Windolicker

Some Youtubers I regularly listen to were really trashing this film. I am not a fan of Chris Stuckmann, I have never seen his show. I also know that he is a leftist and I pretty much hate leftists. However, I pride myself in giving credit where it is due. So, with that being said, I think that the people trashing this movie are really going overboard. I think the main problem with this film is the first 20 minutes or so and then the final scene. The first 20 minutes border on intolerable; there is something very cheap about all of it. The acting is weak, the dialogue is weak, and the exposition is weak and overdrawn. A lot of found footage is used and found footage is notoriously cheesy and hard to make work. Once you get past the first 20 minutes, the film really does become something entirely different and it is quite good. The ending, which I will not spoil, needed to be SLIGHTLY tweaked and I feel like it would have really stuck the landing. I also want to note that while I was watching the movie "Barbarian" and many other horror films, I will be screaming at the screen wondering why the characters are acting so damn stupid. That didn't happen in this film. The characters behaviors and actions make sense within the situations they are in. The only exception to that is the husband not believing his wife about the what happened to Riley, even though she has A PHOTO OF A DEMON behind her. You would think that might move the needle for him a little but no, he just thinks she is crazy. TL;DR: Get past the first 20 minutes and this is quite a good horror film.

What the hell is going on here? Why is there anybody rating this thing above a 5? Is it original? Yes, it is. However, that doesn't make it a good movie. Does it have a cute dog that seems to be really intelligent and is the best animal actor I have ever seen? Yes. However, that also doesn't make it a good movie. The bottom line is that this film is a little over an hour and even that felt like a stretch for the writers. Because they almost had nothing to fill that hour with. It was such a slog, my god. I caught myself falling asleep multiple times within just the first 20 minutes. My girlfriend and I almost shut it off but that just isn't our style. We pride ourselves on finishing films. "Good Boy" brought us to our limit. This movie isn't scary, it isn't tense, there wasn't a single moment that I was on the edge of my seat for, and it doesn't have "heart" like many reviewers say. The lack of heart is in large part due to the fact that the only real human actor in the film is absolutely atrocious. The actor who plays Todd actually sounds like he is a dubbing actor who would get work speaking on any number of Japanese/Korean films. Every line of his sounds incredibly forced and I am convinced his dialogue was added in post. The pacing is nonexistent because you can't pace a film if it has nothing of interest in it. It is just the dog seeing the shadow figure and reacting (or not reacting) to it; then rinse and repeat. My girlfriend gets scared at pretty much any horror film but this didn't even come close to creeping her out. We were too busy trying to stay awake or also trying to figure out what the hell was going on: Is the shadow creature the manifestation of death that only the dog can see? Or is it an actual demonic entity that has wiped out multiple people in Todd's family tree? As it turns out, the creator of the film doesn't know the answer to that question either. Unlike the creator though, I just don't care. Finally, I want to mention the lack of investment I had in the character, Todd. A wooden portrayal and thin writing have Todd basically behaving like a diseased piece of wood. There is nothing interesting about him. He loves his dog. Or does he? Why the HELL would Todd chain the dog up the way he did? What was that even about? And did Todd end his own life with pills? Because he left his dog outside chained up and that likely would have caused the dog to die from thirst or starvation. Why was he treating his sister so poorly? Oh yeah, I don't care. Only pseudo intellectuals who want to feel artsy and special will (pretend to) like this drivel. The rest of us see it for what it is, a novelty with a fun concept but horribly executed as if it were made by a bunch of film school students.

