Reviews

The finale of Dark Phoenix was directed by an unexpected person, Simon Kinberg, long time screenwriter and producer and this is his first time to direct an X-Men film. The rest of the 6 X-Men films were directed by Bryan Singer. However, this is the first time I saw a disappointing finale, even though this year I saw Avengers: Endgame as an epic finale.

The performances were the best aspects in the movie, especially Sophie Turner. It's really difficult to be this Phoenix character Jean Grey but this is not the first time that Jean Grey had lost control of her powers, we got X-Men: The Last Stand with Jean Grey played of Famke Janssen. I really don't want to compare Turner with Janssen because they're both excellent. The tons of other casts James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Tye Sheridan,... were great as well. I was disappointed with Mystique's skin changing and I found out she hated her original skin. However, how the characters say or do things didn't suit the scenes so much like they're just tired of their roles since 2011. But then, there's also Jessica Chastain which really made a coincidence to me if I thought about James McAvoy in IT: Chapter 2 (Bill and Beverly). LOL! Anyway, I didn't feel that she should be in this movie, not even the demons somewhere. At first, I though Jean Grey was the main antagonist or just an antagonist like in X-Men: The Last Stand, but the was a protagonist. I didn't even know her name in the movie because her role was just...forgettable! And there's a scene where Nightcrawler got mad at the demons, I think he should say something like: I'm gonna kill you, MotherFather.

The plot was...not cool and kinda a bit convoluted or messed up because if you see the X-Men timeline, it's messed up as well and really confusing, because of X-Men: Days of Future Past is the finale of the future and then X-Men: Apocalypse led us to the past when James McAvoy was gonna shave his head to look like Patrick Stewart or Michael Fassbender was gonna look like Ian McKellen.

The script was also terrible, I didn't even know who wrote it like how characters say didn't match the story much but at least it's not as bad as Fantf4stic which was almost the worst screenplay I had ever seen. In fact, Simon Kinberg directed this movie based on the Dark Phoenix Saga from the Marvel Comics and it turned out to be not the same.

The soundtrack was scored by Hans Zimmer. It's hard to say but he did good but the big problem was his cores did not suit the scenes added to the movie. It wasn't that epic and I found it a waste of time to purchase it or download it on my MP3 Player and the 20th Century Fox Title was ....bland like other parts of the movie, I would rather hear the 20th Century Fox Title from X-Men: Days of Future Past and X-Men: Apocalypse.

The biggest problem though was the title. That's right, "Dark Phoenix". Is this "Dark" Phoenix? No! This is not dark or deserved to be R-Rated (despite the blood), there's Jessica Chastain and her demons to ruin the title. Jean Grey is a good guy and used her powers for good from the train sequence.

Overall, this IS the finale of X-Men that we should say good bye to these characters (poor Tye Sheridan and Sophie Turner, just 2 movies) and it turned out to be a big failure. Yes, this movie is a disappointing finale but there's also a new movie called "The New Mutants" and I bet it would be rated R like Logan, Deadpool 1 and 2 just because I saw the trailer which looked like a horror movie (it reminded me of Brightburn).

One question before reviewing the movie: Is "The Curse of La Llorona" part of the Conjuring Universe? Maybe and maybe not, look at Rotten Tomatoes' List of The Conjuring Universe and "The Curse o La Llorona" wasn't there but I still think it is because there's James Wan (as a producer). And guess what, this movie FAILS! And here're my opinions about it.

Initially, the performances are good with Linda Cardellini as Anna Garcia and her two children, Sam and Chris and there's a woman Patricia played by an actor with the same name. Their acting was the most impressive of the movie. They knew how to scream, how to weep but I wasn't impressed much with the actor of La Llorona, she should be a lot scarier than how she was in the movie. I like the make-up of La Llorona, a grey face with black tears and yellow eyes, that's a bit creepy.

This movie definitely looks like a James Wan movie. James Wan had some horror masterpieces like Saw, The Conjuring and more. The cinematography, it was okay, how they shot was good, not disturbing or bad at all. I don't know if they used that much special effects and then I looked at the budget, it's $9 million, they wasted some.

You know why this movie FAILS? It's because how I measured the movie in the scare factor, from a scale from 1% to 100%, I would rate this movie 5% scary and that's the problem with horror movies nowadays, they forgot to make the movie scary, all they did was adding blood here and there, it's not scary and I wanted to see this in the theatre and then people made stupid decision to rate this R and it's a waste, just like Hellboy. Even the jumpscares they had were over and over again but none of them worked. The whole movie is totally boring, almost every part of the movie is non-horror.

The Conjuring Universe is going to be one of the best horror franchises but all it takes is one substandard spin-off to make you realize just how much craft and care are needed to make these things work right. I really don't think there's a reason for this movie to exist. It's not scary or creepy, it's just so annoying that I really want to give it a 1 or 0 but nah, good acting, good cinematography as well but still, the movie really FAILS.

Now, most of you would think that the Godzilla sequel would be a lot better than the original from 2014 after watching 3 trailers and a few Tv Spots. To be honest, I was thinking the exact thing but after I watched the movie (at midnight), I was confused with how would I rate the sequel. It though was entertaining, but it also had various issues.

The sequel showed us a lot more entertaining content, many Kaiju monsters made an appearance here, Rodan, Mothra, Ghidorah and countless others (not really!). From the trailer, we could see them waking up from nature and started battling without knowing where the good side is and the bad one is.

