Reviews

Special effects master Douglas Trumbull co-produced it, being his directorial debut. Hollywood's best-known psycho villain Bruce Dern starred it. And it's a science fiction with a case, and songs too!

Actually this movie has all the reasons in the world to be distinct, if not unique, and it is to great extent. But it doesn't lack problems.

This is not your typical space adventure, with action, comedy, and happy end. On the contrary, this is almost a tragedy that cries over the environmental destruction like no other movie I remember. It came in a hippie phase, where planet earth was considered a hell out of the human stupidity.

Look how the world's leaders were convicted, in the movie's conscience, when they canceled the space forests project, despite the non-existence of natural food on earth. Or how when the lead character, Freeman Lowell, was given the choice between earth and death, he chose death; not because he needed to escape from the authorities due to murders he committed, but because he's Adam who doesn't want to leave heaven, and go to the earth's hell!

Lowell reminded me with Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe more than Jules Verne's Captain Nemo, however he's more lonely and tortured. Even his robots got terminated or broken-down, let alone that all of them have no features, or speaking voices. The script has its smart moments, especially when Lowell ate fast food near the end, as an act of self-punishment, or went to ride his friends' cars, when he missed their presence.

The sets, the cinematography, and the performance were outstanding. Although I didn't like the songs personally, but sure they enhanced the lead's feelings, and the movie's message, in a way that today's movies avoid, rather shy away from. They have romantic sense that became bitterly absent.

I hated the all along heavy lighting over the spacecraft in which the lead lives; it exposed it as fake. And maybe I hated more what I call the plot's straying, where the events stopped at one step, and nothing more had to happen, which made the smell of "forced melodrama" all over the place.

All in all, this is a sad movie, where being dead is better than being on our planet. And it gets sadder when you know that in the next 50 years, its director didn't direct unless one more feature film, its lead actor didn't get to be the lead character unless very rarely, and its kind, as a movie with conscience, didn't have that continuity, as most what we have now is the overgrown balloon of sex and violence!

Our national TV aired that movie once. I wanted eagerly to watch it, but couldn't catch it. I felt deeply sorry for that. But when I finally got to watch it, nearly quarter of a century later, I told myself: "Ok, you shouldn't feel that sorry, pal!"

As the title character, Kenneth Branagh shouts a lot. He played Hamlet as a determined organized man, who has a clear plan of revenge. And - worse - while being 35 years old at the time, he looked 45. Even Nicholas Farrell, who played his friend Horatio, was 41!

Derek Jacobi isn't charismatic, or menacing, enough to play Claudius. Charlton Heston's performance, of King Priam's soliloquy, was weak and cold, while it should have been powerful and blazing. Brian Blessed as king Hamlet seemed like a horror movie's monster more than a betrayed kind father. Michael Maloney plays Laertes - a young guy who is sent to Paris to study - while being 39 years old; ok, he should've had 1 master's degree, 2 doctorates, and 3 kids by then. And Julie Christie as Gertrude assured that there were plastic surgeries in the 19th century!

I didn't buy the so-called sexual relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia; he's too idealistic to commit such a sin. It was just a despised trick from the movie's side to make the lead character closer to today's fully lustful youths. In this manner, during her madness's scene, Ophelia does a pretty dirty move that Shakespeare didn't write, or would have written. The kissing between Ophelia and her brother, or the way how Hamlet talked about his love to Horatio, led to perverted ideas unnecessarily. And the sight of Hamlet looking at us, while carrying him dead in the end, was idiotic, if not comedic!

The cinematic vitality was mostly missed. The long shots style sickened me; it was boring, fitting more a staged for TV production. The insistence of using a steadicam 360° rotation in some scenes gave me seasickness. There is some naivety, especially when the camera's point of view turns into someone walking into the events uninterestingly. Let alone little moments where the camera shakes, or the image is out of focus, unintentionally.

The heaviest, most unbearable, defect though was the fact that there was no room to breathe, or a second of silence. That was painfully annoying, and more of a beatdown. I believe this movie established the jumpcut delivery before the You Tubers, however with nonstop, over meaty, 4 hours dialogue; it's more mentally exhausting immeasurably!

As for the virtues, Kate Winslet stole the show as Ophelia. While being 21 back then, she upstaged many name actors around her, with all-the-time exceptional performance. Richard Briers mastered Polonius as an old, stupid, snake. Jack Lemmon as Marcellus did very fine. Despite the shortness of his role, he owned the screen and our love, with his calmness, and no need to exaggeration, which served a cinematic movie, not a theatrical play. The stormy "Swear to keep secret" moment, the mirrored doors' hall "Get thee to a nunnery" scene, the "Oh, here they come" chase sequence, alongside the swift flashbacks--all contributed to boost the cinematic spirit as well.

After 101 years of inventing cinema, this was the first unabridged theatrical movie version of William Shakespeare's best-known play. I respected the ambition of achieving that, putting in mind the moderate, or less than moderate, $18 million budget. Updating the drama from the medieval to the 19th century was a smart choice, to modernize it visually a bit, and be different then all the previous classic adaptions. And, obviously, the dazzling Panavision Super 70 cinematography, with its yummy red color, plus the list of stars, even for the small, cameo-like, roles--were the movie's crown jewel, which caused its description as "epic".

However, the movie's unsatisfied cinematic condition represented disappointing irony with the grand cadres, flashy image, and starry cast. The same irony can be lived again with Branagh's big head over his small physique, which could embody Hamlet's rich mind compared to his poor well, since - on the contrary - Branagh's interpretation portrayed the lead as a man of deeds. As you see, for every good factor in this movie, there is a bad factor. That's why my rating is 5 out of 10.

Many think that this is the best Hamlet movie, mainly due to presenting the whole Shakespearean text. But, for me, this is imperfect version. I loved more the black and white, noir-like, with no cinemascope, or international stars, Laurence Olivier's Hamlet (1948). At least Olivier doesn't shout there!

We have: A wife who didn't ask her husband about his home, parents, or anything, before their marriage, and after years of it too. A husband who takes his wife and child to one of the most horrifying spots in India, while he could've (it's: he should've) travelled alone. In a hell of bullets, explosions, and massacres, the husband chooses to sleep with his wife outdoors. A car explodes, and everybody in it dies, except one guy inexplicably. A wife who does nothing but crying, running, crying, running, then crying again. A loyal henchman who kills his boss's daughter just to make way. A bunch of thugs, who already have guns, fight one unarmed man, who they seriously hate, with only sticks. The same unarmed man gets shot right in the middle of his back, then fights 10 men bigger than him with his bare hands, wins them all, runs after a train, catches it, saves a women and her son, fights again, kills all the bad guys, then finally dies out of his injury (remember it?!). Yet nothing in the world can outmatch the ending; where one of the toughest men ever appeared on screen turns into a complete idiot who stops chasing his late son's wife after numerous bloody pursuits, leaving her in peace, out of the blue, AND FOR NO REASON AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In some movies I forget logic a bit, but this time I regretted to do it, then became incapable of doing it anymore. The scenes of (Karisma Kapoor) crying are free and endless; many times I felt that the director should yell cut, but strangely he didn't. The father-in-low was enjoying beating up his daughter-in-law in non-stop way which assured that the director was the one who enjoyed it the most. The character of (Shah Rukh Khan), which reminded me of the young (Amitabh Bachchan)'s roles, turned out to be the most disappointing cameo ever. I thought he would be the lead, instead of (Sanjay Kapoor) who played the husband, but I was painfully wrong. Speaking of (Kapoor), he was awful as a presence or performance; OH MY GOD, how annoying he sounded while trying to call his family, or convince his father to stop killing. Now this is not an angry idealistic guy; it's a highly frenetic neurotic. (Nana Patekar) is wasted in nonsense, his last scene is the worst thing he did, or any actor could have done. Well, the whole third act is a fine cinematic interpretation of "random". While the board of "The End" showed suddenly - it is one of the most surprising indeed - I had a big hysterical laugh, being in denial, to laugh again continuously. Believe it or not, I kept laughing even in my sleep!

To make matters worse, there is a shocking, totally unnecessary, sex scene between the wife and the husband. Even if it was brief, why to include it in the first place, since we all know that the wife loved her husband unquestionably. The sole reason was spicing things up, however by imitating the cheapest of Hollywood. The same can be said about a long kiss between unknown man and woman in a Canadian street, or the first scene which is nothing but many shots for (Karisma Kapoor) stretching in her bed. Mercifully, the TV version deleted all of that, so the movie became less tacky.

I asked myself a lot what this movie exactly is? Is it inspired somehow from the American movie Not Without My Daughter (1991)? Is it an Indian western? At one moment, I ended up considering it a cross between pure violence and outrageous comedy. Look at the supporting actors' crazy performance, the choppy action sequences, the shrill and extreme everything--they're all super hilarious. Maybe the makers of it wanted basically to make a thriller action, but their gaudy style transformed it into a comedy. Like when we watch the husband dies, then - abruptly - he sings and dances after his death. However, to tell you the truth, it is not an action, a thriller, a musical, or even a social commentary. It's a huge savage cartoon, a commercial fatuity, and a flood of silliness. In a word, this is a frank shame, and you have to see it to believe that this actually exists, and being made with big budget, and proud artists. By its end, I felt embarrassed, while not someone, but "some ones" else should. I don't know how these artists can face people again. But according to their very movie, they don't lack the impudence!

(Shakthi: The Power) has a lot of reasons to be one original balderdash, or - at best - one of the longest horror comedies. So, laugh out loud, if only you can stand it!

Firstly, an importunate question: While being interrogated, why the character of Olga Seminoff (played by Camille Cottin) was shot with three quarters of the cadre filled with wall tiles?! Is it to indicate that we're in a kitchen? Is it to refer to the character as housekeeper? Or is it the director toying with the camera to enjoy himself?! Originally, if you give it a little thinking, you'll discover that the 3 answers are lamentable!

