Reviews

I caught this film by chance after seeing a trailer for it. It was setup as a home invasion by little green men story. I really enjoyed that aspect of the movie; the creature design was good, the effects weren't overblown with CGI, and I liked Kaitlyn Dever's tragic character Brynn. It was a limited dialogue film with 8 words spoken during its entirety, which we also saw from 'A Quiet Place'. Some people didn't care for that, but a good story doesn't really need anyone to talk to tell the tale. 'A Quiet Place' is a perfect example of that. I wouldn't rate or compare it to AQP, as (other than the alien invasion plot) the similarities are far apart. Brynn is a bit of a mystery as we begin. She's seems friendly with some mild anxiety. She lives alone in a secluded location. When she goes to town we see that no one liked Brynn - in fact everyone seems to loathe her but we don't know why right away. In smaller frames we learn she's lost her mother and had a friend named Maude who died when she was 12 years old. The connections to the townfolk and whatever happened to Maude are left to decipher in short instances and I genuinely wish Writer/Director Brian Duffield had left it that way.

This has a fair amount of scares to it, but not for the hardcore horror lovers. It's pretty mild. No jump scares, but a great deal of visual treats to entertain you. The ending was the low point (as it is with some horror movies). I didn't appreciate a happy ending, and I would definitely left the reason for Maude's death unknown. The remaining 10 minutes was tame to say the least. I found so much of Brynn's final confrontation with the intelligent creatures unnecessary. It was a melodramatic look into her memories to show what happened to Maude and explain Brynn's life of guilt. I didn't mid the memory trip the aliens took with her, bu8t I think it exposed too much. I like to be left in mystery and questioning details about the plot device. It definitely would have been a film to talk about over & over again if only it had left some things unanswered. The happy ending can be seen as both creepy and maybe frightening to some, but I prefer keeping certain things without definitive conclusions. 'No One Will Save You' had a great deal of potential, it was a good narrative, but I think the ending ruined something that could have been a classic.

I* gave this show a chance because of Misha Collins. I loved him in Supernatural. I think he's a genuinely nice person and I really wanted to see him acting again. Unfortunately The CW has talentless nitwits running the show. Hey let's make a show where the most interesting character is dead from the beginning. Let's focus on disposable dull characters that no one has ever heard of. Let's make-up a new character and just say Batman adopted him... Dick Grayson who? Jason Todd who? Damien Wayne who? There's literally 6 or 7 existing characters who played Robin, but I think fans will simply adore our lifeless Turner Hayes character. You know what guys,m we should make this really "dark". You mean like spooky or noir-like? No, just use dark backgrounds & clothes, it'll be a hoot. I can not watch one more of these stupid CW shows targeting young adults. It's as if the CW thinks young adults are absolutely dumb, because the writing form this series is laughable. Gotham City finally learns who Batman is and yet no one cares. The police certainly don't care, they don't even bother investigating this further. Bruce Wayne was a most wanted vigilante in Gotham for years and yet GCPD Detectives go "Oh he was Batman? Okay." and grab another coffee. Seriously? They apprehend the suspects for the murder of Bruce Wayne, throw them all in a cell together and call it an night. What world do these writers live in? They generated a combination of bland dialogue and lifeless characterizations. I'm calling it. This is the last DC series we will ever see on the CW ever again. They ruin everything they touch.

It's a long wait to get to a conclusion that could have been told in two sentences. This would have made a wonderful short film as a drama, but calling this horror was the real let down. I'm going to spoil it for you the readers so stop now if you don't want to know the ending. Aisha is an emigrant from Senegal working in the US as a babysitter to an upper class family. She sends money home to the caretakers of her child Lamine, who will soon come to America and be with his mother. The family consisting of Amy Adam and their young daughter Rose have some internal issues that both cause financial trouble to Aisha and leave a lot of unanswered questions to the viewer. I think the aspect was to make the audience weigh the issues between this wealthy New York couple against the hardships of their nanny. Stress is a large part of Aisha's troubles. We're shown her fears & anxieties through dreams and hallucinations. It fuses the African folklore of the water spirit Mami Wata and the mischief-maker Anansi the Spider. Literally the only elements of horror that was available. The audience is left to understand that "something" is very wrong, and I assumed correctly what it was about halfway through the film. While beautifully framed and well acted by all cast members. The result was empty. It felt unfinished and abruptly cut from the storytelling. Aisha learns as she waits at the airport for Lamine, that her son is gone. The care-provider comes to the US without Aisha's son. There were no subtitles for me to understand the circumstances in the conversation that took place, but Anna Diop played her emotions quite effortlessly. Aisha's son is dead. Aisha was being haunted by a child she did not know was deceased. The slow build-up and mystery of the circumstances around Aisha are finalized in the last few moments of the movie and it simply wasn't worth the wait. We conclude in these last few minutes of the movie that Aisha attempts to take her own life, is rescued, and we learn she is pregnant with the child of her new lover played by Sinqua Walls. It's the fastest "happy ending" I've ever seen.