For some reason I thought that the people I was listening to were being overly harsh on this film. After watching it, my god, all the criticism is 100% warranted. This is a truly awful film. Snow White (Rachel Zegler) and Dopey are the two characters that I found to be ABSOLUTELY INSUFFERABLE. The very corny writing combined with the saccharine acting/animation of those two characters made me want to crawl out of my skin. Beyond that, the movie is shockingly boring, sanctimonious, trite, and cringe. Snow White isn't white but was rather named after a snow storm? Snow White isn't even close to being as attractive as Gal Gadot. Dopey isn't actually dopey but a little twink who gets bullied. The constant focusing in on his hideous face will likely give me nightmares. The prince isn't a prince but actually a thief and that's completely fine because the "greedy economic policies of the queen". Yes, let's teach kids that stealing is a morally grey area. The population in this "secluded" kingdom somehow has the diversity of California? Sureeeeee. What else? The music ****, the cgi dwarves ****, the "set pieces" (mostly cgi) ****, the acting ****, the dialogue ****, the story has largely been subverted and therefore ****, and Disney unfortunately, still ****. It feels like it was written by a bunch of very emotional women that have had all of their personalities molded into a lump of boring slop. In other words: Leftists. Keep throwing your money down the toilet Disney, I am fine with it. But you should change the company name because Walt Disney would have nothing to do with this disgrace of a company. Note: There are two things that I liked about this movie: The cute little forest critters and Gal Gadot. Everybody was saying that Gadot was one of the worst parts but I completely disagree. She was fun to watch actually.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I actually haven't seen this movie. I am making a comment on a new film to try and rally people together to TELL METACRITIC TO FIX THEIR GOD DAMN WEBSITE! What is wrong with the typing on this site? It puts "****" in if you use ellipses, sometimes you can't even post a written review, the cursor for typing jumps around sometimes so you end up deleting something you have written which you didn't mean to delete, etc. I CANNOT STAND the corruption of Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB along with the insane censorship. Any review that mentioned any politics would be removed from IMDB. So, my only choice was to come to Metacritic but this written review system is completely broken. Also, why did they get rid of upvotes on reviews? There used to be top reviews as voted by other reviewers. This website feels like it is on autopilot and that **** because I really want it to succeed. We have the moral high ground here at Metacritic; you simply cannot trust the curated ratings from IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes.

I just watched this for the first time since it came out, mainly due to a degree of excitement for the new Superman film a little less than a year from now. I kept waiting for the movie to go down hill, to become a crummy film which is what user reviews all over seem to say it is. For the life of me, I do not understand what people don't like about this movie. I enjoyed it from start to finish. If I were being hyper sensitive/ hyper critical about things I would complain that Lois is kind of a nasty and conceited brat towards Clark, who she has no idea is Superman. I would complain that maybe Superman doesn't have all that much character development. And if I was being a complete cynic who only was looking to hate the movie and didn't take any time to realize that this film drops us in long after Superman and Lois have a history, I would say that Superman is kind of creepy in that he stalks Lois a bit. If I was a 10 year old I would complain that it didn't have enough action and that there was "too much talkie talkie and talking is boring!" But I don't think any of those things because I have no reason to view this film in such a cynical way and I am also not 10 years old. Did I have a problem with Superman basically edging out Richard, who is a good man who could never compete with SUPERMAN. Yeah, I did but it was still quite dramatic and an interesting plot point. I think after reading negative reviews, I have gathered that the people who have a problem with this film have issues with there not being enough action, too much focus on the love story, and it's too different from the Christopher Reeves movies. Well, I haven't seen the Christopher Reeves movies for so long that I can't remember them, so I am not jaded by them or putting bizarre nostalgic requirements on this film as a result. I am simply judging the movie by itself and it was very satisfying. I have read some Superman comics and will admit that if Superman had Doomsday or a handful of other villains, it could have been very different and it would have scratched a different itch. But this was a different kind of fight and I am totally okay with that. I loved how this film took a lot of time to emphasize how important and larger than life Superman was to the city, to the country, and even to the world. My favorite part of the film is when, after being gone for 5 years and people think he isn't coming back, Superman makes his debut by catching a giant commercial airline right in the middle of a stadium. The whole crowd cheers ecstatically, "SUPERMAN IS BACK!" and I shared their excitement for a moment.