Pedant, naive, adolescent, and sometimes, if not most of the time, stupid. These were my thoughts on Kenneth Branagh's directing during the viewing. But, to tell you the truth, he wasn't the only guilty around. Michael Green's script suffered some catastrophes as well. Ok, you can say that I was about joining the movie's victims, to be murdered yet by provocation!

Let's begin with the directing because I'm so mad at it. Since the get-go, Branagh ruthlessly bombarded us with countless deformed cadres, that have ugly meaningless vacuum, heavily armed with Dutch angles, fisheye lenses, and too dark for its own good lighting. Did he think himself a miracle-worker, ground-breaking, genius, who came up with the unprecedented way to make a horror movie?! Actually, no sane director would put all of these tricks together, while overusing them too, for a reason; it would make the image repugnant, get on the audience's nerves, and - most dangerously - expose the game of make-believe. Hence, so long for the credibility, along with the horror!

To our misfortune, it doesn't stop there. In some talking scenes, Branagh tended to snappy cutting, while having different camera angle, and cadre size, for every shot; which could destroy your concentration no matter how strong it is. And in other talking scenes, he paralyzed the actors, the camera, and the cadre's size; which killed vitality, drama, and our excitement. So with the aforementioned excessive tricks, no wonder that some viewers left the movie in its middle, or - precisely - before its middle!

The script's contradictions are wacky. For instance: if Vitale Portfoglio is Hercule Poirot's bodyguard, how come that he stands behind a wall, away from the house of his boss, while the latter is going out?! For a guy who's in charge of a celebrity's security; he should have followed him like a shadow! If during a brief fistfight between the cook and the doctor, the characters lived a great turmoil, how come that when the massively large chandelier suddenly fell down, in a room crowded with children, no character whatsoever flinched, snuffled, or screamed?! If Poirot has obsessive-compulsive disorder, how come that he lets anybody put a mask and a cape, that were worn by others, on him? Rather, how come that he soaks his face in a basin filled with water, trying to catch apples, while both - the water and the apples - were used by tens of children earlier?! And if Poirot is an atheist, as he declares to the medium, how come that he says later: "Only God forgives"?!

Then, for bigger contradiction: Rowena Drake throws a Halloween party, celebrating the spirits who took revenge on their killers. It's not about presenting that to innocent orphaned kids as entertainment, it's about choosing - out of the whole legacy of horror stories - that story to be told in the home of the grieving mother, who her daughter is believed to be killed by these very spirits. Even with considering, later on, that she framed the spirits, still throwing a party for her daughter's alleged killers is incredible bad tasting. It's understood that the script didn't want to make another exposition scene, so went to the "show, don't tell" solution, however it picked the wrong mean to do it!

The provocations got fatter in the third act: Connecting the cook's invitation with the crime novelist, poisoning the daughter by her mother to control her, phoning the doctor to make him commit suicide, finding out that the doctor's kid is the blackmailer--were all unfunny farce. Logic was out of the question, so our conviction!

I didn't get the lead character's inner conflict. I imagined that it would be about believing in God in the end, but instead he speaks about reconciliation with ghosts?! The man's pain, in terms of his inability to experience more evils, wasn't explored well, or at all; waking up horrified, and couple of fast lines, weren't enough. Or they were enough, though got lost in that maze of idiot image, and hectic editing!

The so-called "ensemble cast" didn't impress me, but I couldn't blame them, since there were no characters in the first place. Poirot, himself, is deprived of particular characteristic (unless they though that his mustache is!). And if I assumed that he's vain, then that vanity wasn't utilized in a comedic way or else. Though, the worst was the character of Leopold Ferrier (played by Jude Hill), since no kid in the world acts and talks like that. He seemed like HAL 9000 meets John Gielgud meets our grins. Lines like "Daddy, I'm here if you need me", "He's not tired; he's broken", and "You were dead, too, Sir. Even if only for a moment" blew up my patience while being said by him!

Positives? Fairly, designing the ceiling of the murdered girl's room as foggy sky embodied her death's vagueness artistically fine. For one time, the vacuum over the doctor's back, while he was revealing his agonies, worked as a visual equal to his burden (maybe it was a coincidence!). I liked how the "reconciliation with ghosts" scene was written and acted. The movie's second half is less bad than the first. And Tina Fey as Ariadne Oliver was the best of this movie; she's more like the sole alive in a graveyard, and I suspect that her first sequence's nice lines were written by her.

(A Haunting in Venice) is the first cinematic adaption of the 1969 Agatha Christie novel (Hallowe'en Party). I can't speculate her opinion if she would have seen it, but I know mine. It's failed as horror, average as mystery, and criminally provocative. I had to re-watch it in full to write this review, since I walked out on it after the first 45 minutes. Branagh should have cared less about the wall tiles!

I'm sorry for Hollywood. This phase is one of its worst, no arguments.

Back in the day, movies got meanings, artistic values, or fun. Nowadays, they mostly have triviality, deterioration, and disappointment.

Despite cool CGI, many action sequences, and lots of imagination, Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire failed hardly to be entertaining. Actually, it made me bored and provoked.

The script is overcrowded with tons of fabrication, long sickening expositions, and - oh God - awful silliness!

Out of the blue, Kong becomes Iron Man, with electronic vehicle that turns into electronic fist for him. Jia is the ultimate answer to that abrupt Avatar tribe. And the leads travel from continent to another in seconds I thought they could travel to Pluto through that hollow earth (or hollow writing!).

Let alone the gigantic ridiculous presence and performance of the cinematic relief history's anti-miracle: the honorable Mr. Brian Tyree Henry. Fairly, he was kind of bearable in Godzilla vs. Kong (2021), but here it's beyond disastrous. Every moment with him on screen is an agony. He was a mix of zero charisma, hill of coldness, and a rotting corpse of comedy. Though, I must blame the script as well. It had no talent whatsoever in creating any funny situation, dialogue or character!

However, what pushed me to breaking point was the matter of killing gazillion number of innocent people on screen so indifferently. It's horrible how a PG-13 movie, made basically for kids, enjoys murdering countless human beings as ordinary part of the action, and by the hands of the baddies as well as the heroic figure. While the climactic battle, I was about dying out of anger. Everybody was competing with the other in destroying Rio de Janeiro's buildings, with all of its residents, while - simply - the script could have evacuated the city earlier, used abandoned neighborhood, or changed the whole location already to any deserted place. But no, it was that crazily bloody, giving its audience nightmares concerning the men, women, elderly and children slain by the villains, and the good guy also!

Older, and saner, movies dealt with that point smartly. But lately, with movies like Man of Steel (2013), Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), and now Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire, the method became killing large masses of guiltless people for the sake of greater good. I really can't understand is that for producing dark actioners, or mass murderers? Well, both ways, the result is miserable!

After years and years of reviewing movies, this is my first time ever to write about a movie that I didn't watch in full. Yes, I turned off that dud before 5 minutes of its ending. My reason is clear. It's that dogma which runs Hollywood since the last decades. The dogma of be dumb, and be unscrupulous. And it includes the moviemakers, and you!

In my personal estimation, this is not a review, since - technically - I didn't finish the movie. So I'll consider it an act of abreaction, or a wake-up call. And if Hollywood doesn't want to listen, then - at least - try not to be like it; a deformed creature, rather a monster, with no intelligence, and no conscience!

This is not a torturing movie, no dears, this is torture itself!

Christopher Nolan's script is ideally idiotic. How papers, with this heavy amount of stupidity, got written by someone considered "the leading filmmaker of the 21st century"--isn't the question. How papers like that got greenlit is the question, and the crime. There is a scientist / womanizer, who leads a nuclear project, with other scientists, and after the project is done, he has compunction, and accusations of communism. This story was told by one of the most pedant, poor, confusing, chatty, and overlong scripts I have ever experienced in my life!

There are like 150 characters who you'll never know who they are, or why they are here. Sure you can say that again about the events. For tiny example, the lead is in a stadium, doing what's described as a brilliant thing, though you won't understand why he was there, and what was the brilliant thing he was doing? The dialogues tell you things that you can't comprehend, or follow, or endure. Then, suddenly, Robert Downey Jr. Character is a nasty version of Salieri, who fights Mozart, sorry Oppenheimer, by the meanest ways. Long story short, it's like falling into a violent whirlpool of incomprehension and bore, and with 181 minutes long, I felt extreme nausea already!

To talk about the pace, I may say that the 3 hours felt like 3 days, or that I wanted to run away from my seat since day one. Though, enough to tell you that watching this movie is like being forced to eat a monster of a chicken, with all of its bones. And by the way, it's uncooked chicken as well!

The nudity wasn't ugly as usual, it was super ugly, and - further - ruined what could have been the movie's real artistic moment.

With a script like that, I won't evaluate any acting. All what I have to say is that Cillian Murphy, as the title character, seemed all the time worried and goggle-eyed!

By the way, I have a word for the casting: when you a have a character that was played before by gentlemen as charismatic and talented as Brian Dennehy and Paul Newman, don't you cast Matt Damon to play it!

I only liked one of the posters, which pictured the lead standing amongst what looked initially like dusk thick clouds, then after a second you'll perceive that it's nuclear explosion smoke. As if it's not the beginning of a new age; it's the end of the world. It was clever and satisfying, unlike the whole movie!

In terms of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the invention of the atomic bomb, and the Trinity test, I can't say that movies like Day One (1989), or Fat Man and Little Boy (1989) are better than this one. Rather, they are masterpieces compered to it (originally, they are "movies" compered to it!). So it's an insult to them to say that they are better, because considering the case in hand, movies regarded as the worst like The Swarm (1978), Leonard Part 6 (1987), North (1994), and The Last Airbender (2010) are better than Oppenheimer (2023), and bitterly I'm not joking!

I can't imagine anyone, in his sanest mind, liking anything in this massive dud. However, it made almost a billion dollars, and received critical acclaim. Maybe it's the hypnotic publicity, maybe it's the stars' names, maybe it's sheer ignorance, or maybe it's just a different taste. But whatever the reasons why, this movie will go down in history twice; once as one of the worst cinematic biopics, and once more as a proof that the audiences and critics of 2023 had deep and dangerous problem that made them love one of the worst cinematic biopics!