The closing chapter on a decades long horror franchise. It ends with a fizzle. I don't like what David Gordon Green has done to 'Halloween'. Green took our boogeyman and removed everything great about the character; the mystique, the surprises, and the fright. He directed his 'Halloween' trilogy into a completely neutered killer. I had several more thoughts when I wrote my reviews on the other two movies, and here I am laughing and somewhat in disbelief at the newest release. Green has finished a tale through a great lack of intelligence, common sense, and basic emotional caring for movie making. We didn't expect Shakespeare, we didn't expect Jane Austen, and we didn't expect anything Orwellian. But we deserved something cohesive and we deserved (in the very least) something fun to watch.

'Halloween Ends' began as a basic story about survivor's grief. It is 4 years later as Laurie Strode and her granddaughter Allyson live together in a new home, still in the same town, but somehow moving on from the trauma of the prior films. Laurie is writing her life story, a memoir, and finding peace although the rest of the Haddonfield community continually blames them for killings perpetrated by Michael Myers. Laurie seems to be in a really good place after losing her daughter and several friends, even though she spent the previous 40 years too afraid to venture outside. Yes, the angry anxiety-ridden woman of the last two films has taking these past 4 years to reflect, work on herself, and heal. The previous 40 years of trauma Laurie lived with is finally at rest... somehow, ever since that same murderer killed her only daughter.

'Halloween Ends' began suspiciously, as if, it would continue onward. In 2019 a new babysitter named Corey (played by Rohan Campbell) watches a bratty rich kid, accidentally kills that kid, and it's how the story kicks off. I have no ideas who Corey is, or the family he's sitting for, but here we are. The same night Michael Myers went on his newest killing spree, we're told a horrific event occurred just down the road, and then we skip to 4 years later. "What was that?" I asked myself. Corey enters the story as the typical "he's a good kid" plot, who is bullied by his peers and most of the town. With the citizens of Haddonfield believing Michael Myers is dead, they've now turned their attention to poor Corey, who has become their new monster.

Corey gets Laurie approval to date Allyson. Allyson falls in love, and then Corey meets Michael Myers - who has been hiding out in the sewer since we last saw him four years ago. Michael lets Corey live for some reason, but somehow Myers magically passes his evil to the bullied boy, through the power of eye contact. It was dumb. Wimpy Corey then goes about murdering those who have wronged him, including his tormentors, his overbearing mother, and incredibly loving & thoughtful father. Yeah, it was all over the place. So Laurie Strode who introduced Corey to her granddaughter Allyson, notices something different in the way Corey hides behind bushes and suddenly appears behind her. She's afraid for Allyson who simply can't see that Corey has the same stare as Michael Myers. Corey and Allyson are ready to leave Haddonfield forever, but Corey has to secretly kill a radio station DJ and Allyson's grandmother before they can do that.

Laurie watched Allyson leave and is depressed, so she decides to commit suicide with a handgun. Sure. Laurie calls the police and let's them know. We see Corey is in Laurie's house wearing the famous mask as Laurie walks behind a door with the gun to her head and pulls the trigger off screen. Surprise. Laurie knew Corey was in the house the whole time and tricks him just so she can shoot him as he walks into the same room. Corey falls off the balcony in the same way that kid he babysat did. Laurie taunts the dying Corey who then plunges a knife in his own neck. My head really hurts from all of this. Allyson comes home just in time to see Corey dead with her grandmother holding the knife, so she runs off again. So we're all wondering were is Michael Myers? Oh, there he is. Michael comes in and takes his mask back. Corey, who is somehow still alive grabs Michael's arm. Michael breaks Corey's neck as Laurie hides in another room. The police call Allyson and ASK HER ABOUT A STRANGE CALL THEY GOT ABOUT LAURIE GOING TO KILL HERSELF. Allyson returns immediately to forgive her grandmother. Grandma is battling Michael in the kitchen and beats him down with her grandmother strength. Allyson rushes in just in time to break Michael's arm. The police arrive later. They tie Michael to the roof of Allyson's car and parade him through town. The citizens of Haddonfield follow the procession to the junkyard where Corey worked with his very loving and kind father. Michael's body is dumped into a giant metal shredder. The end.

I walked away from this movie feeling dumber for having watched it. I came to write a review to warn others to not bother with it, and hopefully save their money. I then noticed that Director David Gordon Green has been granted direction of 'The Exorcist', a much more famous and wonder film than John Carpenter's 'Halloween'. Somebody please prevent this from happening. Do not give this "director" a chance to ruin another of my favorite horror movie. Please.

'Werewolf By Night' is a black & white movie that captures the feel of older wolf man films. It features only the red glow of the mysterious bloodstone artifact in color, which worked effectively. This really played like an old feature film resembling Lon Chaney Jr's, 'The Wolf Man' from 1941. Jack Russell is an incredibly kind person in comparison to the beast living within him, which led the more hardened members of the gathering to out him as "not one of their own". I would have loved to give this movie 10 stars, but it's sole failing was the short length it was told in. Where's the rest of it?