A tale as old as time is that when Hollywood does a remake or sequel, nine times out of ten, it isn't better than the original. This film is no exception to that rule. Every "new" thing about it, whether it is new dialogue or new music, is not on par with the original animated film. Watch it if you are a massive fan of the original. If not, you aren't missing anything other than a mostly soulless cash grab. Somehow this movie is substantially longer than the original and yet you walk away feeling less attached to the characters. Bell and Beast's relationship isn't developed very much; it doesn't feel romantic. If anything, it feels rushed but why should it when this movie is longer than the original? It's just bizarre. Gaston and Lefue had great casting and acting but beyond that, it was all "meh".

While highly thrilling in the first third to first half, the narrative really falls apart towards the end and I think the film makers try too hard to send a message to the audience. It sacrifices realism and good storytelling to push some sort of message at the end. However, the message isn't even all that clear anyway. It's an odd film.

I honestly cannot believe how overrated this film is. It has higher ratings than many Disney classics which makes absolutely no sense. This movie was a slog for me to get through. I didn't care about any of the characters. Also, the plot had huge holes. We find out who the villain is 2/3rds into the movie. And that is finally when the whole thing gets interesting. But by then it is too late, the movie is just a lost cause at that point. Because really most of the movie you are thinking that the family is the villain as the main character goes around crying like a spoiled brat because he refuses to listen to his family. Which brings me to my final point: I am tired of Disney movies making family members villains or having morally grey villains or sometimes no villain at all. Where are the proper villains?

This is an absolute mess of a film. It doesn’t really have a reason to exist and I think the people that made it either just did it for fun or for a cash grab. The only entertainment I got out of it was from Michael Keaton who is still very funny as Betelgeuse.

I am a huge Conan/Robert E Howard fan. I wanted this to be great. And it could have been great. I won't write a huge review. Instead, I will say that if adapted properly, the Conan stories could be turned into some of the greatest adventure films/shows of all time. Howard's work is just so incredible and I hope to live to see the day where proper treatment is given to his storytelling. This wasn't it. This was lazy, cheap, and missed so many opportunities. I don't know why these creators insist on telling their own Conan stories when so many great Howard stories are just waiting to be told. It was still fun but if you aren't a Conan fan, there is a big chance that this will just be a big fat dud for you.

My girlfriend just saw this in the theater today; we both are tough critics and we thoroughly enjoyed the film and laughed throughout. It is a genuinely funny film. The only complaint I would have is that it sacrifices being more on the informative side to instead be humorous. Which is a creative decision that I can respect. It doesn't get half as controversial as you might think it would. It keeps things pretty light. To call this "far right" is just insane. The ultimate message of the film is that we are all human, that the DEI industry has a major profit incentive, that victimhood pays and therefore isn't all that credible, and these "anti-racists" are pretty much frothing at the mouth and full of hate themselves. There could be a much more dry delivery of just the cold hard facts but Walsh elects to expose these people by mocking them. And perhaps that is the most effective way to go about things.