Nolan's Oppenheimer is a frantic hallucinatory teen, who tries to tell a story miserably, that ends up between dotage and annoyance. And it gets on your nerves that that boy finds rich guys to produce his story, and millions of people to love it too. Which reminds me of a line said by Al Pacino in And Justice for All (1979): "Something is really wrong here!"

At one moment of this torture, Einstein appears inexplicably on the doorstep of the title character, so he was his neighbor? He was a ghost? He was a memory? The movie doesn't want to answer, because it thinks itself smart creative, or doesn't care of perfecting anything, or it's - in fact - vain, which thinks itself smart creative, so doesn't care of perfecting anything.

A slave market in Libya?!! Bond tells the girl that her brother was killed while they're dancing in a party?! Q is envying Bond?! A long boring sequence at the end, just like the original movie?! Rather, a remake of (Thunderball) after 18 years of it, with its same lead?! So what could deserve LOLWUT, or LOL, more?!

Rowan Atkinson did nothing. Max von Sydow, himself, did nothing. Kim Basinger had an iceberg of a presence, with no acting talent. And Sean Connery was 53 years old, however looked older, and - with the heavy make-up - sillier. So who was worse than the other?!

Michel Legrand's melody of (Never Say Never Again). Barbara Carrera's sparkling dark eyes. And the motorcycle chase. They're the only things that worth something in here.

(Thunderball) wasn't a good movie to remake in the first place. (Octopussy), the official Bond movie in the same year, is a huge action marathon compared to this unofficial one. And lately I developed a certain scorn for Bond, as alcoholic, womanizer, assassin. He's a pure fantasy hero, I get it, but he's a pitiful goofy excuse for a character in the same time too!

I know why Connery came back. The money, and maybe to feel young again. But as for me, I won't come back to it ever again!

I love to watch a movie about cans that eat men rather than this one. It's not bog-standard; it's abomination. And the reasons why are many..

The plot: Seriously, how many times did you see that plot before? They should have called it "I Know What You Did Last Scream"! And to make it worse, there is no renewal whatsoever. Even the wrong points are the same; like the weakness of the killer's motive. One of the parody's definitions is "any cultural production which provides a relatively polemical allusive imitation of another cultural production". Accordingly, this is not a horror, this is a parody, yet - Oh God - without laughing (see the horror of it!).

The characterization: At the start, I thought that this is about diverse characters in one hot situation, but they were all the same, all along. Moreover, did you notice how all the lead actresses show their deepest fears while someone removes a shower's curtain, nevertheless they don't ever blink while seeing a new murdered boy or girl?! Ok, this is smart, as long as we're talking about a comedy for sure!

The cast: Charisma got nothing to do with these guys. And hideous is what comes to my mind to describe their performances!

The bore: At the first half, I was saying to myself: "I saw all of this before". At the second half, I was saying: "When I'll not see all of this again?". The thing is this movie lengthens itself, especially in the second half, in incredibly idiot, never-ending, ways. Try to believe that, while the house's sequence near the end, I found myself asking: "Would I live long enough to see this movie's end?!".

The idiocy: If you think about the whole sequence of the house, you'll hate this movie, their makers, along with yourself. For instance, all hell breaks loose, one boy is slain, and one girl is killed by electricity, though there are 2 girls and a boy who didn't hear a thing?! The head of the sorority, played by (Carrie Fisher), didn't pay attention to all of this bloody clamor which was going on for long, unless very very late?! While the killer is finally killed, he falls right in the basement to see that it's on fire too (how come?!). And if you just shut down your brain, and surrendered to this movie as a brainless fun, then could you point out to me; WHERE IS SUCH FUN IN THE FIRST PLACE?!

The nudity: It is - as always - shocking, inhumanly cheap, mirrors the slave trader part in Hollywood, and warns of the materialistic civilization's end!

The substance: It has no case to discuss, issue to bring up, or idea to present. Ok, so it's another horror, with sex and violence. But after years and years of experiencing this kind of movies, I'm madly asking: what could be the great benefit out of watching sex and violence?! I became irreversibly convinced that there are a zillion other messages that deserve to be delivered more than these ultra-sleazy, super abundant, goods of which make the producers happy, the human's beastly side happy, but not the human's spiritual side. It's the deplorable trade which could partly explain why today's human became senseless and soulless!

The so-called surprising last shot: I was between "Huh?" and "Hahahahahaaaaaa"!

So what could be right and watchable? Well, director (Stewart Hendler) embodied tension visually good in some moments. This worked with using more than one camera to shoot the dialogues, shaking the cameras in rarely into the point and no exaggerated way, plus using the flames' reflections on the cast's faces during the end; which was - unexpectedly - artistic. And the lines proved a little bit of efficiency like "When I buy a book, I read the last page, because I don't like surprises".

Along with (Sorority Row), 2009 had a long list of horror remakes like: (Friday the 13th), (The Stepfather), (My Bloody Valentine), (Don't Look in the Basement!), (The Last House on the Left).. Grrrr, they don't even name them differently! It's not about the grossness of the remakes, sequels, prequels, spin-offs in the American cinema lately; it's about them being nearly the same well-worn movie. To tell you the truth, (Sorority Row) isn't a remake of (The House on Sorority Row - 1983), inasmuch as a remake of any easy slasher out there, with nothing different or amusing, to eventually be a perfect example of a movie without originality or entertainment, and the real tragedy is.. this could apply for a large portion of the American production today!

(Sorority Row) is repeated, predicable, stupid, endless, and pointless emptiness. I was imagining (Tim Burton), (Oliver Stone), or even (Quentin Tarantino) doing the same stuff; it would have been at least less cheesy, and more interesting. But No. Hollywood simply insists on recycling vomit, time after time, effortlessly. At one point in the movie, a girl who recently threw up, asks a boy to kiss her, and he loathes her; doesn't this remind you of something?! For me, his reaction powerfully reminds me with myself while the viewing!

.. Cans that eat men is definitely better; at least it's new!

Here's what I wrote on 30 April 2009, right after watching this pilot:

This managed to give me a fit of rage!

First off, rise and shine everybody, the story died in Hollywood, or rather the producers became that idiot to kill it anyway. I believe that every age has its own unique writers and writing, but it seems that this age's producers aren't unique, or even close. Look at today's movies; they're nothing but based on older movies, TV shows, comics, video games, or sequels, prequels, spin-offs, reboots, and even midquels (Yes, there are things named midquels now!). But to have the same problem in TV as well?! I mean if all the world's men have become with mustaches, it's fine with me, but all the women too? It's horrific! WHERE ARE THE ORIGINAL IDEAS??!! Sure they're out there, waiting for the production companies to make them, but apparently these companies don't give a hoot!

Writer / director (James Cameron) made once 2 movies; (The Terminator - 1984), and (Terminator 2: Judgment Day - 1991). I'm not a fan, however I have to admit that they were big hits, and considered classic sci-fi action. But when their lead (Arnold Schwarzenegger) made many flops later, he decided to do what all of Hollywood stars use to do whenever their careers go wrong; a come back to their hit role. The third movie, (Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines - 2003), wasn't that great, toying with the 2 previous movies' story (about the GONE-TOO-BORING END OF THE WORLD!), let alone that it nearly remade the second one yet with a female super stalker. I go through this history lecture simply to assure that: 1) They returned to the old story, 12 years after the second movie, because "the name got fame". 2) They did nothing but repeating this second one! 3) There was an intention to exploit the name through next movies and - why not - TV shows too. Ok, my only comment is: Grrrrrrrrrrrr!!

Despite that part of me was happy to have the chance of watching a new (Hmmm!) action show, and despite the fast-paced, hot-colored persona of it, (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles) pilot is dull and un-enjoyable exploitation. Though it's not totally pointless, since it's made for one unmistakable purpose: The Cash.. namely the god of most of the producers!

Clearly this is the practical definition of bankruptcy. After the super stalker was a man in the first movie, he became the super helper in the second one. And after the super stalker was a woman in the third movie, the super helper became a woman in the TV show. See, it's an easy game of changing cards, where "Come with me if you wanna live" is what the produces say to their poor writers! Ironically, recreating the good terminator as a girl, and naming her (Cameron) - obviously to honor (James Cameron) - could be the first and last original things here!

To make matters worse, from all the plots in the world they selected "good guys on the run" aka (The Fugitive - 1963) good old formula, which was recycled many times along the years, just remember: (The A-Team - 1983), (Hot Pursuit - 1984), (P. S. I. Luv U - 1991), (Vanishing Son - 1995), (18 Wheels of Justice - 2000), or even (Renegade - 1992). The thing is, this round, it's not an old plot only; IT'S AN OLD STORY TOO!

While some fans were mad because the script ignored part 3 completely, I was more mad because of a very logical question: Is the future Skynet that dumb?! Because if all that is needed is getting rid of tomorrow's leader John Connor, then why doesn't it send a machine to older time to get rid of him early?! Or get rid of his mother while she was pregnant? Or get rid of his father? His grandfather? Or (James Cameron) as the original responsible for all of this drivel in the first place?!!

Add to that, (Lena Headey) as (Sarah Connor) dreams of herself in a miniskirt?! Has long kisses with her boyfriend. And (Summer Glau) as (Cameron) is supposedly naked in more than one scene?? As if it all became about gathering elements of sex and violence, through pretty old story and plot, to fill the channels' air with more air, or dirty air for that matter, which is repugnant before being pathetic!

To be objective, I liked: Lines like "I'll make pancakes" and "class dismissed", and where they were being said. (Headey) and (Glau) charisma. The decent visual effects. And the moment in which (Cameron) somehow makes a connection between playing a role in saving people, and having friends. You're not a weirdo when you help people out.. nice message indeed.

