll enjoy the film.

A quiet place is a post-apocalyptic movie that follows the Abbott family trying to survive. The acting was great, the scenery was nice, the creatures were creepy, and the movie is engaging. The downfall? One, the conflict between the father and daughter was juvenile and ridiculous at best; it also seemed stupid considering the dire circumstances they're in. Second, the premise is absurd. Ultimately, the movie is not for an analytical mind. If you're a thinker, you will have more questions than answers. Another issue is the characters make a few terrible decisions that cause dire consequences. Since, the movie is illogical with many flaws, it can be frustrating to watch. At the same time, if it were logical then the movie would last 30 minutes or less. Unless, the writers had it where it was known that the Abbotts are trying to survive, while the military is combatting the creatures. Overall the movie was well done despite the flaws and it can be easily overlooked if you go in knowing that it's nonsensical. The intensity, the superb acting, and grand production can overshadow some flaws but for me, I was annoyed from the first 5 minutes of the movie and that scene irritated me throughout and after I finished watching it. If you can easily be engrossed in a film despite horrible decisions by the characters, then you'll love this film. If not, then pass.

All the negative reviews are correct. Of course, reviews are subjective and based on your tolerances. My mom can watch a 4 out of 10 rated action movie and love it (if it has a ton of action)--I cannot. Everything needs to come together, the script, the acting, the cinematography, pacing, and the scenery. One of my biggest pet peeves is when the characters seem like complete idiots. Ava is beyond stupid. She is also not consistently written. She's a quadriplegic that grew up in a convent most of her life, with no friends, yet, she comes across as someone who was out in the world. Not only that, but she is also, as the nuns define her, ungrateful, selfish, and self-absorbed. I'd like to add she is immature, incredibly annoying, and it's hard to root for a character who you wish would die already. Whoever wrote her dialogue needs an award for creating the second most annoying person (Nobody beats Dexter's sister)

The reality is, if you have low expectations and can tolerate stupid dialogue, you will like the show. The story is slow, the acting is decent, the colors are great, the costumes/clothes are so so, the action is little but picks up in episode 4, the drama and politics is high, the stereotypes are high, dialogue is mostly exposition dump, and the scenery is beautiful. The show is easy to watch, but can be boring and intolerable when you hear Ava's inner dialogue. Generally, I watch three episodes and bail, but in this instance I watched more to see if the show gets better. So many reviews said it picked up in the fourth or fifth episode, so I wanted to see if that was true. While, there is an increase of action in these two episodes, it slows down again. The positive side is the second season is better than the first season.

The show is bad, but not so bad that you can't watch it. I think it would be a great show for teenagers. However, the language at times are for adults. It's possible that I dislike it because I'm not the target audience. Also, I try not to be picky, but it is weird for them to be in Spain and everyone speaks English very well. I was in Spain for a month and most people do not know any English. The few that may know some, speak with a thick accent. I know it's an American show, but it's not realistic in that sense. If that's intolerable to you, then skip it.

Action

If you love a lot of action and your favorite movies include Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jason Statham, Luke Goss, Michael Jai White, and anything Batman or Superman then this show is not for you. The action scenes are great but few.

Adventure

This movie has some adventure. It is similar to supernatural where the men are on the road fighting supernatural beings, there is religion, but it isn't thrown in your face and shoved down your throat. Also, the nuns aren't all sweet angels, pious, or virtuous. It is also like Wu Assassins where the chosen is unprepared and doesn't believe the path chosen for him. Unlike Wu Assassins, there is no guide, and the action scenes are much shorter and fewer in between.

Woke culture

If you cannot stand female empowerment, transgender, homosexuality, diverse cultures and skin tones, then skip. I also suggest you just not watch TV anymore.

Complexity

If you're into complex thinking shows or more detailed shows such as Game of Thrones, Westworld, or Lost, this isn't it.