The various issues I mentioned came from the performances, the acting. The movie starred Kyle Chandler as Mark Russell, Vera Farmiga as Emma Russell, Milly Bobby Brown (Y'all know her as Eleven from Stranger Things) as Madison Russell and of course, Ken Watanabe as Dr. Serizawa as he appeared in the first movie. Gotta be honest, the acting was really disappointing, the movie didn't even care about them and they just acted like people who wanted to be a machine or a robot (maybe?). Their screenshorts weren't much but I've gotta say, Milly Bobby Brown wasn't as good as I thought she was going to be, like she hadn't much to do in this movie. All she did was to sit down and weep until something came as a surprise, even when she came back home, she screamed and also covered her ears, even when Ghidorah was going to kill her, she didn't run away, but instead, she screamed. The other casts, they didn't had much to do as well and I was a bit disappointed in Ken Watanabe as Dr. Serizawa. He didn't lead much in the movie, it was left to the military and we didn't get much screenshots of him. Another big problem about the acting is the deaths, and these deaths are no unnecessary. It's not like normal deaths. They're deaths of the main characters, some made sacrifices and some accidentally died. However, the characters who were alive didn't think about it like they're robots, a non-human being. They didn't even have a reaction, especially when Dr. Serizawa made his and Dr. Vivienne Graham (Sally Hawkins)'s. Chen (Zhang Ziyi) was just like "for Serizawa" without tears when we got to the final battle. In short, the acting was emotionless.

The script was also kinda badly written as there was not much for the characters to say, to discuss about some issues they're having. It's just that the human characters can talk so they need to have more to discuss. I did hear some of their long discussions but they were a bit confusing and non-fans would find them annoying and hard to understand as they don't know what's going on with the movie.

Everybody is true, the whole movie was completely entertaining and that's a bit of a problem. We could see lots and lots of action sequences. Monsters here and there, biting others, eating and destroying buildings (that's what American Godzilla Movies are meant to be for fans). There were lots of military forces on Godzilla's side and everything went chaotic. And the final battle was 98% epic with spectacular cinematography and outstanding visual effects (98% AWESOME). I was really impressed with what they've done for 5 years (well, not much really!). The problem is that they had like too much screenshots on the battles but the monsters still didn't get enough screen time and so were the human characters. That's a really big issue here. Therefore, many scenes that were unnecessary scenes are completely forgettable, even the jokes I laughed at, I could barely remember. It's just something that should be added to the "Deleted Scenes".

That's everything I could review about the sequel. It was extremely exciting, entertaining with its EPIC battles and jaw-dropping VFX, but those things couldn't make the story any better. The key to a good story was a really big chance but the chance was wasted over the disappointing performances and as a Godzilla fan, I was half positive and half negative so let's just call this mixed.

This is the third John Wick movie of the trilogy and it was the most entertaining of all. We still had Keanu Reeves being John Wick, Ian McShane as Winston, Laurence Fishburne as the Bowery King, Lance Reddick as Charon, the hotel receptionist (maybe?)... In this third installment of the adrenaline-fueled action franchise, super-assassin John Wick (Reeves) returns with a $14 million price tag on his head and an army of bounty-hunting killers on his trail. After killing a member of the shadowy international assassin's guild, the High Table, John Wick is excommunicado, but the world's most ruthless hit men and women await his every turn everywhere.

The performances are still good and it will always be like that. Keanu Reeves was betterand so were the others and there's a new character, Sofia played by Halle Berry, known for her roles from various action movies like Die Another Day, The Call, Kidnap and of course, she was the terrible Catwoman in one of the worst DC movies. However, she was excellent for her role. There's also Angelica Huston as the Director (not the director of a movie but in a play of the movie like there's a play scene and she was shown to be the director of it). There are two villains here (I think): the first one is Zero played by Mark Dacascos and the Adjudicator played by Asia Kate Dillon. The villains were also great but Zero's character was a bit weak.

The action sequences were the best part of the movie. We could see more fightings in the third movie than the 2 previous ones (the first one was a bit too dramatic and the second one had boring conversations (but still I gave Chapter 2 a 9/10)). The best scene was when John Wick fought with a 2 meters tall guy with a book. It was totally crazy. It lasted a bit long and we could see that tall guy was really powerful but we knew that John Wick could defeat him and he did (as he said in Chapter 2 "Whoever comes, I will kill them all!"). I liked other action scenes as well. There were more enemies with their rifles looking for John Wick and when it came to EPIC, John Wick had a knife-throwing challenge with his enemies and he won. I was really impressed.

However there is one unnecessary scene, the desert scene. It was extremely boring hearing John Wick talking to a person called the Elder and then Wick took a knife and cut off one of his fingers with a ring on. Then he had his hands burnt. I don't like that scene at all. It stopped me from being entertained.

The ending was also unexpected. Here's the spoilers: The Adjudicator said "What should we do with John Wick?" and then Winston shot him as he said "Oh he must die!" and John Wick fell from the building. I was totally shocked but fortunately, he didn't die as a person carried him to the Bowery King who most audiences thought he was dead and then I figured out something that would 100% come true that there will be a Chapter 4 as this isn't the end.

This wasn't really the best of the trilogy but definitely the most entertaining movie of the 3 (with pure action) and great conversations. In fact, Chapter 3 is truly unforgettable in most scenes.

Brightburn was known to be a movie that was about a boy who was the EVIL, DARK version of Superman with the same origin and powers. It is the directorial debut of David Yarovesky. It's about a kid named Brandon Breyer with a Superman origin and raised by a couple in a farm and then when he grew up, he turned into something far more SINISTER. One surprising thing was James Gunn brought 2 members of his family to write the script while he's producing the movie. Unfortunately, it was banned in my country but I had found an easy way to watch it in a free website. How lucky I was!

The performances are okay, with Elizabeth Banks being Tori Breyer and David Denman as Kyle Breyer but I think the most impressive performance given here is Jackson A. Dunn being Brandon Breyer, the evil version of Superman. His role was actually one of the roles that are too mature for child actors like Kirsten Dunst being Claudia from Interview with A Vampire (1994), Linda Blair being Regan MacNeil from The Exorcist (1973), the cast of the Losers' Club from IT (1990) (2017). However, Dunn could handle it and he was really good with being Brandon. He had this dark personality and character. Superman was good and Brandon was like "Now I'm gonna kill you all!". He didn't even give anyone a chance to survive, except for one but the others, they all die. I won't spoil it.

The special effects made the movie looked really expensive but it was only $7 million and that means the movie was cheap and I was really impressed with the whole thing they did with just $7 million. They had good cinematography as well. It looked different from Slasher Films but when you watch it , you could feel that it was a Slasher Film. After killing someone, Brandon would be like "Hey I killed this guy, let's add him into my kill count list to never forget about what I had done. I can draw his dead face as well!" and he did if you saw in the trailer. Many things made this movie really enjoyable and entertaining.