Finally, some messages from my side. To the one who came up with this show's idea: You're evil! To the producers that don't care about new or different ideas: You're worse than evil! To my fellows, the miserable viewers: Hang on folks, nothing goes forever! To the director: How come that (Sara)'s house has a bullet-proof chair?! And to the writers: Why not making it as a comedic cartoon series, naming it "100 ways to not kill John Connor"?! It would work better this way!

Who knows? It may turn into the best TV show ever! But according to the idea itself, I'm not enthusiastic, seeing that it's not The Sarah Connor Chronicles; it's The American TV Bankruptcy Chronicle!

.. Even the pilot episode is entitled "pilot"!

It's a welcomed attempt to evoke the 1960s thrillers which were filmed in Europe, whether spy thrillers like James Bond movies and its numerous likes, or romantic thrillers like Charade (1963), and How to Steal a Million (1966). German director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck mastered the action sequences, like jumping over the roofs of Paris's buildings, or the boat chase in Venice. The image is attractive, the backgrounds are delightful, and Johnny Depp is likeable in his role, with couple of nice comic moments. However, the movie's magic is fallen. So why is that?!

Firstly, Angelina Jolie. She looked ugly, rather mannish, and gave such a cold performance. She's not the woman that you may dream of running after her in European atmospheres, or living an adventure with her charming mystery. Instead, she seemed like a frightening evil demon!

Secondly, the third act's plot twist. It's just something that begs any unexpected surprise anyway, which deals a deathblow to the movie. Think of it, if Depp's character is the heroine's love from the start, yet in disguise, then that peaceful mathematics teacher, which we followed and united with during the whole time, has no heroism whatsoever. It executes logic, since it's unbelievable that he goes through all of these dangers without trying to save himself or his love. And, truly, what is the point in not telling her the truth since the start?!

Here's a movie that was going well as a story about some poor man who will turn into a glorious hero, sacrificing himself, and beating the bad guys, to be the man which his love wished for, even better than this, as the man that chose to exist beside her, while her original love preferred money over her, or was weaker than facing the hazardous events. Now that story, which was almost perfectly made, got killed by a plot twist that cared only for the "wow" factor, and forgot about other, greatly important, factors like logic and drama!

(The Tourist) is 2 movies. One that runs beautifully on screen, about the birth of a hero. And another one in the last third, which wants desperately to be unpredictable and astonishing, however by the wrong way. The second shot the first in the head, which ruined the meaning along with the entertainment. And they supposed that we won't object to that, or maybe notice it, as long as we're dazzled by the sceneries. Ok, why do the makers of the contemporary commercial movies think that we don't have brains?! Actually, according to their very movies, they're the ones who don't have brains!

This is better than the whole Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy for the same director, star and production company. And this is the one that really needed sequels!

Despite a bird over his head, and a heavy make-up, Johnny Depp is funny. The way how the script dealt with his character in its oldness is magical and smart. Armie Hammer proves that he's one of the unluckiest leading men in Hollywood history, because he has charisma, talent, and sense of humor, though he's not that Hollywood leading man yet. Hans Zimmer's creation was fantastic, especially during the climactic sequence. The action sequences were many, huge and great, being complicatedly choreographed, and excellently executed. And director Gore Verbinski did a glamorous job that amazed me. It's clear that when he doesn't work in absurd stuff (Yes, I mean Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and 3!), he delivers enjoyably. So why did this movie receive generally negative reviews, and become one of the biggest box-office bombs of all time?!

I think it's mainly in the script. It's heavy, with an attempt to include many conflicts' parties, as if it's a historic drama about the west in the 1860s end. You'll encounter evil railroad tycoon, mountain full of silver ore in exchange for a pocket watch, mass slaughter of the Comanches, cavalry corruption, crimes of war, traditional gangs, and Hell on Wheels brothel. Well, this is too much. Hence, with 149 running time, it turned into a cross between buddy action comedy like Richard Donner's Lethal Weapon movies, and epic Western like Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West. You can see that clearly in the second half, which - added to the above - presents an origin story for Tonto, who's - yes - the sidekick not the title character, but - also - the movie's star!

It has too violent touches along the way as well, which is strange for a PG-13 Disney movie, with a cannibal (who was mentioned once, and never again!), rape attempt, killer that cuts out the heart of a Ranger and eats it, someone vomiting for 30 seconds on screen, and talking about losing a reproductive organ in battle! Grrrrr, it's a Lone Ranger kids movie, you blood-thirsty repulsive moviemakers!

Aside from that script's heaviness and brutality, I didn't see appropriately how the clumsy lawyer John Reid transformed into that heroic vigilante Lone Ranger, or how he and his brother's widow went to be lovers. Maybe among this ocean of bad guys, different conflicts and action pieces, the 3 scriptwriters forgot writing these dramatic highlights. Or maybe they just didn't have more space to include them; otherwise it would have been 3 hours movie!

Director of cinematography Bojan Bazelli's neutral colors bugged me. If the goal was evoking the black and white look of The Lone Ranger old TV shows, then it was so naïve, and - most of all - killed big part of the movie's visual impressiveness. Ok, in terms of toying with the image in blockbusters lately, I have had enough of pedantry. From a dull yellow image in Taken 3 (2014) and Spectre (2015), to lethal dark one in Max Payne (2008) and Suicide Squad (2016), it's not that entertaining, or meaningful, it's rather agonizing!

Regardless of all that, this is an action classic. Sorrowfully, it didn't have its deserved share of critical praise, and commercial success. However, I'm sure that it'll be re-evaluated fairly in the near future, having a lot of kemosabes too.

After finishing it, I found myself saying: "This is one of the silliest movies ever made"!

Michael Green, the movie's scriptwriter, made something between superficial and banal, where the characters talk, the events happen, but you don't feel anyone, or care about anything. That's why the big cast is completely wasted. For the whole 114 minutes, you think that they're in some school play, written by someone who deals with Agatha Christie herself, however without paying attention to basic elements like suspense or drama!

Moreover, Green does some provocative deeds along the way: How did Hercule Poirot know that his set-in-the-wall cane would stop the thief from escaping in Jerusalem? Poirot calls a girl a prostitute, as simple as that! How come that someone with an obsessive compulsive disorder like Poirot, who doesn't stand seeing a crooked tie, accepts eating the same cake that someone else is easting? It's unbelievable that Johnny Depp's character pulls his gun on Poirot, just to convince him to work for him! I don't think that Poirot is that extremely arrogant man, who calls himself "The greatest detective in the world" in front of all the suspects. I didn't read the book, but taken from it or not, both ways this is not smartness, and weakens the conflict from the outset. Poirot's letter to Colonel Armstrong is sent to whom, since Armstrong is dead?! In the last scene, it's strange that Poirot will be called from Yugoslavia to Egypt this way (he's not James Bond!). And why the British army messenger curses the Nile impudently? It was really unnecessary, and dramatically unrequested!

However, one of those deeds was a killer. Unlike the first cinematic adaption of Christie's novel, Sidney Lumet's The Murder on the Orient Express (1974), Green cancelled the detailed reference to the original 1930 crime, of kidnapping and murdering Daisy Armstrong, in such a dumb manner. Supposedly there are many transmissions to that crime during the whole movie, yet - this time - without previous info for the audience. Therefore no one will understand, or - most importantly - get emotionally involved in the consecutive exposed facts later, especially when the characters have different relationships with that crime!

The scenes are telegraphic, where you can't enjoy anything; a character, a performance, a line. Or even can pick information that may push you into that world, and make you happy eventually that you guessed something right. You are rather isolated from these characters, and don't belong to that train and its events. That's why there is a certain feeling of bore during all the time; I thought of leaving my seat in the movie's middle!

All what I've watched for Kenneth Branagh, as a movie director, has major problems. There is excessive self-confidence, and enjoyment out of what he does even if it is weak!

Look at the way this movie is directed, and see how it's filled with adolescence. For instance, in the start, the camera is higher than the lead character while he says that there is right and wrong, and nothing in between. So does it mean that he's still too short, too small, to understand the truth which he'll discover in the end? Ok, maybe. However, why the camera falls from top to down when he feels the mystery's complication, embodying the snowfall at the moment?! Or stays above him, for very very long, while seeing the corpse, then once again while examining it?! Or rises from down to top when he was interrogating Miss Mary Debenham (the 10 questions scene!)? Well, it's more than clear that Branagh is interested in mastering a long one-shot, more than establishing his characters. So how about his style being unexpressive and pedant too!

The scene between Branagh and Depp was weirdly bad. It's surrounded by coldness, as if they read the script's lines for the first time, before even the rehearsal. Some of those lines are shown in the trailer with stronger acting, or acting anyway. Not to mention that the scene elongated, with monotonous cadres, and dull cutting!

The 1974 movie wasn't the best movie in history, but sure it was superior to this one, on nearly all the levels. It had heavier stars, more attractive and deeply explored characters, wilder ranges for them to express (Ingrid Bergman won an Oscar for her role), some funny moments that live with you after the viewing, details that give the movie a distinguished personality, the elaborate look into the older crime, the way how its engages you in putting together the puzzle of the suspects near the end, plus no pedantry from the director's side. So when there's no improvement on the first movie, why making a second one in the first place? But actually no one in the whole state of Hollywood will ever answer this question. Otherwise there will be no million remakes per year!

However, I'll be that fair to admit that this 2017 version has some advantages: The image is nice, transporting you to more elegant time, which is missed in Hollywood movies recently. There is some try to humanize the lead character, instead of showing him as caricature like what the first movie kind of did. Merging a few and light action moments is also welcomed, and turned the lead into an action hero, which is rare, not only for Poirot, but also for any above-60 years old actor in today's cinema. Poirot's lesson, in terms of finding something between right and wrong, is much more emphasized. And, undoubtedly, Branagh's moustache in this movie is way better than Albert Finney's moustache in the first one; I'm with Branagh's opinion on this. Though, the best of this movie is Daisy Ridley. It provides hearing the fabulous way she utters English!