Fantasy Drama

The series is like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Legacies, Shadow and Bone, His Dark Materials, The Wheel of Time, and the Winx Saga. It's rated TV-MA for mature audiences (17+), while it is for young adults, the show would be more appealing to young teenagers. The drama is definitely the stereotypical teen or immature child type of drama. Most of the characters are serious, but the main character is like a fish out of water, making a joke about everything, cheesy, and jovial when she should be serious. She's also not funny and talks too much. In other words, the show teeters between serious and dark adult theme, and teenage drama. Some fantasy exists, but not much.

Growth and maturity

The character grows and matures incredible slow. She is a slow learner, daft, weak, painfully juvenile, useless, and at times emotional. Since she is also self-centered, she takes a while to get on track.

Acting

The acting was good for everyone, but no wow factor. The main actor (Alba) is boring and doesn't bring depth to the character. I think with more acting lessons, better dialogue, maybe a different role, she can do well. She's also an average looking girl next door, so physically she fits the role well.

Overall, the show is watchable despite the banal dialogue and terribly written protagonist. It's a drama series with a hint of action and fantasy. I would love for this series to be rewritten and taken seriously. It also needs to either be for teenagers or adults, not riding in between. Generally shows like this don't have more than two seasons. I'll be shocked if it's renewed for a third season, but sometimes Netflix surprises me. I think Danielle Rose Russell or Katherine Langford would be better in the role, however, they aren't fluent in Spanish, and they are prettier than the average girl next door. While Spanish isn't spoken much, it's cringy to hear the non-Spanish speakers trying to speak. Sister Beatrice was my favorite character, if she was the main focus, I would watch another season but not if Ava is the main character, I hate her character.

Inheritance is a thriller written by Matthew Kennedy and directed by Vaughn Stein. The movie is ludicrous, but not as bad as the critics make it seem. The film has great actors that did their part, decent cinematography, nice settings, and good directions. However, you can have all the movie formulas and still fail due to a terrible script. If you ignore the nonsensical actions of Lauren Monroe (Lilly Collins) then you'll like the movie. Will you love it? No...unless you have low standards for films. Why? Because the motivations of Morgan Warner (Simon Pegg) are unclear and there are a couple plot holes at the end. Plus, Lauren Monroe is a poorly written character.

Since, we cannot ignore the major flaws in the script, the entire film falls apart once we see the anagnorisis that Lauren has. Lauren is a 30 y/o DA whose skin seeps confidence while she looms over reporters attacking her with questions like arrows. Only swaying in her f you stilettos when she hears grave news about her father. Lilly Collin is 31 but looks 20 making this DA seems younger than she is. However, some of us look younger than we are, so it's not a dealbreaker. Morgan Warner played by Simon Peggs is an enigmatic character missing from a Tim Burton film. He is shrouded in mystery and barely fleshed out in the end.

Lauren and Morgan have a great dynamic on-screen. Unfortunately, they're one dimensional characters. Lauren is the most fleshed out, but not enough for us to empathize with her. We can't help but say, why...why did you do that, or why didn't you do that? Even though her motivation was provided --She wants to go against her father to assuage her guilt of being brought up entitled and rich, but she also craves the approval of her father-- it still didn't make sense.

I get it, she needs to be accepted for who she is by her father, while also proving that she can be successful without slipping into the same depravity he has. However, he's dead now, get over it. The reasoning is weak, cliché, and annoying to see. She is the epitome of a conflicted woman who is supposed to be successful but in reality, she's barely holding it together behind closed doors. And no one wants to root for a character that makes worse decisions than they do. She tries to balance her morality and loyalty to her family (Mom, father, etc.). Yet, she abandons the life she created with her husband and child. And for what? For a father who sucks?

If you look at it in a power dynamic aspect focused on male and females. Then it shows that women despite being seemingly successful are pushed forward by powerful and successful men, who allow them the space if they do their bidding. By going against the man, you get a terrible inheritance. Even if you go along with what the man does, you may still be punished, lied to, or discarded. It's as if the writer is saying you can't ride the lines of morality and win, but being moral has consequences as well. In other words, eat or be eaten, or just no man...ever.