I loved this film as a teenager and decided to show it to my girlfriend last night. I hadn't seen it in at least 10 years. Did it hold up? Yes and no. It is objectively a great film. The acting, the story, the writing, and the effects are really great. However, there is this undercurrent of messaging about illegal migration that is really frustrating. Apparently you either have to be extremely pro immigrant or extremely anti immigrant. There is nobody in the middle saying, "Sorry, the world has gone to trash and sorry that people are in poverty and pain throughout the Earth, but the UK is a tiny island and we can't allow the entire planet to flood here." Because that's pretty much the only realistic and grounded way to view the situation. Instead, you have the government behaving as if though the refugees/illegal immigrants aren't human and obviously that is just terrible. But the film often feels like it is emotionally manipulating the situation to try to get the viewer to be completely pro refugee. When, all it takes is one minute of thought to realize that there are billions of people on the planet and even if you are pro refugee, you can't fit all of these people into the tiny British island. At some point, they would have to start turning people away. And what would that look like? Does it have to look like a dystopian nightmare, such as depicted in this film? Maybe it does. But, there is a reason that the UK in this fictional universe is still a functioning nation. Whereas the rest of the world has been destroyed. Instead of fighting against the only government that survived the apocalypse, I would be pretty grateful to them instead. None of these narratives come through though. Like I said, you are either pro massive migration or not in the world of "Children of Men". And it did kind of seem like they picked a side when it came to telling this story. Why was the government putting people in giant camps? Why not just deport them immediately? Or are places like Bexhill just staging areas for that to be done? If they are so oppressive, why not just kill them? People would stop trying to get in if they knew that they would be killed on sight. I read the book because I enjoyed the film so much but I simply can't remember any details. Anyhow, it is very much worth watching but being aware of some of the messages being pushed is important. Oh, I also have to mention that the actress that plays "Kee" is annoying and really not that good of an actress. She is definitely one of the weaker parts of the film.

The critics just can't help but constantly reveal how partisan and discredited they are. This is a genuinely good film. It doesn't push any kind of conspiracy theories. Why does Hollywood not discuss the topic of child predators more often? And why was this shelved for years? And why, when it finally is released, is Hollywood so uncomfortable about it? It is all so bizarre for really was just a solid thriller.

This is a truly overrated film. When I have time, I hope I can come back and write a more thorough review. However, for the moment, I will just mention all of the build up for a nuclear explosion that doesn't look nuclear in the least bit. It is a good metaphor for the film: a whole bunch of hype and drama for something that is in its essence, very small. The acting and cinematography are great, that is very true. But there is nothing in here that justifies its three hour run time. Oppenheimer had his security clearance revoked, big whoop. The film acts as if though he is being thrown in prison.

The fantastical elements mixed with the stop motion are where this film shines. However, the film really hurts itself by relying too much on CGI. What is actual stop motion and real versus what isn't? I didn't know. Whereas with Coraline, almost every part of the film was something handcrafted. Why go to all of the work for stop motion when you are going to add in digital effects and make the viewer forget that each scene was handmade? The story is really pretty great; albeit feeling a bit rushed. It also feels a little too overly sentimental at times. It's no "Coraline", but it is still very much worth watching and admiring.

I actually just saw this for the first time at the ripe old age of 34. I loved it. Like an 80's Henson version of Alice in Wonderland. At every turn, we are introduced to fun new characters or elements of this bizarre dimension. However, I really have no idea what the hell happened. But the ride was fun as all get out. I love watching the little puppets prance around. I imagine being a puppeteer is wonderfully fun career.

This film is critic and Oscar bait. Within 10 minutes it borders on unbearable due to this overwhelming feeling of pretension that it utterly radiates. Carey Mulligan is just the worst.....I can't stand her in any role she is in. Mulligan has a facial expression that she always falls back on: mouth slightly agape (to emphasize her dimples/smile lines) with eyes flickering or squinting in something akin to a thousand yard stare. It is something that many bad actresses do but she is the worst offender by far. Cooper, on the other hand, also annoys me; rather what the makeup department did to his face annoys me. They did something to his lips that makes me want to punch him square in the face every time I see them. Getting into plot, the whole introduction feels messy as can be. I just turned it off after 25 minutes. What is going on with the dialogue? So much is said and yet somehow, it all feels like it is going nowhere. As if nothing is said at all.

The villain is actually Aisha lol. I wrote a huge review and it somehow got deleted so I am not going to waste my breath anymore. This film has no soul. It is a great irony that this movie was celebrating 100 years of Disney but it actually is a benchmark for how far Disney has fallen. The morals are utterly broken, just like the freaks who run Disney these days.