You'll notice that there is no relief factor whatsoever. That could have made a serious, pure mystery movie. But when the characters are uninteresting, the conflict isn't that exciting, and nothing is super or satisfying--the result is one silly movie. Long story short, the movie's trailer is better than the movie itself. It is more hot, lively, mysterious, and catchy!

This is a visually dazzling movie, which has some nice sci-fi details.......... and that's it!

The story is so messy, and the events don't try to simplify or explain anything. Why to complicate your movie?! I really don't understand this vogue. In other, more clever, movies, the goal would be tightening the suspense, and showing the facts one by one belatedly as consecutive surprises. But, here, the matter has gone too far, to the extent where I was confused more than impressed, even after the movie's end!

Basically, it's a sci-fi / thriller, that has some action, plus an anti-establishment message, against the corporation that deforms your personality, corrupts your memories, erases your origin, molds your mind, and turns you into an enemy of yourself and your own kind. Furthermore, it calls for a revolution against this deceitful unfair system, to destroy it, and give a chance to the young oppressed people to live free, and create their own world.

The problem is that these meanings are shown theoretically, since the drama doesn't carry them appropriately. And the movie intends, rather relishes, impeding you all the way by such a convoluted plot that runs around itself till it strangles itself and those meanings too!

Many questions hinder you from enjoying or understanding the movie. For instance: I swear to God, I didn't understand how Jack's wife (Olga Kurylenko) arrived 60 years late? How come that she didn't get madly happy when she saw him? How come that she didn't tell him everything earlier? How did Jack (Tom Cruise) meet himself at one moment? How come that he never met his clones? Why did Sally the evil computer (Melissa Leo) clone that pilot in specific into thousands clones? How did Malcolm Beech (Morgan Freeman) realize that his wife was different from him? How did he learn the admired paragraph? How didn't Sally know anything about Beech being hiding in the spaceship in the end? Or anything about the bomb that Jack has either?!

Then in the last scene, a clone of Jack comes back to the heroine?! How come did he know about what occurred?! And where was he?! And did many clones get born after Sally's destruction?! And from where did he have an experience concerning what happened since the movie's start? And - most importantly - what's the guarantee that the rest of Jack's clones won't come back as well, and demand "their" wife??!! Well, as for that ending, I can safely say that it was just a fabrication for the sake of having any happy ending anyway (I believe that Cruise doesn't end up dying in any of his movies!).

This movie looks like a man who tells you a story, in so smug way, and when you question its shortcomings, he looks at you in disdain, then simply complete his story ignoring you. (Oblivion) tells its story in great confidence, refusing giving you information, or clarifying who did what, and why he did it, as if we're dumb, or won't think. Sure the moviemaker's method was: "Dazzle them with the image, and they'll shut up!", assuming that we have only eyes, and no brains. All of that while having a satire that already pushes us to think. So what an irony indeed; a drama that wants us to think about its meanings, not about it. And a thought-provoking movie that doesn't think itself!

As you see, the movie is torn between 2 motives. The first is being that glossy, showy, and entertaining Hollywood flick, that presents imaginative different atmospheres, so the audience could release from their reality and its problems a little, and - in this case - no need to be serious, or perfect anything but the surface which is the most significant thing, rather the real message. The second motive is being a film with critical and inflammatory intellectual substance, so it has to be serious, and perfect itself, to intensify its impact. But, unfortunately, it chose the 2 motives together, and the outcome was the tragedy of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, where the Hyde / Hollywood part was the one that won eventually. Hence, (Oblivion) ended up as another adventure, yet with dangerous defects.

Appeal to all of Hollywood's writers and directors: Complication doesn't always mean smartness. Sometimes it's a trick to sell a trivial movie as a profound one, add some hot suspense to originally cold movie, or deform a project that had the ability to contain adventure, imagination, seriousness and profundity; as it happened in the case in hand!

PS: The music score seems stolen from the music score of (Inception - 2010).

"Calm down, and be reasonable!". This is what I used to say to this movie's die-hard fans back in 2017. Because it really didn't deserve that too much praise it had. Whether the viewers were thirsting for an rated R superhero movie anyway, or the publicity played its outrageous role of hyping!

Director James Mangold said that the movie is influenced by many other works like: Mark Millar and Steve McNiven's (Old Man Logan) comics, George Stevens' (Shane - 1953), Clint Eastwood's (The Gauntlet - 1977), and many more. However, the final product isn't that original. It's like a road / western / thriller long chase of a movie, which sounds good in itself. But, it's - in fact - a too sad, too bloody, superhero movie, and that's the only renewal here!

Speaking about unoriginality, the matter of a peaceful family, that hosts the lead, while not knowing anything about his identity, or the ones who chase him, then gets killed because of him, short time later--is wholly recycled from Logan's previous movie (X-Men Origins: Wolverine - 2009)!

Aside from that, the script doesn't care of doing its job rightly. For burning examples: How did Professor X killed all of his school's students? Why there is no explanation for the death of all the X-men and women?! Logan gets poisoned due to Adamantium in his body! What?! Why didn't he have this disease state since - let's say - 50 years ago?! The bad guys are generic bad guys that you already have seen at least a thousand times before! Gabriela López, the nurse, filmed everything in that secret hospital, and nobody ever saw her?! How come that Laura the kid doesn't utter a word unless in the third act?!! Those X-kids don't show their superpowers to defend themselves unless very late! And can I ask a small question: where is Magneto?!

In the third act, the title character was almost dead, getting weaker by anything that might hit him. This is not the end of a hero, rather a manipulation of a hero. And you know what? It made the movie so predictable!

The profanity was totally unnecessary. Does that mean that the characters - suddenly - get to curse after becoming older?! Or is it a pure commercial trick where you're attracted to see the movie in which the famous polite characters get to curse? Well, a pure and dirty commercial trick then!

You can say that again about the crazy violence, and the nude shot, as more degenerate tricks that poison this movie, cinema and you!

Moreover, I didn't like the battles of Logan with X-24, his evil clone. They were too fast to watch, and had nothing exciting about them. And I didn't like the last shot, in which the grave's cross becomes an X sign. There is a kind of blasphemy in it. But what do you expect from a movie that takes God's name in vain!

As for the virtues, depicting aging superheroes was interesting. The idea of Logan's clone was smart. Using Johnny Cash's cover of Nine Inch Nails' (Hurt), in the movie's trailer and the movie itself, was a masterstroke; it embodied the movie, and added a lot to it. And Mangold was very good, especially in most of the action sequences.

So it's all about different atmosphere and taste from the rest of the X-Men cinematic series, made for the sake of Wolverine, who wasn't that lucky in his previous 2 stand-alone movies. Though, I believe that their second, (The Wolverine - 2013), was better than this one, because of its solidly in comparison.

Superficially, (Logan - 2017) is about an evil authority that chases some talented people to terminate their humanity. However, the extreme violence assures the termination of humanity in the moviemakers themselves. So much so that the sad superhero movie turns into nihilistic slasher in the end. Hence, there is no message in this movie. It's just a chance to watch an X-Men movie with profanity, nudity and endless gallons of blood.. Nothing more. So the actual goal of it is being rated R. And what a pitiful goal that is.

It's a big problem when a movie suffers from its writing. The same can be said when a movie suffers from its directing. Now in Money Monster, try to imagine the size of the problem when you know that it suffers from both its writing and directing!

The script didn't bring anything new to the table, and its main conflict's party was weak. So why do I watch in the first place?!

As a hostage situation movie, it has none to be called new. From Dog Day Afternoon (1975) to Mad City (1997), every detail is reused, with zero distinction, that's why it's wholly predictable. Then the main conflict's party, Kyle Budwell the irate investor with the explosives, is - all the way - idiot, wimp, and pale, let alone that he lost his mother's money, not something that he worked hard for years to earn. So not only that this script made him, along with the conflict, powerless since the start, it - also - made it hard to sympathize with him!

Moreover, it has more shortcomings: The police forces took FOREVER to sneak into the studio. The way how the evil businessman's secretary got his cellphone was so easy. They even found a recorded satellite video for him with that South African guy.. well, forced hasn't been more obvious! The matter of throwing the earpiece to Gates, the TV host, while his final march was the top of stupidity, and it could have been altered to anything else more logical (3 people wrote this, and you can see that no effort was done!). Killing Budwell in the end is dumb; the movie prepared itself for the cliché, and didn't want to object to it, even for a change (I read that in the original script the character doesn't end up dead!). I didn't get why Budwell was crying while having sex with his girlfriend. And the erection cream joke was such a filthy unfunny relief.

The profanity is too much and pointless. All of Hollywood movies nowadays believe that profanity is a realistic factor, while it's degenerately commercial, exploitatively torrential, and terribly tedious. Just think of it, there is depravity in society, however Hollywood deals with the whole society as depraved, where everybody curses, swears, and takes God's name in vain, heavily and non-stop. This can't be reality, it's outrageously fake image of it, that doesn't express eloquently, or - God forbid - entertain. And if it's the moviemakers' dogma, for whatever reason, then I got fed up indeed, and can't stand more.

Jodie Foster's directing was monotonous. It didn't utilize the one-place's ranges, or understand it creatively. Many scenes were shot with blandness and belittlement, like the scene in which the TV host compares himself to the bomber. George Clooney is a pretty ordinary actor. Mostly, he doesn't affect me, or make me believe him. And it's clear that Foster as a director didn't help him out to give us super or effective performance.

Generally, there was a wall of thick glass between us on one side, and the characters and the events on the other. I felt no credibility from the get-go. And this is a tragedy of writing and directing.

So what's the gain in the end? Everyone returned as the same as they were. Nobody changed, or became more aware. Even mocking at stability wasn't deeply or powerfully presented, in any way that would create bitterness in us. Ok, this is pure coldness!

Pros? Well, I liked 2 points in the script. The first is that the evil businessman sees himself innocent, considering what he did a permissible deed in the world of money. His behavior was in line with his character nicely. And the second is how the character of Patty Fenn, the TV show's director, and the lead's conscience, was only the lead's friend, without necessarily being his girlfriend or wife, which would have led to traditional stuff. However, still Julia Roberts's performance is the best thing here at all.