The problem with the movie was the time, how long the movie was, 91 minutes which was really short. They could have add longer so that there would be more about Brandon like Kyle and Tori could've find out about Brandon's identity or the purpose that Brandon had to fly here when he was a baby on a spaceship. It coul be more that just "take the world".

The ending was the most impressive of all things I liked about Brightburn. It was like many other horror movies where the bad guy wins. The kill counts are innummerable and the bad guy lived happily ever after. Horror movies suck when they have happy endings.

This is not a bad movie. We had a new genre thanks to this, a horror superhero movie. I exclude R-Rated superhero movies like Watchmen or Blade because they are just bloody, not scary. I just hope they could lengthen the movie if they wanted it to be better but then it got mixed from Rotten Tomatoes being 56%, 46% in Metacritic and 6.6 in IMDb. Nevertheless, Brightburn is quite good to me!

We had so many live-action Disney movies recently like Alice in Wonderland (2010), Cinderella (2015), Maleficent (2014), The Jungle Book (2016) and recently was Dumbo (2019). There's an upcoming Disney live-action movie as well and that would be The Lion King (2019). Most live-action Disney movies can never get better than the animated one and Aladdin's one of them.

First, the acting is kinda weak and bland. We had Mena Massoud as Aladdin. I know he tried really hard to be like Aladdin in the 1992 animated version. There's also Will Smith as the Genie which was criticized online to be too blue but I didn't think like that. In my opinion, he was pretty okay and funny as well, even though he couldn't smash the role like Robin Williams. However, Naomi Scott stole the show as Princess Jasmine. She smashed it for a bit and I was kinda impressed as I said the performances were weak. Though the WORST in here was Jafar played by Marwan Kenzari. His voice was young and friendly, he wasn't that evil but to be quite idotic and crazy and I had no favour for his roles.

Yes, the movie was really entertaining with awesome magical special effects, Will Smith's humor and more but each of those had problems as well as the musical. They didn't lack any, but they made the musical more boring, more forgettable and less exciting. The music got lower and the creators got lazier and lazier. They also made the final battle worse. It didn't take long and it was totally bright. Brightness here and there. Comparing to the animated version, it was totally dark and that's how the final battle should be. Instead in this live-action, it didn't take that long and people in Agrabah were like "look at my tricks here, see what I can do!". They didn't even pay attention that Jafar's the ruler, not the Sultan. When Jafar turned into a Genie, he looked like a moron more than a powerful being. His face and hair, it was horrible.

They also had new stuffs added to the movie. They were weird and annoying, also new characters as well like Dalia played by Nasim Pedrad. I didn't see that character in animated Aladdin. She was okay to be added to make the movie funnier but the other new things are unnecessary. It made the movie boring and also took a bit long time and it was 128 minutes comparing to the 92 minutes of the animated Aladdin and it was almost perfect and almost the best Disney animated movie ever made.

Personally the movie was kinda disappointing and didn't live up to the hype. I could barely praise many parts of Aladdin. I bet Disney fans and other types of audiences would like it but Aladdin surely deserved to be mixed from me. It's just a bland live-action like others. This is definately not a whole new world!

Okay, we had two Hellboy movies directed by Guillermo del Toro, one from 2004 and the Golden Army in 2008 starring Ron Perlman as Hellboy. Unfortunately, I didn't watch the whole two films, but some clips because I didn't have much time. The two movies were praised by critics a lot and the first one was rated 81%, the sequel was rated 86% on Rotten Tomatoes. And then, in 2019, Neil Marshall decided to have this reboot of Hellboy. They wanted to prove that Hellboy should be more modern with good effects and cinematography. But they had also gone too far.

Starring David Harbour was Hellboy, in this reboot, Hellboy had to battle so many monsters. Monsters here and there. There was so much action, these people wanted to make better cinematography so audiences would think that these battles are epic and unforgettable. The performances, I think they're okay but sometimes they sucked. Harbour's performance was really good, he's funny. He made most parts of the movie looked like a joke and kinda like a parody (because the cinematography's better).

I like the humor they added here. I did laugh, especially the elevator scene (up down up down). But Harbour wasn't as good as Perlman's. Then I like the make-up of Hellboy here more than the two previous films. Hellboy was more good-looking here (with long hair and small eyes). Those're the things I only liked about this reboot.

The special effects were really bad. They created monsters filmmakers could do in the 80s like the Gruagach or when Ben Daimio turned into a jaguar. They could've used an animal and add some extra parts. They could've done better in here. The editing was really not cool. This was like a few terrible movies wanted to have good cinematography but had bad CGI like Fant4stick (Congratulations Fant4stick on going way too far and got in the Razzies!). The cinematography was really awesome and if you watch this in IMAX, you would be entertained a lot. I watched the trailer in IMAX thanks to IMDb. I liked the lightning and the sky.

The fact that this movie was rated R was a BIG mistake. They did drop some F-Bombs everywhere, even when it's unneccessary to say the F word in a few lines. They also had some "Strong and Bloody Violence" (I could see these words in the trailer) like in "Deadpool" or "Logan", but they were needless. There were also people being ripped in half, people being stabbed bloodily by the giant monsters. Are they trying to prevent this movie from children? Huh? What? The movie proved that not all R-Rated movies're for adults and 18-year-olds. I'm younger than that and I could watch it with ease. I'm not afraid of anything. Are they trying to copy Sam Raimi's horror movies?

I really didn't know why this movie was based on the legend of King Arthur and the Excalibur sword. It was not suitable. If it is, I should've read the comics. I really didn't like the idea. They turned this whole action thingy into a fantasy like in "The Kid who Would Be King" was released earlier this year and I kinda liked it. Another problem was that they set too many characters in here. Too many actions scene from lots of characters fighting and they also moved from places to places (just like nomads).