There is so much wrong with this film. Little and big details that are overlooked seemed to jump out of the screen and I have lost track of them all. But just to give a few examples: The scene where the Frenchman guy from Jurassic World (who is now CIA) gets trapped in a room and a raptor is in the doorway, gnashing its teeth and desperately trying to eat him. Yeah, that guy had a gun on him the entire time and ends up finally using it to shoot a lock off a hatch so he can escape. He never even attempts to shoot the raptor. Then, almost immediately after that, HE DOES IT AGAIN! He and Chris Pratt are basically trapped by this raptor and end up tricking it to get into a cage; but in order to do so, he has to seriously risk his life. Why didn't he use his gun? Two times he could have shot the raptor and doesn't. It is never explained why he doesn't. Another example of stupid oversights is how the redhead, Claire, is running away from a raptor and she ends up getting away. However, right after that, the same raptor is shown to be keeping pace with a motorcycle and a plane on a straight runway. So, this raptor is running at least 80mph. I have no idea how Claire outran these raptors. Another silly detail is how the blonde/Asian smuggler woman pulls a knife out on Claire and is literally trying to kill her; in defense, Claire uses a dinosaur taser on her. In an utterly bizarre piece of dialogue, the smuggler woman says "You aren't supposed to use those tasers on people!" WHAT??? Lady, you were just trying to stab Claire! You were engaged in mortal combat and Claire defended herself with any means necessary. What did you expect? It's like they used the first draft of the script! Finally, the last stupid oversight I will mention is the black pilot woman. I seriously can't believe how badly she is either miscast or the makeup department just failed entirely. Or maybe it is both things. Because the moment I saw this woman, I was blown away by how little she fits in. Ironically enough, she tells Claire in a bathroom that she doesn't look like she belongs here. And I just about screamed at the screen and said, "****, Claire looks like she belongs here more than you! You look like you just stepped off a modeling catwalk!" That isn't even mentioning the fact that I have never seen a pilot look anything like that. She doesn't have a single blemish, her skin is flawless, her hair looks like it was just done at the salon, her eyebrows are literally perfect, and yet she flies this janky/filthy beater plane? It just doesn't work at all. They were going for a Han Solo type of rogue pilot and this woman just isn't it. Even worse, her perfect appearance is maintained throughout the film. By the end, all of our characters are beaten, bruised, and dirtied, yet she looks totally fine outside of being a little sweaty. Why? Wokeness, that's why. Of course. You can't show a black lesbian (yes she is a lesbian and the film makes subtle hints at that) woman being anything other than perfect. And that's pretty much exactly what they do: just have her be perfect Mary Sue who has next to no purpose and just takes screen time from important characters. She is just one more character in a film that doesn't need anymore characters. And the only reason she is on screen is because they needed more "diversity". I could keep listing problems like this... but I think I have made my point. These oversights are just symptoms of a larger problem: the film seems like it was seriously rushed. The plot is a mess and is all over the place with too many moving parts and characters to follow. This film is by far the worst in the Jurassic Park catalogue and it figures because Hollywood can't really do anything right in its current state. They are obsessed with political messaging and they have forgotten or just don't care about good story telling. "Jurassic World Dominion" barely **** by as being a moderately entertaining and mindless action flick. Don't think about anything too much. Don't pay too close attention. Even better, just have a low IQ and this should satisfy you. PS: There is absolutely no reason for the original Maisie to have cloned herself, impregnated herself, and gave birth to herself. It's insane. The only reason that that was fed into the story was so that they could "represent" a female scientist genius on screen. Oh, and she was the true genius behind Jurassic Park. It wasn't Henry Wu or Lockwood or any MAN. No no, it was a woman all along. Pff, it's so ridiculous; it served no purpose to the plot. They could have kept grandpa Lockwood as the actual creator of the cloning technology instead of retconning the previous film. It wouldn't have changed the plot at all. In fact, it would have made things much more palatable. Because the whole story of Maisie giving birth to a clone of herself is absolutely crazy.....that sounds like some mad scientist ****. It's just another example of story taking a backseat to political posturing.