This was fun. I had a great time watching this. I enjoyed this uncomplicated story, because it's been ages since I've been able to watch a film that was simply made to entertain us. No politics, no social commentary, and definitely no character rewriting. I'm not a fan of the 'Werewolf By Night' comic book, but I had to watch just to see Man-Thing in action. I've always loved the look of this character. While it was merely a few moments of the creature hiding and striking from the hedges, I was jumping out of my chair in excitement - They got Man-Thing right... No changes to the appearance, they didn't give him a voice, and although (in my opinion) Man-Thing shouldn't have been used comedically, I really enjoyed the humor. Gael Garcia Bernal, who is probably most famous for portraying a young Che Guevara in 'The Motorcycle Diaries', played the main character Jack Russell.

The revelation in the story, is that our lycanthrope hero arrives at a gathering for hunters in disguise, so he can rescue his friend, the Man-Thing. We can just call him by his given name Ted from here on out. There wasn't a backstory for how Jack & Ted became friends. In the comic books "Ted" doesn't really have a lot of friends, as he lives alone in a swamp. In fact there was very little offered in the identities of all the characters, other than the build of each character as the story played out. I would have loved an added hour and a half so this movie could be told properly.

I have no idea who's idea why it was to shorten it to 52 minute. There wasn't an origin story for Jack, but the basic plot device is that he becomes a (classical) werewolf during a full moon. We know the premise, but a little background would have granted the audience more film to watch. I know I'm not alone in demanding Marvel & Disney create more 'Werewolf By Night' specials. Other than the under one hour time limit, I would say that this is exactly how you writer a story. You dismiss any social messages you want to convey and present movies that are straightforward. This film was a blessing for the Halloween season, and please give us more of this. We need more movies to be plain, are without much decoration or ornamentation. We just want to be entertained.

Clive Barker's Hellraiser (1987) was interesting enough. Visually weird and very effective as a horror flick. Clive Barker was always good a creating oddities, but his 'Hellraiser' ultimately wasn't a masterpiece of a movie. I can still remember seeing the film crew in one of the chase scenes. I remember 'Hellraiser 2' carried the story further, but it still wasn't much of a plot. It relied heavily on the make-up and that did work for at least two of the franchise. His 'Hellraiser' was primarily about sex, sexual fetish, and pleasure from pain. David Bruckner's 'Hellraiser' (2022) was about a billionaire named Voight (played by Goran Visnjic) who wanted an audience with God.

This 'Hellraiser' was visually stunning, I liked the make-ups and effects even though it didn't venture far from the original's look. I liked most of the designs, even though they went with each different incarnation of the famous box, rather than sticking with the "Lament Configuration"... meaning Bruckner went with the themes of 1987's 'Hellraiser' sequels. Bruckner's take was also odd and curious, but it did lack the fright. It was rather tame in comparison to the bloody ooze dripping 1987 version. I can still remember Frank returning from hell by growing like a grotesque weed from his brother's blood drops. I remember the Cenobites being much more disfigured, bloody, and I couldn't take my eyes off them. This version gave us a better look at what was under the leather outfits of the original. David Bruckner also didn't play on the S&M feel and sexual perversions of the first movie.

I wanted to see this film because I am a fan of Jamie Clayton and loved the 'Sense 8' series she was in. For me this was the most important thing about the movie. I wanted to see her as Pinhead, I loved the original Pinhead, but Clayton was under-utilized in this reboot. I can count the minutes she had screen time on my hands. The actual horror was also infinitesimal and it lacked even the basic jump scares. It wasn't anywhere near as bloody and slasher-like as the original was. I wished there were shots of hooks pull flesh, because the 1987 film used skin that looked like rubber. The new version had better character development than the original, it had better sets, and the acting was near the same. What it lacked was the eeriness, the sexual perversion, and it ignored the Cenobites understanding of pleasure through pain. The director worked on making this a story more about love & loss. A sister (Riley) losing her brother (Matt) mysteriously. The brother's boyfriend (Colin) trying to understand what happened, but I thought it didn't focus a lot of the attention on him or his feelings. The missing brother disappeared without a trace and his Colin wasn't granted a scene for him to show grief. Their roommate Nora lacked any emotional depth as well. She was just there, as she was basically background fodder. There was a direct relation to drug abuse that could have been better included. I think this movie may have been considered to be a series before someone changed their mind and edited it down to a film. I can't think of any other reason to not fully employ the remaining cast. The main character Riley stood out very well, but her boyfriend Trevor was dull and uninteresting. Trevor's big twist towards the end of the movie was mild to say the least. The character simply left no impact on me.

I think this movie is fun for what it is, but I can't help but notice it didn't push any boundaries with the plot or the make-up. I remember looking at one of the Cenobites played by Selina Lo, and I was too busy focusing on how hot her body was, instead of being alarmed by her peeled and inordinate skin. Where it lacked in atrociousness I would have hoped for in gruesomeness or monstrosity, but so much was made to reach the final conclusion, that it didn't bother to fill in the journey to it. It rushed itself. It didn't even try to be a slasher film or anything that would gross out the viewer. This honestly felt like one of the poor sequels from the old franchise. It could have been thoroughly original with a whole different take, but it was like the director was playing it safe. I wouldn't watch it again because it couldn't hold my attention.

