Jrtlaktalk

This movie was bad, outright bad. The plot made no sense, and was riddled with inconsistencies, holes and unfinished threads. The action was bland, uninspired and gimmicks were overused and became repetitive. The dialogue was awfully cringe and often, unbelievably bloody stupid. What also really bothered me was that the two main stars were clearly old, despite the movie trying to sell them as not "having aged at all" - which is completely absurd. The pacing was also nonsensical. The only redeeming thing of this movie is Keanue Reeves and Doogie Howser, which was what made me watch it to the end. WB should never have made 2 or 3, and they sure as certain should not have made this garbage. This should never have been a franchise - and it really has to be over now.

Initially... I didn't like the design of "chucky" or think that an AI was a particularly suitable replacement for charles lee ray (spelling?)... ...but it was a perfectly fine and enjoyable movie. It is actually a pretty decent blend between an adapted child's play and lawnmover man - hell, even got a bit of a puppet master vibe here and there, so not entirely sure what the other boomers are on about. In short, the movie is a perfectly fine horror movie, and a lot better than the majority out there, in fact, it was actually watchable and entertaining. I wouldn't give it a ten, I would give it somewhere between a 6 to 8, but i'm giving it a 10 to offset some of these ridiculous 0's.

So only two of the 31 people that didn't like it bothered to say why? Ahh, it seems that there is a small contingent of people review bombing this for its "2009 misogyny" - oh and some reviewers as well... Don't pay attention to them, it is a fun movie, and pretty much more of the same - which is not the a bad thing.

The critic score is not representative, and it is actually quite inappropriate for "professionals" to allow their cultural and or political bias to influence their score so heavily. I watched this, and I don't see the "danger". The movie was excellent, and it was an interesting take on the character's origin. The acting is also actually quite excellent and not "try-hard" as aforesaid reviewers may want you to believe. Should DC continue to build a universe on the back off of this, they would finally have something.

I don't fully understand why this movie received so many positive ratings, as it was generally a cringefest of watching an 70-80 year old masked man still having the strength of someone in their prime chasing an old lady, with familial issues, that also still appears to have the abilities of someone in their prime. Furthermore, the pacing, acting and script were all contrived and unconvincing. If it wasnt for the blood and Jamie Lee Curtis' constant shouting and blathering about the "boogeyman", this would have been more accurately described as a family drama. The only reason why I gave this 3 stars is because of the title track composed in 1978.

The Last Jedi is an insincere and meaningless nonsense of a Star Wars movie. It is a sad day when it can be said that the Jar-jar trilogy was better than this vapid and pandering commercial “success”. I am glad I missed this one in cinema, and I will be certain to stay away from this Pirates of the Caribbean rebrand in future. If I had the time, I would check to see if the same writers contributed to this one, but I cant be bothered, and I will definitely not be surprised. If the next installment is going to be the same, they should rather, seeing as we don’t have a Disney channel where I’m from, do a direct to Nickelodeon release instead. They should also bar everyone who worked on the movies, and their families, from making “reviews”, so that I can actually see what the one person who actually liked it, liked about it.