serhii_miroshnyk
Joined Apr 2019
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges6
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings2K
serhii_miroshnyk's rating
Reviews2
serhii_miroshnyk's rating
Let me say this up front: I'm not a fan of Superman as a superhero, but I do enjoy James Gunn's work (especially his «GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY» trilogy, which I absolutely love), so I was genuinely curious and looking forward to his new film about the Man of Steel.
Unfortunately, this time James Gunn left me disappointed. The biggest issue is the script. For some reason, the director chose to throw the audience straight into the middle of the action, with almost no background or introduction for the main character. Some might argue that Superman's origin story is no longer necessary, but in my view, it's absolutely essential for a full-fledged reboot. This is David Corenswet's first appearance as Clark Kent, and the film clearly lacks at least 30 minutes of emotional buildup to help us connect with him. Without that foundation, it's hard to truly care about his character.
The same goes for the rest of the cast. Lex Luthor lacks a clear motivation: he wants to destroy Superman right from the start, but there's no deeper reasoning behind it. Clark's relationship with his adoptive parents is barely shown - they appear only in a few short scenes. His connection with Lois Lane also feels shallow. There's no real chemistry between them, and their relationship seems to develop entirely off-screen. As a result, it feels more like we're watching the second installment in a franchise rather than the first.
Another serious flaw is the overload of secondary heroes. The audience is thrown into a new world packed with characters: Green Lantern, Mister Terrific, Hawkgirl, Metamorpho, The Engineer, Ultraman - all of whom show up, but almost none receive meaningful screen time (Mister Terrific is arguably the most developed). They're hard to remember, let alone care about. For the average viewer unfamiliar with the DC Universe, it's genuinely overwhelming. «BATMAN V SUPERMAN» was heavily criticized for a similarly chaotic structure, yet despite sharing the same flaws, Gunn's latest film is somehow receiving mostly positive reviews. I just don't get it.
So, for the first film in the rebooted DC Universe (DCU), I expected a more coherent, emotionally rich, and self-contained story. For many viewers - especially newcomers - this movie might feel chaotic and overcrowded. And, in essence, that's exactly how it is. In just two hours of runtime, Gunn packed in so much that it could have easily been stretched out into an entire season of a TV series.
6/10
P. S. I'm not a Zack Snyder fan, even though I'm aware of his massive fanbase. Personally, I see him as a strong visionary but a weak writer and director. Still, I have to be honest: his «MAN OF STEEL» left a far deeper impression on me than James Gunn's new «SUPERMAN». As disappointing as that is - especially given how much I admire Gunn's previous work - I have to speak frankly about how I feel.
Unfortunately, this time James Gunn left me disappointed. The biggest issue is the script. For some reason, the director chose to throw the audience straight into the middle of the action, with almost no background or introduction for the main character. Some might argue that Superman's origin story is no longer necessary, but in my view, it's absolutely essential for a full-fledged reboot. This is David Corenswet's first appearance as Clark Kent, and the film clearly lacks at least 30 minutes of emotional buildup to help us connect with him. Without that foundation, it's hard to truly care about his character.
The same goes for the rest of the cast. Lex Luthor lacks a clear motivation: he wants to destroy Superman right from the start, but there's no deeper reasoning behind it. Clark's relationship with his adoptive parents is barely shown - they appear only in a few short scenes. His connection with Lois Lane also feels shallow. There's no real chemistry between them, and their relationship seems to develop entirely off-screen. As a result, it feels more like we're watching the second installment in a franchise rather than the first.
Another serious flaw is the overload of secondary heroes. The audience is thrown into a new world packed with characters: Green Lantern, Mister Terrific, Hawkgirl, Metamorpho, The Engineer, Ultraman - all of whom show up, but almost none receive meaningful screen time (Mister Terrific is arguably the most developed). They're hard to remember, let alone care about. For the average viewer unfamiliar with the DC Universe, it's genuinely overwhelming. «BATMAN V SUPERMAN» was heavily criticized for a similarly chaotic structure, yet despite sharing the same flaws, Gunn's latest film is somehow receiving mostly positive reviews. I just don't get it.
So, for the first film in the rebooted DC Universe (DCU), I expected a more coherent, emotionally rich, and self-contained story. For many viewers - especially newcomers - this movie might feel chaotic and overcrowded. And, in essence, that's exactly how it is. In just two hours of runtime, Gunn packed in so much that it could have easily been stretched out into an entire season of a TV series.
6/10
P. S. I'm not a Zack Snyder fan, even though I'm aware of his massive fanbase. Personally, I see him as a strong visionary but a weak writer and director. Still, I have to be honest: his «MAN OF STEEL» left a far deeper impression on me than James Gunn's new «SUPERMAN». As disappointing as that is - especially given how much I admire Gunn's previous work - I have to speak frankly about how I feel.
I love small chamber films where the key elements are acting, the script, and masterful direction. Such films resemble theatrical plays and usually capture the viewer's attention from the very beginning, holding it until the end.
«HIS THREE DAUGHTERS» is just such a film.
This is a wonderful family drama with brilliant performances by all three main actresses. Seriously, I think they all deserve at least an Oscar nomination. They are the main reason why this movie turned out so well; their chemistry on screen is just off the charts.
Additionally, the skillfully written script, excellent dialogue, and the development of each sister make the on-screen action incredibly interesting and exciting. Each main character is completely different, with her own life and unique problems that the viewer begins to understand throughout the film. It is impossible not to sympathize with each sister; every character is well-crafted, compelling, and powerfully portrayed!
I give my highest recommendations to all lovers of chamber films and powerful acting.
8/10
P. S. Elizabeth Olsen is a Goddess!
«HIS THREE DAUGHTERS» is just such a film.
This is a wonderful family drama with brilliant performances by all three main actresses. Seriously, I think they all deserve at least an Oscar nomination. They are the main reason why this movie turned out so well; their chemistry on screen is just off the charts.
Additionally, the skillfully written script, excellent dialogue, and the development of each sister make the on-screen action incredibly interesting and exciting. Each main character is completely different, with her own life and unique problems that the viewer begins to understand throughout the film. It is impossible not to sympathize with each sister; every character is well-crafted, compelling, and powerfully portrayed!
I give my highest recommendations to all lovers of chamber films and powerful acting.
8/10
P. S. Elizabeth Olsen is a Goddess!