A 3.5 rating... The one thing that I sat through the entirety of this film was to see the whale again. Monstro was the gigantic man-eating sperm whale, and the fourth and final antagonist of Disney's 1940 animated feature Pinocchio. I remember it very well. That beast was shelved in favor of a thing bearing tentacles. I groaned aloud, but kept my eyes focused for the final outcome; Pinocchio becoming a real boy was the famous ending of many generations of children. Robert Zemeckis denied us even that. The story stops as the characters walk away from the beach. I fear this was purposeful for sake of a sequel, but I can't imagine even Disney overlooking the audience's reaction. This was not joyful or entertaining. Even Tom Hanks seemed dead-eyed in his role, almost robotic in nature. There was no charm there.

I will admit that Disney got all the elements right: The puppet does resemble the old animated Pinocchio, the voices were very close to the original voice actors, and the songs were sang beautifully. But this was a soulless creation. It's a mimicry of an classic movie that was made for everyone. This Pinocchio was built to make money. This is folly of great wealth, it can buy you a near perfect replica, but it can not have the magic or heart of the original. Disney is but a corporation today. It's wonderful beginnings, that spoke to children across the world, are long behind it. The Walt Disney design to create something a child could love is unbearably empty. I am finished with Disney. It will never be what it was before. It's monetary value probably speaks volumes on the world market, but in my heart it is but a faded memory. A memory replaced with product formulas.

This is the worst podcast I've ever listened to. Do you have an older relative who's constantly retelling of stories about their youth? Then you already know what The Sarah Silverman Podcast is like. The main topics of Sarah's rants are: "Women are always right", "Republicans are evil", "Let's pity the minorities", and of course "I'm Jewish". That's it. Every week she repeats the same questions & answers. The thing about these topics is that I don't mind them, but I started watching because I thought she would be funny. Dear God where is the humor? This is... whatever the opposite of funny is... It's depressing sometimes, it's negative all the time, and she pretends to be hearing the voice calls for the first time on camera. Sarah chooses from the calls her staff handpicks for her, and then when the camera rolls, she acts like she didn't chose the question herself. I've listened to these calls for quite a while now, and maybe someone else has noticed this as well, but a lot of the calls are the same voices with different names. It makes me wonder if she fakes the calls. If she can pretend to be hearing these questions for the first time, then what else is she faking? I don't know what she gets from this podcast, but it's dull and so not funny that it made me depressed. What exactly happened to her? I think she's hit her midlife crises, and is desperately trying appease to a younger audience. The problem is that today's young audience doesn't care about anything but what they have to say. Sarah embraces whatever new social craze she finds on TikTok and is not using her own voice. She used to be an opinionated woman with so much passion about the things she believes in. Today she's just a parrot. She's actively apologizing for past jokes and not writing new ones. She's murdered her own career.

I really wished they'd release the entire series instead of making us wait for the next episode. She-Hulk had a pretty broad origin story in the comics. I understand simplifying it for it's length of time, but Jennifer Walters becomes She-Hulk within seconds after a car accident. She's presented as, "She's the Hulk's cousin. She's a lawyer." and that's about. There was no effort in the character development; Tatiana Maslany is an amazing person, but you still don't forgo the character build and expect the audience to just love Tatiana instead of the character. It's 101 basics. I will acknowledge that this is only the first episode, and I'm hoping for something more in later episodes. It presents itself in a sitcom style, which (yes) worked for 'WandaVision', but that was part of the plot. It was not some hokey gimmick. I'd assume that it may have worked if the entire season were released, but today's audience didn't grow up with television sitcoms. I think people want the instant gratification, and lean towards the series that you can watch on your own time. I didn't get very much from the first episode, I needed at least 2 more just to get comfortable.

What is there to say about episode one? I can't really say, because it happens so quickly. It wasn't like a pilot episode or a special before the series. You walk in and know nothing, and you leave feeling empty. There was no substance to this episode. It's easily forgettable. The writing seemed rushed or lazy; instead of giving Jennifer Walters a background, the script simply states that "She's a woman." and you don't need to know anything else. Sorry, but yes we absolutely need to know more. Fear or anger issues that trigger the Hulk? Unnecessary, because she's a woman. Stress on the job might be problematic for a Hulk. Unnecessary, because she's a woman. Evidently being a female means you don't need explain yourself or help others to understand what you're dealing with, because she is a woman and this is just how women are. It bored me to death.

They break the fourth wall in this series which is fun, but it also prevented me from being drawn into the plot. There wasn't much of a plot, because (maybe) there wasn't enough time to hash it all out in one episode. If that's the case, then why did they rush her origin story, her time adjusting to being a Hulk, and going back to work as a lawyer? That's the whole episode and yet, it doesn't feel like I saw a complete story. I'm going to wait around for the special guests. I'm excited to see Charlie Cox return as Daredevil, but don't you imagine for one instant that his return means the same quality of writing as his Netflix series. UHG.