This reboot was unneccessary to make. It was soulless but enjoyable. This was one of the movies that were really bad with black bars, good cinematography and sometimes bad CGI like "Fant4stick" or "Suicide Squad". If you find this Hellboy reboot entertaining, then I suggest you to waste 2 hours to watch it.

Directed by the legendary Steven Spielberg, this movie made dinosaurs really popular with children and then frightening. This is the first installment of the Jurassic Park franchise (including Jurassic World). And I was surprised that this movie is based on Michael Crichton's novel with the same name, though I never read it. Crichton also wrotre the screenplay with David Koepp. It's about a preview tour, a theme park suffers a major power breakdown that allows its cloned dinosaur exhibits to run amok.

I liked the performances, especially the children. They had proved that not all children actors were terrible in acting. There's Sam Neill as Dr. Alan Grant, Laura Dern as Ellie, Jeff Goldblum as Ian Malcolm. I actually though Ian was dead when he collapsed on the ground when the T-Rex was about to eat the man in the toilet. Then he got back alive, injured and I was astonished. He also appeared in the Lost World - Jurassic Park 2. Another surprising thing was there was Samuel L. Jackson in the movie being Arnold before he got famous in Pulp Fiction (1994). When I didn't know that fact, I saw this Arnold man looked like Samuel L. Jackson and when I saw there's him in the cast, I was like "WTF!!!". Crazy!

The CGI was the best things in here. They made the dinosaurs looked real and they did, nothing was a bad sign of CGI, except for the orange running dinosaurs, they're a bit bad. The fight scenes between dinosaurs were cool and when the goat's leg fell on the car, it was just INSANE!!! Although it was considered to be not scary, I think the movie had made its entrance to be R-Rated but then I thought again, because of the dinosaurs walking in beautiful nature more than that, I think PG-13 is okay!

The movie was scored beautifully and satisfyingly by the amazing John Williams. The score made us feel that we're in a paradise if we're watching this movie in a 3-D version. I just loved the music so much.

This was definitely one of Steven Spielberg's masterpieces. He had made an awesome R-Rated movie that year and it was Schindler's List, I hope Jurassic Park is gonna be as good as that, even though it's not.

This is the latest adaptation of Stephen King's novel with the same name and that novel was considered to be the scariest and darkest of Stephen King's bunch of novels. This novel had already been adapted once in 1989 and it was really dark, so much blood and a guy got his brain ripped but then it didn't have good performances so I only rated that 5.9/10. It's just bloody, not scary.

Jason Clarke is great as Dr. Louis Creed, and then there's Amy Seimetz who played Rachel, Louis' wife. However, neither of their performances was my favorite, it was Jete Laurence as Ellie, their daughter. This movie was really challenging, especially when she came back to life, she needed a lot of darkness and her performance was impressive. Seimetz was great as well, it's just that Jason Clarke didn't have much to do in here. Seimetz's character had a dead family member, her sister Zelda. We knew that she's not the main character of the movie but she's the one who stole the show, much better than Clarke and Laurence, but Laurence's still my favorite. She's just a kid. The performances were way better than the one in 1989.

This movie had changed a few things the 1989 adaptation had. I was really, really disappointed with the trailers, they spoiled a lot of things, even the death, Ellie. They came with the line "Sometimes dead is better!" it was a bit of spoilers too but it wouldn't be if you read the book or watch the 1989 movie. I only watched Pet Sematary in 1989 but didn't read the book so I didn't feel spoilt with the line. The 1989 movie was Gage who was crushed by the train, now it's Ellie, it was spoilt in the trailer (C'mon!). Then I would think that Gage died would make the movie darker, but then 1989 one was (I told you) not dark. I wanted it that way because Church, something belonged to Ellie (the cat) is already dead so it had to be someone else. I really don't read the book but, I heard the critics saying that this adaptation is darker than the book and I did find it full of darkness, especially in the end. I was familiar with horror movies so I wouldn't be scared and then the jumpscare of Zelda falling shocked me. I was given Goosebumps. The performance was getting crazier and in the end, slash, slash and kill!

The biggest problem in here was some parts of the beginning. It was kinda boring and the performances weren't good. They just sat down and read, read, and read. I fell asleep at that part and I had to open again and again to understand what was happening that time but I kept falling asleep. Maybe the beginning was worse than I thought but in the middle and the end, I felt like they had tried better and better and it didn't feel this movie was bad anymore. They really did well with the CGI and the cinematography. Full or darkness, a lot of bloody scenes (Louis and Ellie's death were not bloody at all) and you could feel it being real. There're also some disgusting parts like Ellie's hair (after coming back from the grave) and Church's fur (after coming back from the grave). They were...gross (and that's what made the movie scary). This movie was banned from my country but I had found a way to watch it, the Internet (hehehe).

Except from dramas like The Green Mile or The Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me, Pet Sematary is one of the greatest Stephen King's adaptations.

Here's the sequel of Marc Webb's The "Amazing" Spider-Man. And guess what guys: It's a really HUGE disappointment. I don't like most of this movie. It's not like Spider-Man 3, it's way worse. Sony had gone too far, leaving bad performances behind for audiences to see.

We got Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx as Electro, Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn/Green Goblin. The performances were really bad, really really bad, especially the villains. There's Paul Giamatti playing the Rhino and he was completely the worst. The screenplay is a total disaster. They were too easy and really childish. Emma Stone didn't take her role seriously on being Gwen Stacy, she's just...boring like "Nobody makes my decision, I'm Gwen Stacy" and she's dead. What a stupid decision. Another stupid part in here is Electro, the policemen were morons, complete idiots. They didn't even listen to Spider-Man saying that Max Dillon is a good guy. Even the crowd were complete morons as well. Are they deaf? Didn't they hear what their hero's trying to say? WTF!!! I hate those scenes. Jamie Foxx being Electro is hilarious, noting dark and evil.

The only things I liked about this movie is the costume. It's a lot better than the previous one, it's awful but this one looked like a real Spider-Man with big white eyes. Also there's a scene when a kid is bullied and Spider-Man came and made the bullies away and talked to the kid. That scene made Spidey more like Spidey.