Money Monster's screenplay was featured in the 2014 Blacklist, a list of the "most liked" unmade scripts of the year. Sorrowfully when it got made already, not much was spent on polishing and strengthening it. And to make matters worse, it had no redeeming qualities as well. So in the end, it's customary, boring and cold movie. Giving it 6 out of 10 is too merciful from my side I presume!

The same Christopher Nolan provocation anew. A movie with trashy narrative, that gets critical praise and commercial success!

The script, which Nolan wrote with his brother Jonathan, doesn't care whatsoever of being solid, convincing, or understood. It relishes hindering you along the way by lazy and foolish choices. And leaves you eventually between confusion and disparagement. Here you are some of the questions that this script shamefully didn't answer:

What's the story behind the Indian plane in the start? Why there aren't armies anymore? How come that Cooper agrees to travel in space this easy? And his father agrees that cold? Why there aren't robots (while there are surveillance drones)? Despite all of that scientific development, why there isn't one magnetic resonance imaging scanner left in the world to discover Cooper's wife's illness?!

How come that the spaceship receives messages from earth, and can't send one back? If Mann wants to return to earth, even if by the lie of having life on his planet, why would he kill the lead? Why his robot got exploded? Why Cooper - after Mann's death - insists on controlling the latter's ship? Why Cooper's daughter burns her brother's crops (at that moment, I was screaming in agony: "WHHHHY?!!").

How Cooper knew the great way to rescue the whole human race, while he's just a NASA pilot, who doesn't have much scientific expertise, or genius innovation? How a spaceship finds the lead near Saturn this awfully simple?! What's the second plan exactly? How these tube babies are going to be raised and bred on an alien planet?! And why Dr. Brand waits for Cooper, with all of that unexplainable love, while she was somehow in love with Mann (the guy who Cooper somewhat killed)?! Well, let me at least answer this one; as shocking as may sound, the Nolans forgot to write the love story!

There are more of these exasperating questions, of which other movies answer belatedly to build suspense, or answer anyway for the sake of logic. However, this movie ignores any of that in cold blood, which highly provokes you as a viewer, executes the connection between you and the shown drama, and makes you lose respect for the movie that didn't respect you or itself.

Moreover, I didn't feel fully comfortable with the idea of those unseen fifth dimensional beings from the future, who can create a wormhole and play with time. For one reason, if they're that cool, why didn't they save the humanity earlier, with easier solutions? (For instance, why didn't they travel back in time, to send their plan to the earth's authority figures?). And for another, while the script gave them these high powers, not seeing or hearing them weakened them dramatically. It's like making big problem, complicating it to the max, then making up unseen super powerful character, to fix everything up in the last 10 minutes!

The performance of Anne Hathaway and Matt Damon was cold. The same outside shot of the lead's shipshape recurred many times poorly and boringly. And while the movie's image is kind of dazzling, it's a failed attempt to cover up the shabby writing. Binding a book greatly doesn't make it a great book!

I only liked Matthew McConaugh's performance, Hans Zimmer's music, and the imaginative idea of travelling into space and time.

The critical praise and commercial success can be explained due to the fact that this is a different movie. And different here is just in terms of being not your typical Hollywood action or comedy; since this one looks smart and sophisticated, and doesn't rely on superheroes or CGI extravaganza. Clearly the American viewers became in sick, if not crazy, need for anything slightly different, considering the customary production's abundance yearly. But who said that every different must be excellent?!

Nolan had a sci-fi idea about a doomed world, an unfamiliar mission to save it, with a plot twist, and a happy ending. However, he didn't have the ability to write it right. Though, he had the audacity to pitch his ratty script to the producers, and they had maybe worse audacity to give him 165 million dollars to execute it, as if the viewers are a flock of dum-dums!

But I'm not a dum-dum, or a fan of (Interstellar). It stands in front of millions all over the world, to tell incomplete and imperfect story overconfidently, which is astonishingly vain. And, for me, astonishingly vain means astonishingly stupid!

This is a superhero action movie, produced by 175 million dollars, and stars an ensemble cast. It managed to be a hit, even made it be the tenth-highest-grossing movie of 2016. However, when I watched it, I didn't find one good SECOND in it!

It pushed me to ask: How do movies like this get made?! Well, today's Hollywood is all about dumb producers, with great deal of money. Their everyday job is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to pretentious moviemakers, who hate their society uncreatively, to make exhaustingly dark movies that have no entertainment, no message, and no brain!

It has one of the junkiest scripts ever. The movie's director, David Ayer, wrote it to be a dictionary of writing deficiencies. Review with me that mountain of mistakes, follies and unanswered questions: If Superman isn't available, then where are Batman, The Flash, and the rest of the Justice League members (some of them already appear here!). Why Deadshot dreamed of killing Batman? He's supposed to dream of his daughter's education! Katana has her dead husband in her sword (Huh?!). Before the bar scene, why did Flag want to quit the mission?! And if El Diablo can get bigger in size, why he didn't do it since the start?!

If Enchantress became evil, then why she hated the whole humanity, wanting to exterminate it?! Who is her bother? From where did he come?! And what's their agenda after the world's end?! If the government has Enchantress's heart in its possession, then who is the owner of the heart that was taken out of her eventually?! Let's say that it's the heart of Dr. June Moone, who Enchantress possessed her body earlier. But even if, how come that after taking it out, Dr. Moone is still alive?!

Just think a little: what are Harley Quinn's super abilities? NOTHING! She's an imbecile, who has a 7-year-old mentality, and some evil. So how come she's chosen in a "meta-human" squad?! The thing is there are similar questions about other characters too. E.g., what's the genius superpower of Captain Boomerang?! And wasn't Killer Croc painfully useless? What did he do other than walking with the leads?! He's here only to swim in the sewer near the end, which is a mission that anybody else could do!

I loathed the joker's flashbacks. He became someone other than himself, and weaker. The only remaining aspect of him was his laugh. In one shot, he sleeps in the middle of many knives. I believe the joker sleeps in the middle of damaged children's toys, or deformed masks, or anything of which mirrors his character as a sick clown. However, that movie is lazier than creating details like these. Speaking about laziness, the joker threw his love into some liquid, to make her crazy violent, so what is that liquid? The movie doesn't tell us. So whether the script forgot to give us the answer, or forgot to make up an answer in the first place, and both ways this is utter stupidity! Moreover, what's the meaning of the joker rescuing Quinn in the end? Why that's the movie's finale?! Obviously it isn't a romantic film. The end should have been about new mission, where the joker would be the enemy.. sorry, don't mind my dissipated dreams!

There are some of the most idiotic tricks: Slipknot is killed just to assure that the implanted bombs are true. Whoever wrote this didn't attend even one cheap course of writing scripts. Because there were many, more rational, ways to assure that. For instance, the bombs can be heated in the leads' necks, as a pre-exploding alarm, proofing that they're controlled, or working anyway, instead of fabricating a character in one minute, just to kill it off in the next!

Amanda Waller, the intelligence officer, is so dumb to use Enchantress since the start. At one moment, Waller kills all of her men??, then in the end, she shows up simply in front of the squad?! (Basically, how come that she, and the joker, didn't die?!). And when she said: "I see everything", I laughed hysterically! She's extraordinarily confident and sullen, despite her massive dumbness, exactly like this movie, or most of DC movies, and that's the secret of the horrendous absurdity and artistic failure!

The dialogue isn't funny because we're in a realistic movie, aren't we? No, the dialogue isn't funny because Mr. Ayer doesn't have the talent to write a funny dialogue, or else. Listen to a line like "I like her, she seems nice". It's said by Quinn about Tanaka, then it's said again by Croc about Waller. It's how repetition and idiocy torment the viewer. The goal was to end every scene with a cool line anyway, however by miserable writing. Though, there was a good line that said: "He looked like a monster. So they treated him like a monster. Then he became a monster". The sole good line in 2 hours movie!

The tedium was too heavy to stand. Some moments should have been shortened, or deleted. Introducing the major characters was too long. The songs at first were too many, till the soundtrack got unhealthily stuffed. The scene of Enchantress becoming evil was played 2 times unnecessarily (why repeating yourself? It's more of a comedy this way!). The bar scene was sleep-inducing. But nothing needed deleting more than these highly pretentious dialogues between the leads!

What was director Ayer's aim when he made the image too dark to watch? Even during the climactic action sequence, you won't be able to see anything. This is the top of naivety indeed. Moreover, there is misplaced mammoth seriousness and melancholy. It's the effect of the 2000's franchises: Harry Potter, Batman, and James Bond. They as if brought the dark factor to dye big part of Hollywood movies thereafter. But it's a problem. Because 1) This way, the viewer escapes from his dark world, to another dark world! 2) This round, the subject matter is too trivial to be that dark, and it wasn't re-created to fit into that. 3) All of that so-called renovation was done superficially, since there is no analyzing for the characters, reflecting important issues in society.. etc, etc. OH GOD, it became agonizing pure pretentiousness (and I thought that Zack Snyder is the ugliest moviemaker when it comes to superhero movies!).

Plus, 2 points I can't hold: the make-up is laughable sometimes, and Enchantress's fast-motion dance is a riot!

And as if all of that low quality isn't enough, the movie finds a new way to be more provocative. Look at Deadshot's daughter. She's so proud that her father is a killer?! What kind of a deformed twisted-mind generation does a movie like this raise?! Accordingly, the little girls will dream of being killers too! Since the role models in movies and TV shows become fewer and fewer recently, how can any conscience get satisfied by showing criminals as heroes?!

Then, Rick Flag, the military leader of the operation, looks like a heroin addict. You can say that again about Captain Boomerang. It's sick, real sick. When you give us heroes like these, then it's frankly disturbing. So, in the end, if I ask: who does this movie magnify? I think the answer is clear!