In all, the movie is watchable, but will annoy you if you hate seeing plots being moved along by terrible decision-making. However, if you think about the possible overall message, it may entertain you a smidgen.

Iko Uwais was a poor choice as Kai Lim. While he is a great martial artist, his acting skills are for the birds. It's amazing how everyone else is a great actor but him...and he is the lead?! I take it back, not everyone is great, but most of them are. I blame the director.

Wu Assassins is an action series that's easy to get up and walk away from. No episode will leave you on the edge of your seat. At the same time, it is entertaining if you're bored. The dialogue is slow, boring, and weak. The actors are all attractive, except Iko Uwais. The music is terrible at times, but satisfactory at other times. The sound effects are entirely too loud, jarring, and aggravating. This is an action film, not horror. Whoever did the sound/music was clearly someone's kid, spouse or friend because they weren't qualified for the job.

The action parts are long, and would be great, if it made sense. How does a man with the power of 1000 monks take several minutes and several hits to take down random unskilled fighters in a diner? It's farfetched and nonsensical. Plus, we don't need a fight in every scene.

The show would've been better with a superior lead, better writing, and better music. Whoever thought it was a good idea to have a long fight scene for a "superhero" fighting an average joe, just for entertainment purposes, is an imbecile. To add, the blatant racism is absurd and distasteful. Clearly, someone has never experienced true microaggressions or racism to know that some of the scenes would never happen. Do better.

Overall, the show had poor character development, a poor script, decent cinematography, great action, subpar acting, a terrible soundtrack, and a lack of consistency. My favorite characters were Uncle six, Christine Gavin, and Zan Hui. You know a show needs triple bypass surgery when you're rooting for the bad guy. With great writers and directors, this show can be phenomenal. I saw they have a sequel movie called Fistful of Vengeance. It has an outstanding rating of 4.4 out of 10. I had no interest in watching it before I saw the rating. I'm just surprised they didn't do the story any justice the second time around. Ultimately, the show is just a way to showcase action.

Would I recommend Wu Assassins?

It depends. For a serious watch...no. It's not a full production 'Game of Thrones' type show; if that's the preferred choice. For a quick, I want some action and bored watch...yes. Despite its flaws, it's still watchable if you recognize it is a C or D type show.

Pros

Fight scenes (some) Great concept Some actors Easy to watch Has potential

Cons

Main actor Music Sound effects Racist tropes Writers Directors Predictable Lackluster.

Ghost in a Shell is based on a Japanese anime show of the same name. Since I didn't watch it, I don't have any disappointment about how it compares. The futuristic world created is mesmerizing and unforgettable. The visuals are impressive despite me watching it in 2022. The CGI appears seamless, and it's obvious they wanted to create a breathtaking landscape, so we can be immersed in this future world. The action is great most of the time, the pacing is good until the end, and the music score is satisfactory. The movie seems unfinished because it builds us up and then drops us, leaving a feeling of emptiness.

The staff spent so much time on the visuals that the story suffered. Since it's an action film, I have lower expectations than I would a drama but still...can we get more depth? The villain didn't have much of a backstory and their confrontation was lackluster. The character development was lacking, causing a lack of connection, or care about what happens to all the people in the story. Overall, it's entertaining. If you want an action film that's simple, visually tantalizing, and requires zero thought processing, this is it. This is perfect for when you want to watch something and can't decide what to choose, and you're not feeling nit-picky or hypercritical. It's not a masterpiece, and you won't leave questioning humanity.

Director: Chung-Hyun Lee Writers: Sergio Casci(based on an original screenplay by)Chung-Hyun Lee

I'm amazed when poorly written films get high ratings simply because it is entertaining, different, somewhat original, and there's nothing better. The story starts off slow, and the pace picks up as the movie progresses. Two women who live in two different time-frames are connected via telephone. This is different from time travel movies because one isn't traveling back, but she has the power to alter the past by providing information from the future.