The CGI and fightings are okay, but they're not epic at all. Most scenes were forgettable and really boring. I really don't like them, like when Electro playing the Itsy Bitsy Spider song. Hans Zimmer was really dumb putting dubstep on this and electro went like "Today's my birthday, time to light up my candles!". The plot was really not cool, especially when Harry Osborn went like "I want your blood, Spider-Man". This is not a disappointing movie but it's kinda worse. Like I said, it's not even as good as Spider-Man 3. When the Green Goblin was knocked out and when we saw him in prison, how could he change back to himself? And I felt like when Gwen Stacy wanted to help Peter Parker defeating Electro, at least she should've said "Spider-Man need help too!" like MJ in Spider-Man 2 or 3 (I don't's remember).

I really don't like this movie. It's really terrible, except for a few parts. This is for sure one of the worst Spider-Man movies I've ever seen. This movie had proved that the CGI and fights are better, but it had also proved that sequels could sometimes be a big mess.

Ratings: 5.4/10

After the Trilogy from Sam Raimi, director Marc Webb started a reboot for Spider-Man for those who hated Sam Raimi's trilogy. But then, I felt a bit more disappointed. This was also a mess as big as Spider-Man 3, but then I watched a few clips of the movie again, and I thought this mess was bigger than Spider-Man 3. The movie was marked to be the Untold Story. I see nothing untold. Andrew Garfield played Peter Parker/Spider-Man. This time, there's no MJ but as I said there's another love interest and it is Gwen Stacy played by Emma Stone. The performances were okay but the scenes they filmed, the plot they made, were kinda bad.

The first issue is Spider-Man. The biggest problem of the movie. He's like a bully, a punk, who wanted to skateboard when his teacher told him not to. He also bullied and humiliated Flash Thompson. I really don't like Garfield in here, I only liked him being Eduardo Saverin in The Social Network (2010). I though I'm gonna be excited for this, I thought this is gonna be better than Sam Raimi's trilogy, then it's a disappointment. The worst thing about Spider-Man in here is the suit. It's INCREDIBLY AWFUL! The eyes got yellow and the suit looked so old-fashion. The defences of the suit (people who commented to defend it) were a bunch of failures. They didn't even realize that Spidey got some cool web shooters, why can't he have a cool suit as well? That's just silly! The only thing I like about Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man is that he had a sense of humor. He usually told jokes in the movie but I don't think he's the funniest Spider-Man.

Rhys Ifans playing The Lizard was such an embarrassment. Then I realized "IT WAS THE SCREENPLAY THAT MADE IFANS SO BAD AT BEING DR. CURT CONNORS/THE LIZARD!". For example "Nowhere to hide, Peter" or "I'm getting stronger everyday!". How can he know Spider-Man is Peter Parker. I saw the screen a bit clearly and I saw there's a bit of bad CGI of the Lizard. Ifans made a really bad villain, and bad here meant terrible (with the terrible script). Who's writing this? But Topher Grace is still the worst casting choice of a villain. Don't worry Ifans!

The only thing I really like about this movie is Stan Lee's cameo and the scene when Spider-Man swung around the city. Stan Lee played the school librarian. He was tidying the chemicals and he didn't notice that it was a big mess behind him. He's listening to classic music. The scene was just so funny that made me laughed. The ending is good too when our webslinger was swinging around the city like Spider-Man (2002) and Spider-Man 2 (2004). This one was also as epic as those two.

This is (in conclusion) not a big mess but it is still a mess. There were so many problems with this movie but it's just part one so audiences would think that "it's okay, I give it a 9/10". I'm more of a stricter movie rater about some bad and disappointing movies and this one deserved a mixed rating from me.

The end of the Spider-Man trilogy! Hooray and NOT Hooray! This is one of the most disappointing movies of a franchise, a saga or a trilogy. It had gone really far and was a mess! There were no clues, no questions for the things we wanted to know. They just left the questions and left no clue for us to find out like when Peter got the symbiote suit, he said "this is somethin' else". He wasn't curious about it, he just took the suit without knowing the danger. This movie had made the fact that most third movies of a franchise is always a disappointment!

There were many disappointing moments and scenes. Why the hell would they add Gwen Stacy. That's just stupid! There's MJ, why Gwen. There's that character in The Amazing Spider-Man. She ruined most parts of the movie. This is INSANE! Without Gwen, the movie would get a big better. It's another reason that the third movie is really disappointing. Sandman is okay! He's fine, I liked his backstories. They were tragic and moving! But the WORST WORST WORST thing in here is that they casted Topher Grace in here. He's so terrible at being Venom. I would rather them casted Tom Hardy like Venom (2018) but then I thought Hardy was too young...Wait, no! He's older than Grace. Hardy suited Venom more. The project had gone too far. The problem was that Eddie Brock turned into Venom too fast, 5 seconds, just because they wanted Venom to be in the movie. Raimi was just like "Fine! Okay! Just do it!" in a boring tone. The really terrible scene was the bar scene, Spider-Man doesn't need a bar, just because the suit is trying to, you know... Scenes could be avoided because they didn't make any sense.

Putting Venom and Sandman here was a bad idea. Like Chris Stuckmann, I agreed with his new plot of Spider-Man 3, making Harry Osborn the main villain. Many scenes were made tragic in the rain. It was like Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2. So much scenes with dramatic music composed by Christopher Young who had replaced Danny Elfman. Why??? But I like the theme, it was better than the previous two but then....DRA-MA-TIC!!

The CGI were the best in here. The first two movies didn't use much, especially the first one. The action sequences were good, the battles were also good and other parts with CGI. They impressed me. I also liked the cinematography, they were really good, like an action paradise.

The movie was so disappointing that scenes and the plot had ruined the part 4. They were about to make the villain Carnage and then...CANCELLED! I don't hate much about the movie but it didn't live up to the hype.

Ratings: 6.6/10

Here we have the sequel of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy starring Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man, blah blah blah... and since Green Goblin is dead in the first movie, there's a new villain called Doctor Octopus played by Alfred Molina. Things changed in the movie.