I hand 10s out on movies that sometimes don't deserve it.....this movie actually is a 10/10. It is important to understand the first film and both of them don't really hold your hand. So, these aren't films you can afford to walk away from or not pay attention to for more than a moment. However, the time flies by and each scene is visually stunning. I may still view the Harkonnens as villains but holy cow they became bad asses in this second film. The depiction of Geidi Prime and the black sun was utterly amazing. It reminded me of what Ridley Scott attempted to do in his Alien **** I say attempted because he failed in pretty big ways. Every part of these movies has such incredible world building; it feels lived in. Almost like a documentary. One of my favorite sci-fi franchises of all time now and we can only hope that the third film clinches the finish. PS: If I have one bad thing to say about the movie it is Zendaya and the character "Chani". She felt kind of like a California "modern woman" and it came off somewhat annoying. I am concerned about the third film because of this.

Major amounts of plot contrivances. Within just the first 35 minutes, there are so many mind numbing decisions made..... consecutively...... from both human and aliens alike. For example: A race of interstellar aliens who are far more advanced than humanity, are apparently unable to track and safely detain a very noisy and panicked young woman let alone someone who would actually pose a threat? You know, like somebody with a gun? Additionally, this total idiot of an alien gets killed and apparently none of his comrades notice or care enough to check in on the house he was last at (this somehow changes over the course of the runtime). It's an oxymoron to have aliens who are dimwitted morons. By their very arrival Earth means they are technologically superior; the only reason the panicked young woman is able to get the upper hand is through MASSIVE amounts of plot contrivances/plot armor. It really is just one absurd piece of luck after the next. Does it build tension? Yes. And there were several times where I was truly gripped. However, each one of those moments of being thrilled was ruined by absurd plot armor. The ending is just a stupid cherry on top. Apparently this woman is the only person in town with trauma? She was alienated by her community and then in the end becomes the only one without the body snatching throat thing? I don't care.... outside of the great acting from the lead actress and a few moments of suspense, this is a very dumb movie. Only recommend if you are truly die hard fan of sci-fi horrors.

IMDB declined this review; like they decline most of my reviews: This film is an abomination. Truly. It is the same tired trope that Disney Lucasfilm simply, like an addict, cannot stop using. Ah yes, the female "girl boss"; who actually is the protagonist, who really is fundamentally unlikeable, who does everything as well as or better than Indy, and adds next to nothing to the film. She insults Indy and I couldn't help but think her insults were actually Kathleen Kennedy's actual opinions. She is a carbon copy of Indiana Jones but instead of being charming, she is ugly both inside and out. Indy, of course, is a sad, tired, and washed up shadow of his former self. He has lost everything that was once important to him. Kind of like Luke Skywalker, kind of like Han Solo, kind of like Boba Fett, kind of like Obi-Wan Kenobi, kind of like the dead Madmartigan from Willow. The only Disney Lucasfilm characters that broke that mold were from Andor & Mandalorian.....which of course are Disney Lucasfilm's only good shows. Mandalorian has been ruined in its third season due to the resurgence of the same girl boss pattern. Disney Lucasfilm hates its male heroes and guess what? The audience is absolutely sick of it. This film is bombing at the box office because it offers the same old woke tropes and it also is just an incoherent mess. I thought that all of the hate was probably just exaggeration. Nope. It is justified. I felt like walking away from this film after an hour. It's hard to sit through. The characters are universally terrible. The CIA woman is so badly miscast. The henchmen end up killing professors for no reason so I guess they are just cartoonishly evil? The chase scenes are boring because I don't even care about the characters. Ah, who am I kidding.... I am not going to go through all of the problems this movie has because I would be here all day. It is the shining gem of Hollywood's disfunction. What an absolute disaster of a film. 2/10 Only out of respect for Harrison Ford and John Williams.