Like many other movies about changing the past, we all know that consequences exist, and to leave the past as is. Seo-Yun learns the hard way why the past should be left alone. The writers are creative, and this film is a great spin on time alteration. The cinematography is nice, the music fits, the actors are great, and the house is perfect. The scenes are mostly limited to the house, which I liked because we can see the transformation easily with the house.

Unfortunately, the script has too many plot holes. Additionally, I hate films where the plot develops from the protagonists sabotaging themselves; it's subpar writing at best. The biggest plot hole is after the credits. The sub credit scene is incoherent and nonsensical, the film is better without it. The change in the time paradox is experienced physically only, Seo-Yun's memory never changes to include the new past, which goes against time change as well. Young-sook lacked character development, it would've been nice to know what happened to her father and biological mother.

If you can ignore plot holes, stupid characters, and can tolerate a sluggish start, then you'll enjoy this film. For me, logic can't be completely thrown out the window. My biggest disappointment is this could've been a phenomenal film if logic wasn't sacrificed for entertainment. Great concept, great directing, poor execution, and lazy writing. Out of ten, this film is a four at best but seems like an eight because there's no real competition. In a pool of twos, of course it shines.

The film overall is probably a 4-5 star film, but since I had to increase the speed and skip a couple spots to get through, it gets 1 star. The premise is interested and the perception versus reality concept is done beautifully. The bird is my favorite part. I love how they change certain scenery or objects to show what Ellen sees and later what is really there.

If only it was more believable. First, what was set up or created seemed like a very expensive endeavor. Is Clayton a trust fund baby? Some information is revealed, but whether the information is trustworthy is not established. Not enough information is given for the audience to truly know what can be trusted, given that we are getting information from two unreliable sources.

Another character's (Lana) presence also doesn't fit. Why would she be there and be involved in it? The major plot holes are the communications she had. She called her friend several times, but never got a call back. And, she doesn't know her brother's voice? More plot wholes exist, along with the poor pacing, and overly slow moments, the whole story is unfathomable.

Overall, this film is watchable if you're bored. It had a great storyline with a poor execution. The colors and music worked well. The close-ups were fitting and the misperceptions nice. If you can handle slow burns, and never stress about plot holes, then this film is for you.

Cursed is a reinvention of the King Arthur story. It is based on the illustrated young adult (YA) books, written by Tom Wheeler. I have watched several renditions of King Arthur, because I am a fan of the story; this one is the worst. This creation is from the viewpoint of Nimue (Lady of the Lake). Since it is a YA novel it is meant to appeal to the younger audience, and it fits.

Merlin, Arthur, and Nimue make unintelligent choices so many times, I was wondering why the writers couldn't figure out a better way to move the plot. With such poor choices and lack of emotional depth, no connection with the main characters are established. The core personalities are gone. Merlin the wise wizard is a drunk and doesn't heed valuable warnings; Arthur a thief and liar. Why change the characters so much away from their core? This could still work if the entire story was compelling, but it's boring.

In the series Merlin (2008-2012), King Arthur was young and being mentored, so it made sense that he was naïve, but he wasn't a miscreant. In this series, the main characters are easy to hate, daft, and self-absorbed. The pacing is low, so I watched it on 1.25x. The music was grating at times and the action was few and boring, except when the weeping monk arrived. The transition was artistic but a time waster. Even though the main focus is on Nimue, the weeping monk, and Merlin were far more interesting. The Arthur legend is intertwined with magic, and some adaptations make it more magical, and others less. Examples are: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) less magic and more brawn, The Mist of Avalon, is more magic. Regardless, they are creative and well written. This series had little magic in the beginning and more magic appeared towards the end. The characters are so different, it made more sense to create a new story. It would've been better than bastardizing this tale. It seems as if the author wanted to create a new fantasy but used these characters because he lacks the ability to create a full world with people that had unique backstories. The relationships or how people know each other and are related are different as well, I won't mention it for fear of revealing spoilers.