The performances were a lot better than they did in the previous film. Tobey Maguire suddenly got better and better and even acquainted with this huge character and suddenly critics praise him for his role as the one and only Spider-Man. I am also gonna praise for him. There's no argument that nobody can be a better Spider-Man than him. Alfred Molina was also great. He did everything to make his role a supervillain that audiences won't forget. He didn't lose touch of his heart. He went out, killed lots of people on purpose and I like that even though he wasn't as good as Willem Dafoe being Green Goblin. I actually liked the performances more than Spider-Man (2002).

The CGI effects had finally appeared more than the previous movie. It made the action scenes looked better and unforgettable, especially when Spider-Man was fighting Doc Ock on a train, no audiences would forget that. It was the CGI that made the train battle so epic and iconic. Many people said that there was so much violence here but I didn't see any, just Doc Ock killed people and I still think that movie deserves a PG-13, R is too far.

There were scenes we don't want to happen, like Mary Jane Watson got married with J. Jonah Jameson's son, who was an astronaut, or when Spider-Man lost his powers for most of the time in this movie. Then I liked when Peter rushed to the fire with no powers and rescued kids (I don't remember how many kids were there).

I was a bit curious when the scene at the bank. Peter ran away from Aunt May then Spider-Man came. She never thought about Peter abandoning her. Then after defeating Doc Ock, she made this speech to Peter that "We need Spider-Man!". The surprising scenes were when Harry Osborn and then MJ found out that Peter is Spider-Man. I was half impressed and half not impressed. I was half impressed because she could look at him with emotions and it was great and I was half not impressed because Harry's gonna do something about this in Spider-Man 3 and he did.

The ending was really awesome. MJ chose not to be with that guy, the astronaut and she went to Peter and shared their second kiss. It was really touching (Just Kidding). When Spider-Man swung around the city again, it was much better than the first one but when Spidey was standing on the flag of USA in part 1, Part 2 couldn't beat that but the ending was still better.

This is my favorite Spider-Man movie. I really love what they did in here, so much special CGI and epic battles that no one would forget after watching it. I agreed that they did better than the first one. I was also impressed that it won an Oscar for Best Visual Effects in 2005.

Ratings: 9.25/10

Sam Raimi had brought us a trilogy that everybody wanted, about a web-slinger climbing walls and fight crime. Yes, it's Spider-Man. He had made the first movie so great that I really was entertained when I watched this with my younger brother. It's just one of the Marvel Movies I could never forget.

Tobey Maguire was just excellent and really perfect to be Peter Parker/Spider-Man. He was just a heart-felt character. He could even cry in the film (which most actors could do when they pretend that someone in their family is dead like Uncle Ben). The other casting choices were perfect as well like Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson, Peter's love interest, James Franco being Harry Osborn, son of Norman Osborn who is the Green Goblin, the main antagonist, played by Willem Dafoe. He was also one of the best performances making Green Goblin one of the greatest Marvel villains thanks to Dafoe. The performances were actually a lot better than I expected and all went really well. Flash Thompson played by Joe Manganiello, was a perfect bully in the film. He was just so naughty being Peter Parker's Draco Malfoy that made me wanna hit him in the face.

There are so many memorable scenes which were quite hilarious like when Peter screamed :WHOAOAOAOAOAOAAAAA!" when he swung with his web over and hit himself on a wall. The wrestling scene was also hilarious. Bonesaw really looked like an idiot. The battle between Peter and Flash was the same, I laughed when Flash got kicked in the ass. I was surprised when Peter just shouted: "Shazam!".

The screenplay was also good with some unforgettable lines, they were iconic like: "That's a cute outfit! Did your husband make it for you?". Some were funny, some were emotional and some were iconic. The dialogues and conversations were wonderful.

There wasn't much CGI in this film which made the movie even better. There were webbing action sequences, epic battles and they used little CGI. I was a bit disappointed with the cinematography because it was like old-school like the 80s, 90s or maybe the 70s. I felt okay when this movie didn't have any black bars. It's just the first modern Spider-Man movie (I'm counting Nicholas Hammond as well but it's a Tv Series).

The best part about this movie was Danny Elfman. When it comes to superheroes, Danny Elfman was the greatest one among the composers who could do that like Alan Silvestri but I felt Elfman was best in Spider-Man. The score was the best and I could never forget it. I even downloaded it on my MP3 player to listen when I'm having an adventure. Nobody could compose such a good superhero score like him. Of course, John Williams is still the best but he wasn't as good as Elfman in superheroes.

This is one of the greatest Spider-Man movies. I felt like it deserved to exist, a high ratings from critics though IMDb users made it 7.3/10 which was really disappointing. Metacritic is also a disappointing movie rating website (another 73 points). Rotten Tomatoes gave it well, 90%, it deserved that. It had many things I needed and it's one of the greatest Marvel movie today.

Ratings: 8.8/10

The third movie of the Terminator Saga was not directed by James Cameron anymore but Jonathan Mostow. The movie also changed its studio from Metro Goldwyn Mayer into Warner Bros. Pictures.

It is a lot like the second movie: Judgment Day. A terminator was sent to kill John Connor again. The last movie we had T- 1000 and then it's T-X, a completely new terminator. After dying in Judgment Day, T-800 had returned and took some punk clothes and sunglasses, just like the first two. It should change I think.

Everybody loved to see a terminator movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger and he made his third debut in the third movie. However, I wasn't impressed with the plot that T-800 wasn't a series 101 but a different one, a protagonist with a dark and strict character. He forgot everything John taught him in Judgment Day: the smile, Hasta La Vista Baby and more. I was really disappointed with that fact. John Connor wasn't played by Edward Furlong anymore, the role changed to Nick Stahl, who had been known for being in Sin City (2005). The performances weren't as good as the previous two but they weren't terrible. Schwarzenegger wasn't trying his best for the third movie so I think the best performance here was Nick Stahl's John Connor. He was excellent making the character Katherine Brewster played by Claire Danes agreed to be on their side. It's great to see the two together.