How could things get this bad at Disney? ****? They are so creatively bankrupt that they can't even STEAL their old content effectively. The writers had an easy job: Take an old masterpiece + turn it into live action = easy money. Wait...wait wait **** have to check some boxes first. Change skin color for a bunch of people, change the theme of the story to be geared towards female empowerment (because Disney has never done that before), and make sure we hire people based on their skin color/gender. Talent? Pfff.....that's not a part of the hiring process you fool! Put aside all of the politically driven choices that were made for casting and writing (such as Arielle killing Ursula, not Eric), the film is just an absolute slog. I cannot imagine children wanting to watch this film. I was wanting to fast forward through it after only about 10 minutes. There is so much pointless fluff; it isn't exciting. What is the opposite of being "glued to your seat"? Wanting my seat to have an "EJECT" button? Yeah, that seems about right. Disney has no idea how to make movies anymore. It's just a fact. They don't care about entertainment and I don't think the executives even actually care about the various political causes they pretend to rally around either. They just care about the ESG money being funneled in from Blackrock and State Street. Well guess what Disney? I think that line of credit is starting to get tapped out. Your coffin might need one or two more nails but any way you cut it, modern Disney cannot continue in this fashion. What we the customers are left with are soulless PRODUCTS, devoid of any character, risk, heart, or quality. I have been watching the woke agenda take over for over 15 years. It was this year that normal people have finally....FINALLY started to notice. And it's about damn time.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I remember the hype and buildup to this film; the media frenzy over the outrageously fantastic performance of Jonathon Majors. I didn't know what to expect, considering the news/entertainment media machine is essentially just 100% propaganda now. I don't care that Majors has been accused of assault...I am completely putting that aside. The bottom line is that his performance in this film was awful. It was childish, stupid, over the top, took me out of the film, and at times it was incredibly boring. When I am watching a great actor, one of the hallmarks of that experience is that I totally get lost in the performance. While watching great acting, you typically forget that you're watching a film, you just feel like you are watching a person experiencing something. It is only after the film or the moment that you think back and say "Wow, that was great acting". However, when I was watching Majors' "Kang" performance, I constantly was thinking about his acting; I constantly was reminding myself that I am watching a man act a part. His facial expressions were stilted and **** mouth was moving every which way. It was just awful. I now feel the need to go watch "Creed III" and find out if this was deliberate or if the man really is just a crap actor. Anyway, the film itself was subpar and mostly it was very stupid. I immediately was put off by Scott Lang's weak parental role. Right off the bat, his daughter goes to jail and he is such a weak father, he is afraid to even tell her that she made a mistake. Then, we are forced to listen to his family make fun of him for being proud of himself for SAVING THE UNIVERSE. I had a revelation at some point that the writers of this film are speaking through Scott's teenage daughter. They literally have the same politics, ideology, morals, and humor of the teenage girl. I'm pretty sure the audience is intended to side with Scott's adolescent daughter on most of their arguments. Which is totally absurd. Scott should have grounded the hell out of his daughter; taking away her phone, car, Pym suit, and everything else. SCOTT, BEING A DAD ISN'T THE SAME AS BEING A FRIEND! God, Disney is such a mess. The messaging of this film is so dumb/damaging and it really does feel like it was written by a bunch of teenagers. I had fun at times to be sure, it wasn't a complete bust. But this film doesn't hold up against the first installment, let alone the second. Disney Marvel has to make some serious changes because if they don't....this whole Marvel train is going off a cliff. Frankly, the train may already have flown off the cliff and is now currently in freefall. PS: The "Don't be a ****" joke, if we can call it that, was total cringe. Absolutely ridiculous that dialogue like that made it past editing. It really cemented my belief that the creators all have adolescent brains. And by adolescent, I mean under developed. PPS: Janet not mentioning Kang and the threat he poses to the universe is just pure lunacy. Another plot point that I can't believe made it past editing.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I was totally ready and willing to enjoy this film and so was my girlfriend. We know that Disney has become political but we set aside those facts and just wanted to enjoy this new film. But good god this was terrible. How does it have a 6.4 score? Disney bots? I would give it a 3 but I feel like I need to pull its undeserved score down as far as I possibly can. Pixar has been ruined by left wing politics. I know this because woke politics ruin everything; after all, the entire purpose of wokeness is to "deconstruct" and rebuild things in their image. Well, it looks like Pixar was deconstructed and what was built in its place is a hollow, shallow, shell of what used to be. Keep hiring based on race and sex, Disney, because that seems to be working out real well for your intellectual properties. LOL. This movie **** BAD. My girlfriend and I shut it off halfway through. I felt like it had no stakes. Just an insane mother, a weak father, and an obnoxious children. But they have to get to the concert! I kept asking myself, why is the concert this important? I understand that being a child can come with obsessions, but holy cow, this concert is like life or death to these kids and it just doesn't translate to audiences. There is no good villain other than the insane mother. It's just a really bad film.