This is the story that revitalizes the Predator franchise. The back-to-basics approach is my favorite decision when it comes to classic film characters, and I hope someone paid really close attention to that idea. This was a lot of fun to watch. I'm a fan of period pieces, especially when done correctly. I liked so much about this film that I'm going to need to talk about what didn't work and get it out of the way...

Amber Midthunder's portrayal of Naru was lovely. I loved almost everything about her and her brother Taabe, played by Dakota Beavers. BUT, the director made Naru way to much like a perfect ninja... LOL... Let me explain. I watched Naru fight the young men of her tribe and beat this young warrior in a hand to hand fight pretty easily. I then watched Naru take on (about) eight grown men with the finesse of a Bruce Lee character. It isn't that she won these fights, it's that she won so easily. Imagine the original Predator, where Arnold Schwarzenegger easily defeats the creature, and that's pretty much what they did with Naru. Without giving too much away, she fought toe to toe with the creature without harm, right after I watched the Predator massacre a wold, a huge grizzly, all the Frenchmen, and the skilled tribe of hunters searching for Naru. That is the lone reason for not giving this film a solid 10 stars.

Great acting, amazing actually considering the young inexperienced cast. This simple yet engaging plot-line did wonders for me. A lot of Hollywood blockbusters take something basic and over-complicate it with unnecessary gimmicks or side stories. Keep it simple, people. It's not that hard. You can look to the stories about Predator from Dark Horse Comics to better understand how and why this movie did so well.

I went into this film with an open mind, because frankly I've liked one movie Jordan Peele has done, and wasn't expecting a good story. What I got from 'Nope' was that there's a broader story to tell here. Beginning with the TV series featuring a chimpanzee named Gordy and the 6 minute "incident" caught on camera. I wasn't sure why it was a focal point to begin with, other than the film itself discusses animal behavior, specifically territoriality. Peele takes liberty with history and facts that might persuade viewers that information about the 'Animal Locomotion' film or the Haywood family are true. The small amusement park called Jupiter's Claim had their own invitational title cared at the end of the movie. Even the in-film television series titled Gordy seems as if it could have been an actual show. Some of the fiction was mixed with non-fiction such as relating the Haywood family with the film work on 'The Scorpion King'. There was also a bit of information about renaming UFOs, UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomena) that is based on fact. If all of these connections came from actual events I would have granted 'Nope' 10 stars, because it was pieced together so well.

Ultimately the movie is about a UFO. It centers the story, but ultimately this is a character driven film. Daniel Kaluuya and Keke Palmer are masterful actors. I would love to see Keke Palmer's character Emerald Haywood turn up in more stories. I'd have to say she carried the film. Daniel Kaluuya's character OJ Haywood was rather quiet and calm throughout the plot, as his sister Emerald over shadowed him in public speaking and representation. I really enjoyed his mannerisms because he genuinely complemented the sister and balanced them as a family dynamic. They behave just like most brothers & sisters I've known. I was sad to see Keith David as their father not get a larger slot in the movie. I've always liked Keith David, and his performance as Otis Haywood Sr. While small was incredibly good. He's such a great actor and I would have liked that the audience see more of him in comparison to the roles he's more famous for.

The story was hindered by the editing. It broke off in chapters to tell more of the background of the character Ricky "Jupe" Park played by Steven Yeun. It was as if the director sought to reuse the character in a separate feature, and utilizes 'Nope' to present that origin story. It's a rather minor role that was underwhelming for the full story. There were hints at a larger story for the Haywood family, with older events presented that simply were not given enough life within this setting. I would like to see more of these same characters because they were the best thing about the movie. I would also have rated this movie higher if it was an era piece, perhaps set in the 1950's. The overall feel was available, it had the ambiance of a western about it, but Peele modernized it with camera equipment, vehicles, and an electric motorcycle. Admittedly if the electric motorcycle was removed from the final result, then 'Nope' would have become timeless and lasting for several years to come.

In regards to viewer response, I think most people will enjoy 'Nope'. It's really good when Peele stays on the characters, and the ending was amazing towards the finale. I just wish there was more of what got held back for the climax. It's definitely worth watching and it'll remain a valuable addition to science fiction. Nice job, Jordan.

The 'Obi-wan Kenobi' the limited series ignores basic canon. The series was created as fan-service, it delivers few memorable instances, and yet no one thought to include a director (or writers) who actually know the original story. The dialogue is terrible. The acting is laughable. The plot is garbage. I've seen low budget fan films that are more entertaining than this series. I'm a huge fan of the original 'Star Wars' film as well as 'The Empire Strikes Back'. It makes me sick to my stomach watching this nonsense.

The 1977 film 'Star Wars' showed the reunion of Obi-Wan and Vader. Every Star Wars fan can recite the line, " I've been waiting for you, Obi-Wan. We meet again, at last. The circle is now complete. When I left you I was but the learner, but now I am the master." It isn't easily forgotten. Yet in the new series Obi-Wan meets Darth Vader and almost dies in their battle. This isn't about some strict continuity issue, this is an outright failure.