The really big problem here was T-800. He knew too much and he kept predicting futures. It's not necessary to or maybe he shouldn't say it. It's like spoiling a movie with great contents. T-800 said the two got married, John would be terminated in 2032 and more things that we wouldn't want to be spoiled. When T-800 revealed when John Connor dies, it was the stupidest thing to say. And it got worse when T-800 revealed the killer,...him. I called this the biggest issue in this movie. It's really terrible and I hate it! See, that's why this one's the least popular of the Terminator Saga based on IMDb (6.3/10).

However, I don't hate the other parts of the movie, they were good. The CGI was okay and so was the cinematography. The action sequence were epic and instead of saying his words (Hasta La Vista, Baby) to kill T-X, T-800 said: "You are Terminated!". That would explain that T-800 completely forgot about what John had taught him in Judgment Day.

It's not one of the bests in the Saga, but it wasn't too bad. I'm looking forward to see more: Terminator Salvation, Terminator Genisys and Dark Fate. I'm starting to like this franchise.

Ratings: 6.8/10

The sequel of The Terminator (1984) was way better than I expected. Because of the ratings in many websites like Rotten Tomatoes, the first one (100%) was rated higher than this one, the sequel (93%), also in Metacritic was the same, Terminator in 1984 got 84% and Judgment Day just got 75%. Metacritic rated so terribly. But in IMDb was fair. The Terminator Saga is one of the franchises that had its sequel better the the original like the Spider-Man Trilogy directed by Sam Raimi or the X-Men franchise.

Schwarzenegger was still T-800 but with a different mission. The last time we saw him as a villain, well in here he was sent to protect Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton)'s son, John Connor (Edward Furlong) who would lead an army to destroy the machines in the future. He was still a kid that time but his performance wasn't bad. He was great with different emotions and good acting. In here, I liked Hamilton's performance more than the previous film, she was a mother, a badass fighter and she was addicted to cigarettes. I also loved the way she looked but I didn't like the way she got drunk. Schwarzenegger just got much better. In here, there's a new villain called the T-1000 played by Robert Patrick, a better and more modern prototype. He could morph into liquid metal and used his hand as various weapons.

The way the CGI was edited was really awesome. The cinematography was great as well. It was filled with a lot of great and classic moments. The action sequence here was a lot better, especially the liquid metal (I've already mentioned that) and the battle between the good guys and the SWAT. The CGI was well-edited there with lots of shooting and explosions caused by Schwarzenegger's T-800.

The strong violence and sci-fi actions didn't really make this move deserve an R-Rated. It was totally safe for 13 and 14 year-olds. I didn't see anything too bloody, just T-800 cutting his arm, that's it. I really didn't like the idea the the whole Terminator Saga would be rated R. It's just sci-fi, actions and little violence. Nobody would be afraid, they're gonna like it. That's something I don't like about the movie and the rest of the Saga.

The final battle was extremely epic when T-1000 knocked down T-800 and then Sarah came to knock some of T-1000's ass. Then T-800 came up lying on a giant clockwork and holding a rifle that caused destruction shot at T-1000 and he fell into the lava (maybe?) and melted. The way the villain died was just so satisfying.

This is one of James Cameron's masterpieces of sci-fi. He got really good with the CGI and I'm looking forward to see the 3-D version of Judgment Day released in 2017 with better cinematography and maybe I could feel that I'm in there. This one was definitely my favorite of the Terminator Saga.

Ratings: 9.4/10

Before being a master of great CGI movies like Avatar (2009), Titanic (1997), James Cameron directed and produced this, Terminator (1984), and it had become one of his greatest work. There was so much sci-fi and action that we have always wanted to see. It was about a seemingly indestructible android is sent from 2029 to 1984 to assassinate a waitress, whose unborn son will lead humanity in a war against the machines, while a soldier from that war is sent to protect her at all costs.

Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger (a name that is hard to pronounce), as T-800. Most of you though that in the movie he would be a protagonist but he was actually the main villain. It was weird right because the poster had his portrait on it, not a hero but a villain. Schwarzenegger was legendary when he took this role and he acted just like a real cyborg with no feelings, no tears, it's just so perfect! Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor, T-800's only target, was good as well being a waitress, a person who didn't know how her son was going to be. Michael Biehn played the good guy Kyle Reese, who would then be Sarah Connor's husband but he died before they even got married. Pretty sad! At first I thought he was another terminator which he had no clothes as well as T-800. It was funny when we could see T-800's buttocks. But then, the best performance belongs to the villain and that is Arnold Schwarzenegger. He was great and perfect for the movie! A great casting choice!

I liked the action sequence so much because they were non-stop, entertaining and well-edited, 1% of bad CGI. I just didn't like the cinematography much. It really looked like the 60s with technicolor or the 70s. The 80s were a bit of advanced so they should spend more of the budget to make a better cinematography. It's really hard to look at something that should be seen clearly. Another problem was when T-800 chased the two when it was burnt and exploded by one of Reese's bombs and turned into a cyborg skeleton, it was walking like how villains walk from movies of the 20s, the 30s or the 40s. It was bad. The lines from the screenplay were really good and iconic, especially: I'll be back! Or Fak you assholr! I really wanted to say it in front of bullies who tried to do the same thing that made the character says the line. They would be like "Where do you get that line from?" and they would get jealous.

Terminator (1984) was a masterpiece of sci-fi and action. I was still confused why it was R-Rated. There wasn't much blood or restricted danger. I felt it should be PG-13 because teens under 18 loved it as well. I really disagreed with the fact that it was rated an R. It was such a waste of that rating. For sci-fi and action movie fans, you guys should see it. It's one of the greatest in science fiction.