If you want race relations to heal in the US, do you repeatedly pick at the scab, keep making movies about previous injustices, slavery movie after slavery movie after slavery movie.....after.....wait for it.....slavery movie; WE GET IT, you hate us. I think it is time for a divorce. I am citing irreconcilable differences. You know, on account of the whole "We hate you because of slavery even though you had no part in it" whole thing. I'm seriously sick of it. Also, does anybody care about the Oscars? If you cared a year ago you are not too bright but in the last few months they announced that in order to get an Oscar, you have to meet certain diversity quotas or your film has to have a certain message about anti-racism. So, the Oscars aren't about talent anymore; they aren't even pretending that it's about talent. No, they are flat out telling us that their nomination process is political.

This movie thinks it is edgy and cutting edge and ultimately it just tries too hard to evoke emotions. There are constantly long scenes where nothing is said and the audience gets to just stare at Gosling and other characters. I really thought this film was a bore and I am super passionate about space and astronomy. It really is just a meditation on Neil Armstrong himself and frankly I don't think they even succeed on that front. As far as it being a biopic it really doesn't show Armstrong's character anyway. Zzzzzzzzz

Are you serious? Over 3 hours and 40 dollars spent for RPX tickets and this was what I got? I respect the craft of the film and there are redeeming qualities of the film but they simply aren't enough. Everybody is so up Tarantino's ass that they can't call the film what it is, a waste of time and money. I love Tarantino movies but compare this to the incredible suspense of Inglorious Basterds and it isn't even a contest. I tried to feel the buildup but it was so horribly drawn out I just stopped caring. By the time things got interesting I was already too angry to enjoy it. There were multiple times where I tapped my girlfriend and said, "It's about to get crazy!" only for it to fizzle out with more dialogue. This film isn't even worth a rent; unless you consider yourself a die hard Tarantino fan. I told my girlfriend that Tarantino movies were a "sure thing" but I was dead wrong. I had to apologize to her because she wanted to see another movie.

The fact that this doesn't have better ratings is actually quite astounding. Everything about it is top tier in quality. It is despicable that politics become a reason for professional critics to get on their soapbox and start spewing hate about our troops. The bottom line is that this was the first movie in a very long time that I was happy to pay $15 for at theaters. The acting was phenomenal, as was the cinematography and visual effects. You goons can rate it 0 all day but the fact is that this film may soon become the highest grossing R rated film of all time. Normal people without hard left political agendas like it because it reminds us of the heroes we have at home.

Great atmosphere, acting, camerawork, writing, special effects, etc., I could go on. The bottom line is that this is the kind of "horror" movie that I diligently wait for. Unfortunately, they are few and far between. If you want the classic campy horror film, go find yourself a copy of Saw or The Hills Have Eyes. If however, you are craving something a little smarter, a little less obvious, and a little more evil, look no further.