In the 1977 film Princess Leia leaves that hologram message for Obi-Wan Kenobi inside R2-D2. AGAIN - I don't know anyone who can't recall her "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope." message... The complete line is a paragraph long, but it begins with, "General Kenobi. Years ago you served my father in the Clone Wars. Now he begs you to help him in his struggle against the Empire." Because Leia never met Kenobi, and needed him to understand who she was. The new series recreates the 1977 rescue of Princess Leia (who is currently10 years old) after she is captured by the Empire. Every fan watching this unfold hopes that this Leia will only know Kenobi as a man named Ben, but NO the director and Disney writers allow Leia full knowledge of Obi-Wan Kenobi as the man who saves her. It angered me to no end.

This whole series has angered me, because it doesn't showcase a Jedi at all. We all want the Jedi action, but Disney completely neutered Obi-Wan Kenobi simply to present strong female characters to pick up his frailties. Then why not just make a series about them? Why use a well-known character, generate so much buzz around this beloved character, and then not utilize the character at all? Why not revive the essence of Star Wars and showcase why it's so beloved after all of these years? Kenobi is a Jedi Master, not some novice kid like Luke Skywalker. This is a repeat of the exact problems we had with the 3 prequels... It's nothing like Star Wars and it's really really bad.

I'm not sure where to begin as I don't generally want to spoil the reveals, but the big twists in the film were very anticlimactic. For 'The Batman'; Matt Reeves seemed to borrow from some of the bigger books such as 'Batman: Year One', 'Hush', and 'Batman: The Long Halloween'. Reeves also leaned heavily onto films such as 'The French Connection', 'Zodiac', and the noir classic 'Chinatown'. The general feel of the movie sought to relate Batman in the detective role that he's famous for in the comics, but unfortunately ignores any attempt at Batman's level of crime & mystery.

The acting was really good. There's a great cast of professionals in this film, although Robert Patterson isn't allowed a range of emotion. Bruce Wayne and Batman are completely indistinguishable as the tired emo-kid who walks through life with severe lethargy. Colin Farrell is unrecognizable as the Penguin, and dare I say gave the greatest performance of his life. A large portion of the film is writing out a semi-origin story for Oswald Cobblepot and his rise to become Gotham's crime boss. A lot of the villains are the origin stories here. Batman (the character) is basically introduced the way he is in 'Batman: Year Two' and I thought that was a mistake. Year one of Batman would have been wonderful on screen. The audience seeing Bruce Wayne learning to use fear in his early days would have been a relief to this movie's "Everyone is just scared of him." plot device. Zoe Kravitz's performance as Selena Kyle becoming Cat Woman was under-developed, as she was so much fun to watch in 'The Batman' that I'd like to see this spin-off into a stand-alone Cat Woman release. Jeffery Wright was brilliant (of course) even remaining quiet in the Batman's background he pulled the attention onto himself, mostly because Patterson's portrayal was incredibly stiff. Paul Dano as The Riddler was exactly what I wanted to see in this movie. The character reached a new level of applause as a serial killer, but saddly that part of the plot was put on the back burner for the lackluster crime drama with Carmine Falcone. John Turturro was great as the crime boss Falcone, but the plot focused too long on his side story rather than offering more clues about the killings. It dragged on so long that it bored me completely. I went into 'The Batman' to see him match wits with a clever serial killer, not be re-educated about the connection between Thomas Wayne & Carmine Falcone again.

The action sequences with the car chases and the fight choreography seemed old fashioned in a way. I knew before hand that Reeves lifted from some older better known films, but it's as if they dropped the budget on these scenes. Batman racing to catch the Penguin was an old muscle car Batmobile versus (what I'm guessing was) a 1980's Buick. I was laughing at this chase scene... it was presented with such seriousness that maybe if Penguin were in an expensive Italian sports car, I might have enjoyed it. But it was literally a supped-up car desperately trying to out pace my mom's car. The fighting was dull. Hand to hand combat is one of the first things Bruce Wayne learns before donning the cowl. But in this movie Batman is throwing punches a newly trained boxer would scoff at. So much of these scenes were empty and devoid of thrills and chills, that I wondered where the editor was.

'The Batman' is simply too long. It's a ridiculous attempt to impress fans of it's own significance. It fails at cohesive story-telling and it basically pats itself on the back throughout the unnecessary musical score. Unlike the Dark Knight before it - I won't watch it again.

It's difficult to find anything wrong with the live-action 'Cowboy Bebop', but there's something missing here that didn't translate from the animation. The casting is a little off.; John Cho is a solid actor, he fits the role of Spike Spiegel, although there's a height difference. I like his portrayal, but I've always found John Cho likeable. The casting of Mustafa Shakir as Jet Black and Daniella Pineda as Faye Valentine is a poor choice... I'm thinking of better actors who could have matched their roles with the behavior that's apparent in the animation. The acting is okay, but IMHO they don't fit well along side Spike Spiegel. I haven't quite figured it out, but I want to say, it could be that John Cho is on a different level acting-wise than Mustafa and definitely Danielle. Daniella Pineda might have been a natural fit for the character of the disruptive Radical Ed (Edward Wong Hau Pepelu Tivrusky IV), but Ed isn't part of the crew. In fact she isn't there at all until the end, where she appears with a bounty request for the Bebop crew.