The commercial success was strange. But mostly it has a lot to do with the publicity, the fans of the original Suicide Squad comics, or the Seven Samurai formula. Or, simply, the Americans want these movies, even if they are that bad. To tell you the truth, all the superhero movies lately is an evidence of some disruption in the American society. Here's a society that feels how helpless it is, and doesn't want to face its reality, so it deceives itself by those movies, which try to look like reality, or approach its sullenness, melancholy, and violence. However, they're - in fact - so far from all of that, and don't present a moral message, or any real seriousness. The pressing urge to the superpowers is a sign of weakness that hits the Americans badly; they desperately need this above normal abilities to compensate for their above normal inabilities. These movies' abundance and success declare a dangerous rift in such a society, where anesthesia becomes super!

Usually, in some foolish movies, we say "it's the best parody of itself". This time, Suicide Squad couldn't have that honor. It's the worst parody of itself, with nothing right on nearly all the levels. It's like a Jim Wynorski movie, yet produced by astronomical budget. But you know what could be worse than a bad expensive movie? A bad expensive movie that takes itself so seriously!

Before anything, just read this little piece of history: "There was a fan backlash to the negative reviews of The Dark Knight Rises. Some fans had threatened violence against critics, while others threatened to take down websites of movie critics"!!!!! As you see, this is not love, this is frank imbecility!

Nearly everything is wrong in this movie's script, to the extent that the movie became one big mistake. Ahh, where do I begin?!

The coincidences are more than the explosions in a Michael Bay movie: Why Commissioner Gordon goes to the sewers in the same time where he was chasing the congressman's kidnappers? I'll tell you, to accidentally meet Bane there! Why - at that moment - Gordon is still having the speech which he refused to read in Harvey Dent's memorial ceremony a day ago?! Sure he went home after the ceremony, dined, slept, then went to work in the next day, with another jacket I presume, so why it's still in his pocket?! I'll tell you, so Bane could read it, and know that Batman sacrificed his reputation for guaranteeing an ethical icon for the city. How come that Bruce Wayne, in his first time to get out in 8 years, runs into Catwoman who robbed him a while ago?! Obvious coincidences, obvious laziness!

How Wayne jumped off the doctor's window while his health was deteriorating? Supposedly he would be good after that magical electronic remedy which Alfred would bring him later, so if the script had an atom of brain, then it would have been: 1) Alfred's remedy, 2) That jump! Why Alfred dispersed that simple? It was too forced to hateful degree. How come that John Blake, or Robin, was the only one on planet earth who could discover that Wayne was Batman (because he has a look in his eyes?!!!).

Why Catwoman acts in one moment as a bisexual? What was the dramatic benefit of that?! To tell you the truth, the movie - as a whole - tries desperately to make the nonsense so seriously, and so badly as well; as if it remakes a Donald Duck short as a philosophical, psychological, artistic film, and the result is laughable stupidity in the end!

How could Batman know Catwoman's whereabouts when she was attacking the guy who had the key to erase criminal history? And why he fights that guy with her relentlessly?! As one of the IMDb's reviewers said; the pulsing music, which is on for all the time, tries to generate persuasion more than that script!

The scene in which all the city's cops goes under the ground is so impossible it's farcical, and rare to happen even in the worst movies! Why Bane keeps all the cops in good health, supplying them with daily eating and drinking, while killing them is an excellent way to smash Gotham's spirit as he wants?!

How come that the American army is that goofy, preventing the innocent people of Gotham from getting out of the city while the bomb is about to explode?! They even blow up the only bridge which connects the city with the rest of America, killing those who wanted to escape, and - on their top - the orphaned kids! Their logic was: if we opened the bridge, Bane will explode the city, and kill the people. I can't believe how mythical the size of this movie's dumbness is!

Bane planted a bomb in the city, yet he left it for months without using?! Wayne is jailed in some prison in Asia that has no guards, and contains an opened way to escape?! After his escaping, Wayne went to America, without money or passport?! And how could he enter Gotham while every bridge that connects it to world was damaged?! Sure with forgetting logic, continually like this, the dark serious movie that they intended turns into unfunny joke!

Why did Ra's al Ghul hate Gotham that bad?! How come that Marion Cotillard is his daughter (who Wayne idiotically trusted)? And why she didn't kill Wayne since the start, especially while she was close to him, rather has him unarmed in his empty palace at one night?!

What was the need for the Peter Foley character (played by Matthew Modine)? I thought that he was the one who had the bomb's detonator, but it turns out to be that he's some coward cop who gets brave at the end.. so what was that about?! Bane, the dangerous evil man, brutal guerrilla terrorist, gets defeated so easily eventually! He even didn't explode the city, as if he was waiting for Batman to recover from his back pains, get back from Asia, and does what he has to do.. Ok, what a drivel!

How did Batman survive at the end? How come that he moves freely later, with no disguise whatsoever, while he's presumed dead? Why he has a romantic relationship with Catwoman? OH MY GOD, there isn't a thing that makes sense in that foolish, pretentious and vain world. Btw, did you see the way Batman dragged the nuclear bomb on the ground? This moment makes me laugh like a drain!

While the fire doesn't need more fuel, the way most of the characters know the information is ambiguous, Bane's voice wasn't clear, Batman's voice - in all of this trilogy's films - is annoying and ludicrous, and the action didn't pay off for all of the faulty time!

And despite all of that, this movie was a hit, winning a billion dollars (could be the worst successful movie of all time!), plus a large number of fans that consider it no less than great, analyzing its so-called intellectual agenda, with different deep interpretations (here where laughing gets crazy!). Well, this is sick. They have turned a blind eye to the endless mistakes. But I think in later, more rational viewing, they'll see how this movie wasn't only daft; they were daft to love it too!

Finally, how did Christopher Nolan make an awful movie like this? I believe he was hasty, or in love with whatever he wrote. However, the most pressing question is: how does an awful movie, any awful movie, succeed?! Actually when The Dark Knight Rises became one of the highest-grossing films in history, named one of the top 10 films of 2012 by the American Film Institute, and considered critically one of the best superhero films of all time, rather one of the best films ever made--you have to get really sad, due to the shocking fact that you're ruled by imbecility, and this is - my friends - where any awful movie can succeed.

In his autobiography, Michael Caine confessed to being disappointed with this movie, because director John Sturges, the Hollywood illustrious once, was somehow indifferent about it, agreeing to direct it only to get the money to go fishing. He even never came back for the editing, or for any of the other post-production sessions, where - in Caine's words - "a director does some of his most important work", concluding: "The picture isn't bad, but I still get angry when I think of what it could have been with the right director". Well, Sir Michael, I believe it wasn't Sturges fault only; it was a collaborative one!

Firstly, the pace. I've watched boring TV shows that were faster than this; the times where I wanted to leave my seat were countless. The dialogue is agonizing, repeating the same information every minute. The editing is extremely slow. The first 50 % of the scenes is long, unnecessary, and doesn't develop anything. The first half an hour could be easily abbreviated to 3 short shots. For instance, when Robert Duvall character and his assistant want to review a certain point on the map, it begins with a question from Duvall's side, then they enter a room, then Duvall switches on its lights, and brings a map, then brings another map which he pins on the wall, then brings a magnifying glass, and locates the desired point by it. Well, for the greater good of all humanity, it should have been merely: Duvall's question, then the point under the magnifying glass, AND THAT'S ABOUT IT!

Secondly, the script. The idea of the kidnappers wearing the German military uniforms, under their disguise as Polish paratroopers, defines foolishness. The motive of guaranteeing that they wouldn't be executed as spies if caught--is naive, since kidnapping the prime minister of England, from England itself, is a suicidal mission anyway. It seems fabricated solely for complicating the situation later. However, nothing is stupider than the love story. Ahh, it could be the stupidest love story ever made. Here's a girl, who loved a boy, to the extent that she killed for him, she even betrayed her country for him.. all of that is in the course of one day! Not to mention that the boy, played by Donald Sutherland, was way older than her, ugly, and it's inexplicable why she loved him in the first place (he just talked with her about how sand has a terrible way of getting where it shouldn't be!). Basically, Sutherland character is too stupid, since he let himself fall in that so-called love, while he's in the middle of a dangerous top secret mission!

Many moments are left without explanation. For example: how the last survivor of the kidnappers would get out of England? Why Sutherland character didn't deny that he wasn't a Gestapo man in the bar? Who did attack him on Alderney? And the strange dialogue between Larry Hagman character and the German solider?

Since the start, Caine character seems sympathetic to Jews, and kind of romantic, so what did that lead to dramatically?! He'll order saving the little girl, which will uncover the whole operation, however anyone in his shoes would have done the same, especially while his disguise as an allied soldier to England. Also it doesn't have anything to do with the matter of not keeping the women and children as hostages later in the church. So why it was written originally?!

Listen to lines like these: Colonel Pitts: "You speak English?", Corporal Kuniski: "Yes". Well, everybody here speaks nothing but English, you idiots!

Forget any seriousness around anyone or anything. The matter of "We do this nihilistically, not patriotically" was bizarre, or rather forced to find a reason for anything said or done on screen!

And, in the end, you have to ask yourself: what's the lesson of this movie? The Germans tried to kidnap Winston Churchill, and they failed. There is no heroism from any side. So this movie is about the stupidity of the Germens, the Englishmen, and the Americans as well!

Thirdly, additional stupidities: Anthony Quayle, with his British accent, plays a German. Caine, with his British accent, plays a German. And Sutherland, who's a Canadian, plays an Irishman, with horrible Irish accent.. Ok, this is not a thriller, this is a comedy! Treat Williams's face here has legendary dumbness. The action is so little, which makes the movie non-action. The music score is useless; just focus on it, and you'll discover that it's - like the movie itself - meaningless!

Btw, the movie is based on a 1975 novel by Jack Higgins that has the same title, however what is the meaning of that title anyway? I'll tell you, when the Apollo 11 Lunar Module landed on the moon on July 20, 1969, Commander Neil Armstrong marked the arrival with an eight-word message back home: "Houston.. Tranquility base here.. The Eagle has landed". As you see, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WW2! Even with putting in mind that the name of the movie's plan was "Eagle", it doesn't work; because if the reference was to the arriving of the operation's men, or Churchill, in the Norfolk village, then it's trivial. And if the reference was to the plan itself being done, then it's a lie!