While the story isn't a complete tragedy and can be mildly interesting, there were too many slow spots. This interpretation is definitely better for tweens or teenagers who have low expectations for Arthur. However, I doubt the teens of today have the attention span to finish the series. I was going to stop after watching two episodes but continued because it seems unfair to rate it without seeing if the show redeems itself. The last two episodes were better. I won't be watching the next season if they create it.

As a warning, since some people are sensitive about diversity in shows or movies with well-known characters, expect the same for this series. Skip if you can't handle Arthur being mixed, LGBTQ characters, or a female centered show.

Director and Writer: Tony Elliott Rating: TV-MA

"Arq" is a time loop movie with characters that make terrible decisions repetitively. It is fast-paced, the music helps with the suspense, and the acting was done well. None of the characters are likeable, and it's hard to care for the main characters because for seemingly intelligent people, they make poor decisions. It's annoying to see people know their life is in danger but continue to make the wrong decisions because they are selfish or idealistic. The plot holes don't help.

If you play video games, you will get the same feeling watching this film, as you do every time you get far in a level, and you die and have to start over. It evokes the same irritation, except in this film, there is no conclusion.

I would never recommend this film solely because of the story. Everything else was good. The minimal cast, the colors and lighting fitting for the dystopian future, and the set worked perfectly. Plus, the suspense and feeling of urgency was woven well. If you don't get annoyed by unfinished conclusions, or characters that make stupid decisions, then you may enjoy this film.

I gave it three stars instead of one because with a better script, this film would've been awesome.

Note: while the film is rated TV-MA, there's no nudity or sex. It has strong language and violence such as shootings but nothing excessive.

Director: Julia Hart American Superhero Drama Screenplay by: Hart and Jordan Horowitz

Slow moving drama filled with more questions than answers. Ruth (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) is on the run after her supernatural power is discovered. Despite not knowing why they're chasing her and who they are; (as an X-men lover) I know it's for nefarious reason's. Side note: only humans feel entitled to hold others captive for research, experiments, or slavery.

As Ruth journeys back to her home, the pacing and suspense is high. The danger is imminent and the fear prominent. Then the film slows down dramatically. Eventually picking back up, only to leave us unfulfilled. Not enough character development was done, but enough is known to be partially invested. The reason behind the chase is not fully answered, their powers potential is unknown, and the significance of color is not explored.

The great news is, the series is in development and would be a better fit for this story. A one-hour forty-minute time slot isn't enough to fill in the gaps. The acting was great (hats off to Lorraine Toussaint). The scenery colors fit the dry atmosphere and mood. Some of the music was fitting and some terrible. The timeframe I couldn't place because the clothes weren't a particular fashion. Since, they used landline phones, my guess is late 90s, early 2000s.

Overall, it's a decent drama that lags at times and lacks explanations. The story isn't finished. I'm not sure if they intentionally left out details because they knew they were creating a series or not, but that's what hurt the film.

R rated Director: Jeymes Samuel Writers: Jeymes Samuel ad Boaz Yakin

Exceedingly intense, violent joyride in the wild west. Westerns aren't my cup of tea and this one strays away from the westerns many of us grew up with because of the intense violence with hip hop and reggae playing in the background. Cowboys were mostly black Americans and Mexicans because the labor was long and brutal. However, films rarely depict them and cowboys are glamorized because no one wants to watch people brutally working in the sun all day...how non-exciting.

The characters are based on real people, but the stories are fiction. The colors are impressive, the scripts well written, the plot exciting, the actors phenomenal, the cinematography impressive, the conclusion my favorite, and the costumes perfect. The music wasn't my cup of tea, it seems too loud and abrasive at times. I love reggae, but it didn't fit. The film reminded me of a Quentin Tarantino film; no, I'm not a fan. If you like Tarantino films, violence, and Westerns, you will love this film.