The series is pretty slow for me. They've used Season One to introduce the main characters and their backstories, but by the time it's over I'm a bit bored by the introduction. The animation is a great anime filled with action, style, and substance - While the live-action version is pure style without substance. I wanted to love it, but I was bored. I was still hooked in for the long drawn out conclusion, and maybe that's what the direction was going for? Reeling in a curious audience who aren't familiar with the story. But for the fans, it was like "Okay. Get on with the plot." Now I see that Ed will play part of Season 2, and perhaps will receive the majority of the attention, but I'm thinking it's a little late. Do I want to wait for another year and sit through another season where it's all an introduction? Sitting here now, I think Netflix should have at least released the 2001 'Cowboy Bebop: The Movie' for anyone that's never heard of the series. This is simply too drawn out and slow for me. The series needs a gigantic push to knock it into gear and get on with the show.

'Eternals' is boring. There's no introduction to the characters playing the heroes. There's no introduction of the villain(s). There's no character building what so ever. I'm one who believes you DO NOT NEED an origin story for every film, but that doesn't mean you should expect everyone to know who these characters are and proceed from there. The dialogue was poor. So bad that I became easily distracted by the audience around me. The people around me were not enjoying this movie either. There's a lot of conversation from the beginning to the middle, but I simply can not recall a single one. It's a Marvel movie, and yet there were ZERO quotable lines for us to rejoice in or share in hashtags. The Deviants, the creatures or heroes battle were basic stock villains you'd see added to the background of a big boss fight. Salma Hayek is easily recognizable, we learn she's in charge, and yet you see her the least. When her character is found dead, you don't care. The characters weep and mourn, but obviously they knew her far better than she was presented. IMHO the Director chose to focus solely on diversity than basic character structure.

I need to say that Kumail Nanjiani, as Kingo, was the only real entertainment in the film. He was funny, charming, and the only problem for me was that DISNEY changed the character from Japanese to Indian for whatever reason. There's a long scene with Kingo as an actor in a Bollywood film-within-a-film that I found completely unnecessary, It featured the cliche Bollywood fashion of music and dance inserted into the majority if India's feature films. It may have been a tongue-in-cheek pun about Kumail Nanjiani himself, and his comedic ties, but I used this time to use the restroom. There was also a change in the Eternal powers which I assumed writers' laziness, but now imagine was for the plot design for the group to fight the most powerful Eternal in their ranks... plot twist, blah blah blah.. I was thoroughly bored. Some of the action packed battles can be searched for online, but basically the trailers have as much action as the entire film - It's a lot of chatting, floating, and special effect lighting for the grand finale.

I'm incredibly saddened that there's a sequel for 'Eternals' which will FINALLY introduce Galactus. So many of us have waited for years to see the big fight against Galactus and I'd hate to see him wasted in a sequel to this snore-fest.

I'd like someone to edit this movie down to just the parts where Michael is actually part of the story and watch that 12 minute short. Everything that was fun about the first 2 'Halloween' films is eliminated. I'm taking an educated guess that Director David Gordon Green was facing "too many chefs in the kitchen", because this was a sloppy mixed up story. 'Halloween Kills' flips back and forth from 1970's to present day as if the audience didn't know there was a 'Halloween' movie made in 1978. There's also the notion to humanize the tale by focusing on the people in the town of Haddonfield. I'm perfectly okay with that, but the direction skips between humanity and the classic "Michael is the boogeyman" all the way to the end. Both of those strategies don't work together ... Either Michael Myers is the personification of evil or he's just a guy in a mask, he isn't both. I was BORED. Too much attention was focused on developing the under-developed characters; we're talking about characters that would usually be killed off without any dialogue. For instance what was so important about Tommy Doyle (played by Anthony Michael Hall)? If he was meant to represent someone or some concept, then it didn't come across that way ... he just seemed like a plot twist that never arrived. It dragged on and on, showing townspeople reacting to Michael's return more than the actual murders they were so scared & angry about. It's solely a film about humans being afraid of an escaped mental patient. Michael is barely in the movie and I couldn't stand watching poorly scripted dialogue in a film that should have remained a slasher genre. Don't bother seeing this. I hear it has a different ending for the Blu-ray anyway. I certainly don't care (at all) about the 3rd installment coming next year, because this movie sucked.

Here we had an opportunity to borrow from Stephen King and then do whatever we wanted with it. I really wish the writers of Chapelwaite had watched the 1975 Salem's Lot, the two-part miniseries that aired on CBS. It was a little cheesy in some parts and sure it's dated, but damn if those vampires didn't scare the crap out of me... The creepy boy floating outside his friend's window. The caretaker sitting in that rocking chair. The non-verbal big bad crashing through the window. I wish I had a copy of the original, because it was actual horror. There isn't one thing terrifying about the Chapelwaite series. Most of the action happens during the day. A cloudy day where the tall bad hair cut vampire walks around giving speeches. There's other vampires with minimal makeup and cheap fake teeth, but they're waltzing around doing dialogue like they're eagerly waiting for an Amazon delivery. It's also very slow paced, without an ounce of suspense, and dumb people making really stupid decisions. "Hey, these vamps want this book I found in a cemetery they can't enter ... hmm, let's strap the book to my chest and go home with it." A child would recognize how stupid this is, but *heck* we gotta setup an ending somehow. Ugh.