Ratings: 8.8/10

Misery (1990) is a psychological horror film based on another Stephen King's 1987 novel with same name. I don't really call this a horror movie because it's not scary but it's more like a thriller, there's drama. It was directed by Rob Reiner, who had also directed A Few Good Men (1992), Shock and Awe (2017), The Princess Bride (1987) and the screenplay was written by an author William Goldman, who had written novels like The Princess Bride in 1973, which was transferred into a movie in 1987 also directed by Rob Reiner, Which Lie Did I Tell?, ... It's about a psychotic fan who holds an author captive and forces him to write her stories. There was James Caan as the author, Paul Sheldon, who wrote romance novels about a character called Misery Chastain, when he had an accident, he was carried to someone else's house. It was revealed that the house belonged to his number 1 fan, Annie Wilkes played by Kathy Bates, who won an Oscar for Best Actress in 1991. She acted exactly how the number 1 fan in this film should be like: psychotic, crazy, insane and sometimes can be like an a-hole. I hate her but she's well-acted and well-developed thanks to Bates. Caan did a well job too. I was just disappointed that he wasn't even nominated for Best Actor in 1991. Barry Sonnenfeld was really good with the cinematography. It was kinda old-school and also suitable for a 90s thriller. I also like the story though I haven't read the book yet. I was really surprised when Sheldon read the red book filled with newspapers and found out that Wilkes was a nurse murderer and killed many patients and the only jump scare I saw was when Buster, the local sheriff was shot by Wilkes with the rifle when he found out that Paul Sheldon was locked in a room or a cellar maybe? And also it's just a story, why did Wilkes had to scream so bad about a character's death? That's just annoying! The original score was okay though, Marc Shaiman was okay as well. I didn't care about the score much in this film because I didn't hear the music much, I just care about the screenplay and Goldman wrote it excellently. I like it even though I saw a few sentences were a bit too easy. Misery isn't really a horror movie, it's just a drama and thriller which had blood in there. There wasn't much scare but it was a really good movie. Stephen King wrote the plot really well, Reiner directed excellently, the score was played okay, the cinematography was also well-shot by Sonnenfeld and more... Caan and Bates were perfect for these roles making this movie one of the greatest Stephen King's adaptation.

My Ratings: 9.15/10

Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them (2016) is directed by David Yates, who directed most movies of the Harry Potter franchise from the Order of the Phoenix. The screenplay was written by J.K Rowling, which I had the book and I read the whole screenplay. It was the first time J.K Rowling wrote a screenplay. I really enjoyed Fantastic Beasts because the magical creatures were so creatively created. Eddie Redmayne took the role of Newt Scamander, a magizoologist who went to New York to send his Thunderbird Frank there. Redmayne was fantastic being this character, he had to keep his beasts a secret so nobody would know. There was Dan Fogler as Jacob Kowalski, a No-Maj (or Muggle in British English) who acted like an audience, he asked other characterss what was going on and they told not only him but also the audiences. I also liked Katherine Waterston as Tina Goldstein, she acted well and Colin Farrell as Percival Graves, who was actually a disguise. Graves was actually one of the most powerful wizards in the Wizarding World Gellert Grindelwald played by one of our favorite actors, Johnny Depp. His villainous acting was a bit weak and needed to be a little stronger and a darker character. His disguise acting was okay but when he was Grindelwald, he wasn't really in his dark characters but he was okay when he blew away 5 Aurors at the beginning. This was about Newt going to NYC to.... I said it. Then some creature escaped from his suitcase. The creatures were really creative created by awesome CGI like The Niffler, Occamy, Erumpent, Swooping Evil,... They were like real and we wanted this universe to be real but it's not real. Dammit! I love all the creature designs, they're really cool! And David Yates had proved that he's the director who understood more about the Wizarding World more than others. This movie doesn't rely on a previous movie but set up itself. I mean this isn't a reboot and they did a really good job at creating the Fantastic Beasts series in the Harry Potter Universe. I love a lot of things about this movie, the creatures (they're adorable) (I wish there was a Hippogriff). There's also one thing I liked about the movie: the original score. It was scored by James Newton Howard. The beginning theme was so satisfying that I couldn't take my ears off. Such a good soundtrack to listen to! I am looking forward to hear more of him. I really loved Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them. It was such a good movie and it's one of the bests of the Harry Potter franchise. There's a lot of fun and you get to see a lot of magical things audiences wanted to see. Such an entertaining movie!

Points: 7.9/10

Now we're moving on the the sequel of the Harry Potter franchise. We've already known a lot from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001): Harry being thwarted by a bunch of a-holes (The Dudleys), Hogwarts, the main characters (Harry, Ron, Hermione and more). It was once again directed by Chris Columbus (this is his last Harry Potter movie) and scored by John Williams. This movie is a bit darker than the first one and the mystery was scarier for kids. We started in the Dursleys' house when Harry saw Dobby jumping on the bed (just look how adorable the elf is). At first I don't like him much because he had annoyed Harry so much. At least he was a good character in the end because we've already known what had happened and this guy Lucius Malfoy, Draco's father, was worse than his tongue and knowing that Dobby's his slave made me calling Lucius a piece of excrement. The most adorable part of this movie is that Ginny went down and looked at Harry with wide eyes. That's just cute! As I said I hated Malfoy, I really liked the Quidditch scene when Malfoy was hit by Dobby's Rogue Bludger and had an accident. Good Riddance! There's this character I don't like, Gilderoy Lockhart: an arrogant guy who only learnt one charm and had been a fraud for a whole time writing books which had fake information about him fighting a creature and more. Even though he had writing skills, he's one of the weakest wizard and it was a pity when he lost his mind by his Memory Charm. There're more creative thing about the sequel. There're more creatures like The Basilisk and Dumbledore's Phoenix, the creature which had petrified Hogwarts students who were muggles (raised by human parents). There're a few parts I like better than the first movie. There's a Flying Ford Anglia showing audiences what magic is truly capable of and the mystery had more clues than the first one. Audiences were wondering what the Chamber of Secrets was. The clues were really scary seeing kids being petrified. In this movie, we had our first time seeing Lord Voldemort from the past still with the title Tom Marvolo Riddle. We also saw the first Horcrux: Riddle's Diary. There're more magical objects in the movie like Godric Griffindor's Sword. The CGI is as good as the previous movie. But the problem is that Hermions knew too much but in here she's petrified so we couldn't have her solving too much. They mystery should remain longer. This one's not as good as the Sorcerer's Stone but it's one of the darkest of the franchise and we're introduced more to magic and I like the way they were introduced.

Points: 7.9/10