Mercent

8/10, but because of the various unfair review bombing, i modified it to 10/10 to balance it out. To the people who say 'good visuals, bad plot', i challenge you to look deeper, not just skin deep; pay attention to the complexity and nuances; pay attention to the themes and symbolism; pay attention to dialogues, both spoken and unspoken. It will probably take you a few re-watch to catch all of them; i too need re-watch to catch some of the nuances, like those between Spider and his father. Just like Avatar 1, people who do not pay attention or are less spiritually inclined will fail to experience the catharsis; it is a shame really

I am not a Marvel fan. I hated the first movie. I don't really care about genders. I went in with low expectations. There are some things i hated: those silly banters are not well written at all. There are some things i liked a lot: emotional and action scenes.

This movie is a breath of fresh air. For so many recent movies, you can predict pretty accurately what will happen in the next 90 minutes from the first 15, but not so for Valerian. There is a sense of wonder in this film. There is the wonder of seeing so many strange alien beings who are truly aliens, and not just bipedal humanoid of varying colours. There is the wonder of seeing different acrologies and biomes. There is the wonder of seeing genuinely funny scenes that are not deliberate or forced, but tickles you in the right place. If the sci-fic genre, in whatever medium, is supposed to instil a sense of wonder in the audiences, then this film is the quintessential sci-fi film.

Thanks to Josh Trank, this film is better than the usual Marvel trash. If critics wish to curse this film because of the poor plot, I challenge them to come up with a Marvel film that has even remotely a good script. Trank accually managed to infused a sense of excitement of exploration and discovery into the film.

'Why would you want to prove all is for nothing?' This quote from the movie pretty much sums it up. Don't read any reviews, including this one, and since you are now reading it, you have failed to fullfil the imperative. So in the same way, when you watch the film to find what is the meaning of life, the fact that you are watching a Gilliam film makes it so you will not find any, since Gilliam will always kindle warm fuzzies in your heart at first but leave a void in your guts after.

Your ten year old will probably love every minute of it but you will just have to enjoy the popcorn. How to Train Your Dragon 2 sticks to the tradition of lackluster animation sequels. 6 points, for old time's sake.

The ****. The first time you watch, it felt inadequate as the plot is somewhat prosaic. If you watch it the second time and pay attention to the details rather than the general picture, there is much breathtaking artistry.

Very involved acting from Tom Cruise. He deserves some serious credit. An award is long overdue. However, the plot is uninspired and In order to escape the reality of death, the ending ends up being unsatisfying. Why does Tom Cruise have multiple lives or a convenient re-start button in his recent movies? In fact, why recent movies are so averse to the idea of death and finality?

There are some pretty bad cinematography in this film, akin to low budget thai horror movie - you will know which scene i am refering to if you watch this film. Magneto is a schizophrenic in this film, making major decisions snappishly on a whim: deciding to avert the disastrous future by preventing a murder at one moment and then deciding to kill that same intended victim plus the president (which would no doubt leads to disaster) in the next moment. Schizophrenic characters are hallmarks of a bad story.

One can only enjoy this movie with the mindset. This is not an action movie. This is not an adventure movie. This is not a hack and slash and explosion movie. The actions are only cosmetic and added only as an afterthought. This is a movie that dramatize the problems faced in philosophy of mind: does that which behaves as if it has consciousness indeed has consciousness? This is a movie that envision the fulfillment of the promise of science to modern man: salvation through technology. It is sad to read reviews debasing this movie based on 'horrible action sequences'.

Strength: Visual Effects Weak: Kyptonian Society Premises. The has the best Kypton Myth and i concur but it could have been better if the script writers made kept closer adherence to the concepts of Plato, which would have made the Kyptonian Society much more viable. Instead, we have Russel Crowe mouthing haphazardly a single line, without justification, about the demerits of Krypton, like a sales person brushing off claims of excellence of his rival's products, and Superman, with visible lack of compunction, ripping apart Krypton's solution to the questions asked by all intelligent being about existence (the Genesis chamber ship) with his EYES (who can blame him? It is unlikely for twelve-year olds to be able to read beyond Plato's words). Anyone with a smattering of understanding about Plato's thoughts would have winced and railed at such scenes. Of course, it is the intention of the script writers to pitch freedom against societal pre-destination, with Superman, bastion of freedom, choosing to do Good and besting the best warrior of the totalitarian Krytonian society, who did 'Evil' in his attempts to fulfill his purpose of protecting his people. In the end, General Zod's death speech bespeaks a grander character in the man than in that of an alien in tights parroting about freedom and choice, as he is brought up to do.