This stylish western could've been an exceptional film if it seemed more serious than campy. It reminds me of a play as opposed to a serious movie. You can enjoy the story, but it doesn't say award-winning. It's entertaining but not a masterpiece. I don't recommend it for anyone with a sensitive stomach or anyone expecting a traditional western.

Spider-Man: No Way Home, 2021 PG-13 2h 28m Director: John Watts

Great film that is worth watching. The pacing, music, and scenery were perfect. The cinematography and script were on point. The timing didn't seem long. The action should've been increased. Without giving out any spoilers, the action was marginally exciting considering all involved. Despite the flaws, this film is a nod to Spider-Man fans. It's crazy because I'm not a Spider-Man fan, but I've watched all of them because something is clearly wrong with me.

Tom Holland was my least favorite Spider-Man because he is the most authentic. I know, who actually dislikes Spider-Man? Yep, me. I used to watch the cartoons, waiting for X-Men to come one. I thought Peter Parker was such an annoying teenager, and I was 12. So far, Holland is spot on for the Peter I remembered. The positive side: in the last film he actually isn't as annoying, he's matured some, and it's hard not to love him.

The jokes are funny, the supporting characters are all fantastic, except the villains. They just lacked some pizzazz. My guess is, it's difficult showcasing so many villains in one movie. Plus, this trilogy is a more lighthearted Spider-Man like the comics. Despite that, they did an admirable job pulling it all together. While Tobey Maguire will always remain my favorite Spider-Man, No Way Home tops Spider-Man 3.

My ranking from most liked to least liked.

Spider-man 1 Spider-man: Into the Spider-Verse Spider-man 2 Spider-man: No Way Home Spider-man: Far From Home Spider-man 3 The Amazing Spider-man The Amazing Spider-man 2 Spider-man: Homecoming

I feel bad about The Amazing Spider-man ranking because I like Andrew Garfield and despite the second one upsetting me, I was going to watch the third one. Sony should redeem themselves. I vote Sophie Turner as Mary Jane.

Short story: It's abysmal Pacing: slow Actors: some good, some so so, one I wanted to shoot myself.

Script: disappointing and subpar My brother and sister-in-law hated it. I disliked it, but the nostalgia increased my score.

Long story

I was a huge Resident Evil fan, so when my brother invited me to watch it, I said yes. I had no idea a new one came out and didn't know what to expect since I didn't see the trailer. Quick background, I hadn't played Resident Evil since the 5th one came out in 2009. Since I played 1, 3, and 4, my first thought was, the film had the video game vibe. It isn't like the previous films with Milla Jovivich, which I loved. And yes, I enjoyed the entire installment, despite being disappointed by the last one (Resident Evil The Final Chapter).

Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City (2021) was more of a horror than action. They had some jump scare and a lot of dark lighting. The darkness was done well and increased the mystery when the characters were fending off the zombies. The zombie transformation I preferred because it's believable. Too bad that doesn't save the film. It felt disjointed, the pacing was slow, the dialogue was cheesy or terrible at times, some overacted, and the characters are daft.

It's difficult watching a film where everyone but one person seems like a complete idiot. If zombies are eating a friend, what do you do? If I had a gun, I'd shoot. These trained elite squad will watch and wait their turn. No fighter like Alice (Milla) exist, so they seem helpless most of the time. As a fan of The Umbrella Academy, I'm disappointed in Tom Hopper as Albert Wesker. He doesn't embody the Wesker I know from the video game. Actually, I felt only Claire and Chris Redfield seemed true to character. I forgot...William Birkin is always a perfect villain.

The ending is set-up for a sequel. They can redeem themselves with a better movie if they cut dead air, increase the pace, improve the dialogue, change the cast for everyone except Claire and Chris Redfield, add more action, and write the characters to make better decisions. I won't be rushing to see the sequel though. Some people left before the film finished...I don't blame them. Generally, I go easy on horror or action films, but I'm disappointed. I'd pay to unsee this movie.