The sole survivors from this movie were Anthony B. Richmond's cinematography, and Larry Hagman's performance. Nothing more!

I think that WW2 movies lost its popularity progressively in the 1970s, knowing that one year after The Eagle Has Landed, there would be another generation, with another taste, that would prefer Star Wars over old wars. That's why movies like The Dirty Dozen (1967) sequels would be made in TV, not cinema, during the 1980s. However, surprisingly, The Eagle Has Landed was a commercial success, which is - for me - one of the 1970s mysteries. But maybe the stars' names, and the publicity, fooled the poor viewers back then, managing to sell a very bad movie as "a major motion picture", with "the most exciting adventure story", "epic suspense", and "explosive events", as the enthusiastic original trailer promoted!

Finally, one of the movie's taglines said: "The daring World War II plot that changed the course of history", Hahahahah! This is so hilarious!

It's based on Brewster's Millions, the 1902 novel by George Barr McCutcheon. Clearly that novel is tempting for cinema, to the extent that it got made 6 times in 6 movies produced between 1914 and 1961. Now, this 1985 seventh one isn't any tempting itself. As a comedy, it's filled with dozens of uncomic moments!

It doesn't find funny ideas to make, and when it does, it treats them carelessly. For instance: The running gag of building a hall wasn't utilized for making any laughs. The idea that the decorator was the ex-wife of the lead's co-lawyer didn't add anything to anything. That co-lawyer himself, who's engaged to the lead's love interest, wasn't exploited as a rival. The 2 election candidates were wasted also. And the matter of the title character as a bad baseball pitcher didn't lead to funny stuff, or have eventually any meaning!

Look at a character like the news reporter; he wasn't used in comedic situations, no comedic dialogue was written for him, and it wasn't played by a comedic actor. So with recurring scenes for him, he became so boring to watch! Then look at the serious side of the drama, or the lack of it thereof; was the title character extremely in love with money, materialistic to the bone, so the movie's journey could help him to be more rational and moral? No such luck either!

In quote shown onscreen between scenes, there is a reference to "the road of excess" leading to "the palace of wisdom", an allusion to William Blake's poem "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell". Well, this is educational. It's indeed. But as far as I know, onscreen quotes are shown whether in the movie's start, or the movie's end, and showing them in its middle is just strange idea that doesn't suit, out of all genres, comedy! And when you see how the last scene is very trivial, and after it the movie wraps up abruptly; it's official, whoever wrote this comedy movie doesn't know much about comedy or movies!

Richard Pryor was out of his comedic shape, and seemed lost sometimes. There is a world of dead silence in his eyes, and rarely when he gives a funny reaction. I believe it has a lot to do with his drug abuse at the moment, of which the movie's director, Walter Hill, stated once.

Yes, Mr. Hill specialized in action, thriller, crime, and western movies, never comedies. But sure the real guilty here is that script, which is composed of missed opportunities, it sounds written in a day or two!

This is a very poor comedy. The thing is it suffers from the same problem of its lead character. Brewster wasted great deal of money on trivialities, and this script wasted its great idea on trivialities as well!

I won't talk about the movie's different elements, because one element in it got my interest, and my anger as well; it's the script. Because the way how it choose its final goal annoyed me much, and ruined the viewing for me!

Here's a movie that defends media freedom in the age of big corporations, however through the story of a TV news producer who did such a criminal mistake under the name of media freedom. Ok, I can't accept a message like that, through a story like this!

It's based on the 2004 CBS 60 Minutes report, investigating then-President George W. Bush's military service, according to some documents which were sent to Mary Mapes, the program's prouder, that revealed how Bush had preferential treatment, and went absent without official leave for one year in 1972. However, the documents turned out to be fake, and airing them without verification cost Mapes her career!

The movie's lead character, played by Cate Blanchett, isn't a martyr; she's rather a fighter who missed her shot, that's why her climactic tirade, concerning disrupting the quest for truth, is weakened by the bitter truth of her act!

The same can be said about the phone call of the program's anchor Dan Rather, played by Robert Redford, in which he talks and talks about the end of honesty in the contemporary political media, rather the end of raising public awareness towards politics in the first place. But from where did all of that come?! This is, again, the right speech in the wrong place. The case in hand isn't Watergate scandal uncovered by media guys; it's a professional mistake, and a crime of defamation or disinformation, done by those media guys themselves!

The motive of Bill Burkett, played by Stacy Keach, to send the fake documents to the lead, was so poor. The thing is the script shrouded this point in mystery, and didn't even clear it up in the end, which hurt the whole thing!

Truth (2015) looks like a way less powerful version of JFK (1991). This time, the truth seekers got deeply confused, saw the white as black, and were proved wrong. It has a righteous message, no doubt about that, however it seemed eventually as if an attempt to absolve a TV producer who fell into the trap of promoting a lie, and that's the movie's worst.

It may have some good elements, but its script puts the balance in favor of muddle. We need more righteous messages in films, but without stories that may weaken them!

How many things did I hate in this movie? Well, count with me:

_The exaggerated way everybody talks about the title character. Actually the first third of the dialogue does nothing but acclaiming the magnificent and incredible John Wick!

_The lead is so angry that he will come back to crime, while - in the last movie - he killed 77 human beings in revenge for his dog!

_The scene in which the lead cries when he's forced to kill again. Certainly one of the worst acting moments in Keanu Reeves's entire career!

_Reeves's dead face!

_Out of all people, the lead was questioned: "Do you fear damnation?!", and he replied: "Yes!". Since he killed 128 persons this round, that answer got me laughing like crazy!

_What was the meaning of the suicide of the lead's victim?!

_Why her brother wanted to kill the lead? NOBODY WANTED TO ANSWER THAT!

_A deaf and mute professional assassin??!!

_The fact that the movie's characters are invincible!

_The fact that the endless stray bullets don't hit anybody at all!

_The Bowery King, and those 7 bullets of him!

_The ridiculous music score!

_When the people stood still in the square, as if Winston, the owner of the Continental Hotel, owns the world (or he's the new Architect of the Matrix!).

_The movie's ending, which turns it into a philosophical film or something! It's how to sell nonsense so seriously, like the age's icons: Bourne, Taken, and the reboot of James Bond, and Batman!

_WAKE UP, EVERYBODY. IT'S ONLY ABOUT SOME GUYS SHOOTING EACH OTHER!

_You know, the hateful goods that - in my viewpoint - poisoned Hollywood since years and years, and still do, dethroning it from its golden crown, giving it a tin one instead: nudity, swearing, and violence!

_The way how the critics praised this movie!!!

Ok, now how many things did I like?

_The hall of mirrors set, albeit it's just a homage to similar ones in Enter the Dragon (1973), and The Lady from Shanghai (1947).

_The scene of the subway station's shootout; as if killing became a usual deed, and the people are so indifferent, being busy with themselves, more than death around them!

_The special details of the movie's world; including its assassins, hotel, and organization.

_Ian McShane. He was the sole non-artificial actor in the whole movie. It's where I finally felt things like "human" and "natural"!

My conclusion: This is a video game, not a movie. And it's senseless and mindless too. Watching it in full got nothing to do with entertainment; rather a lot to do with bore and discontent. That's why when it grossed $171.5 million worldwide, against its $40 million budget, twice the $86 million gross of the original movie--I was sad. Hollywood has turned big part of its audience into senseless and mindless along the years!

Waiting for a nice MacGyver movie, or a nice movie anyway, both ways this one will not satisfy you!

First of all, this is not MacGyver; this is poor man's James Bond. For instance, I watch MacGyver for some reasons, on their top is his improvised-from-everyday-items gadgets. Though, this movie doesn't have any of them until the last 5 minutes!

Richard Dean Anderson, as the movie's executive producer, canceled his character's narration, which was familiar in the TV show, because - as he said - it used to insult the viewer's intelligence. Not only this, the character's theme music was canceled as well, which increased the feel of alienation towards our good old hero. So, in the end, what were left from him were just his name, and his looks. And sure that wasn't enough.

Moreover, you won't find logic in many parts. Just think, if the Russian girl is associated with the evil guys, then why they exploded her house?!

In the climactic sequence, the movie got utterly crazy: there is a nuclear reactor underground! To do what exactly?! MacGyver survived just because he reminded the Russian girl that her associate is a capitalist, so she killed the guy instantly.. What kind of nonsense is that?! Then, after MacGyver escaped from her, in such a childish way, he saved the whole world by a tennis racket! Aside from how terribly poor that gadget was, can anybody tell me what is a tennis racket doing in an underground nuclear reactor?!

And while it isn't MacGyver, it couldn't be Bond either, because there weren't Bond's dazzling backgrounds, impressive action, and big budget to make up for that script!

In one scene, when the lead was being informed that he couldn't leave the city after his friend's murder, a previous shot of him was reversed, in slow-motion?? Clearly, this movie didn't need more idiocy!

As for the virtues, the pace is fast, Beatie Edney was clever, Anderson is a reliable man in any case, director Charles Correll, who directed 19 episodes from MacGyver TV show, tried to infuse seriousness, but that script was a killer, giving us a hero that we don't know, in a muddled conflict!

My theory goes like this: this is a rejected 2 parts episode from the TV show, which - one way or another - made its way as a TV movie for the title character, after 2 years of the show's end. They wanted him to be Indiana Jones in his first movie MacGyver: Lost Treasure of Atlantis (1994), then James Bond in his second and last movie MacGyver: Trail to Doomsday, which was aired 6 months after the first. And while it - somehow - worked in the first one, it didn't in the second. Well, why don't you let MacGyver be MacGyver?! He earned his big success by that!

As you see, MacGyver is in the title, but not in the movie. So how about being not that good movie in the first place. It's really disappointing to have this as the swan song of our childhood's hero. He, and us, deserved better.