I didn't realize this was going to be a sequel. I thought it was going to be a reboot with some modern interpretations, so I was disappointed by that. IMHO, the main character Anthony McCoy was miscast with Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, only because Colman Domingo stared in this film as well. I don't have anything against Abdul-Mateen, I became a fan of his after seeing his performance in the 'Watchmen' mini-series. But, Colman Domingo has a fantastic presence on-screen, he's a better/more seasoned actor, he's got a fantastic voice, and the lead up in Candyman where the character Anthony McCoy becomes the horror icon - It should have been Domingo, and it should have been a complete reboot. I can't be the only one who believes this.

The film used scenes from the original 'Candyman' (1991), which was a fun film to watch, but frankly the script was a mess and that movie's focus was on the "White Savior Complex". It simply wasn't suitable for a film with an urban legend weaved alongside black history. It added to my disappointment seeing images of Virginia Madsen, and watching her Helen Lyle portrayal become part of the Candyman mythology. That movie had it's moments but Jordan Peele borrowed from every flawed aspect of it. This new "revival" misses most of the fun elements of the first movie, sides steps any need for suspense, and frankly IT IS NOT SCARY. At all. Candyman is a great character, especially from a director's POV. There's so much you could do with this tale, that I failed to understand why Jordan Peele & Nia DaCosta ignored homages to horror for sake of one dimensional characters to blindly kill off ...

There's a scene in a high school where a group of girls summon Candyman in the school bathroom. We know nothing of these girls aside from the way they treat another student who is black. The summon Candyman and are killed off camera. It happens. It ends. And the audience is like, "What was that all about?". There's a huge push towards police officers to show them as apathetic to everyone around them. Two instances feature the police as more shadowy militaristic background noise that shoot at anything that moves. It's far removed from any outlining of humanity, and it's focus comes from a place of hatred. The movie traps you in a world that is black & white, and the director makes the choice of who to root for pretty easy. Nia DaCosta's presents the police as a blunt force, like a tornado, mindless in their approach even when responding to a child's screams. It's an immature limited vision that reeks of a common political narrative. It seeks to justify the hatred of law enforcement. I completely understand the unstable relationship between the cops and us folks in low-income housing, but to believe they're are out to get you is in the same thought of the sociopath who claims the whole world is against them. The irresponsible notion you hear from children talking about their teachers. That "I've done nothing wrong. They just don't like me." - Grown adults who are always blaming their circumstance on fate or some perceived evil should seek therapy.

For the most part I believe the character of Candyman can be a mainstay, but it will require better writing, and better directing than what happened to this movie.

I don't know where to begin with 'Masters of the Universe: Revelation' other than the revelation is that Kevin Smith hates He-Man. Kevin Smith killed the main character in the very first episode, just so he could put the focus on a lesser character named Teela. He-Man doesn't return until the last episode where Smith kills him off again ... this time, it seems permanently. The writing surrounding this was absolutely ridiculous; Without giving away the basic plot - Teela (who this film revolves around) and a misfit collection of others, travel to "heaven" (Yes, that heaven) to bring Prince Adam back to life. There was an open field of junk that filled the story between these two points ... I don't really know what to say about any of it, because there's no character building. Other than the fact that Teela carries a grudge for a lot of years, because no one ever told her Prince Adam was He-man ("boohoo") Seriously, Kevin, can you make a mockery out of this sidekick character anymore? The artwork itself may have been an attempt to resemble the old TV series, as it succeeded in looking cheap. It was garbage to look at. All the vehicles looked like the terrible toys they sold during He-Man's time on television. It was more a celebration of the generic plastics Mattel pieced together for their 'Masters of the Universe' to ride in. Everything that can be wrong with an animation; Kevin grabs hold of with glee. This is just another complete failure on Kevin Smith's part, and frankly I'm glad people are calling him out for it. YET - rather than acknowledging fan criticism, Smith retorts against the negative press by labeling it "a bunch of Trump supporters who hate women". Get over yourself, Kevin. I didn't like 'He-Man and the Masters of the Universe' either. It was one long commercial. I did like the action figures though. Although, I don't like when doll companies sexualize the male anatomy to appease young girls ... See what I did there, Kevin? That weird wokeness thing you keep going on about? I used it as a joke, but it's just another way for aging celebrities to convince themselves of their self-importance. It's a long running joke that's grown quite stale. A person's ego should not be rewarded. I would fire whoever pats you on the back for this trash. Such people and your conceit are manufactured to help you look at yourself in the mirror everyday, and feel good about your undeserving fame. You have ruined a show that a lot of people fondly remember, and you'll continue to blame it on everything or everyone except the skin hanging off your sarcopenian torso. You, Kevin Smith, are an absolute hack.