Reviews

I don't understand why there is such venom hurled at this film. Is it just because there is some kind of malaise with Comic Book Hero / Marvel content at the moment? Sure, it is not the best of its type but it is certainly nowhere near as bad as many have suggested. In my book it is no worse than Morbius and not as banal as The Marvels. According to IMDb box office info, the movie grossed close on $100M (2024) and turned in a small profit - so enough people went to see it. This says to me that it is not as much a "lemon" as many would have us believe. While The Marvels was bigger budget, at time of writing, it has still not returned a profit. On the other hand, there is no doubt super hero films seem to be going through a lacklustre period. Having read many of the poor reviews before I saw it, I was expecting to hate it - but I didn't. The 2 hours passed quite painlessly for me and I was sufficiently engrossed to see it through to the conclusion. Dakota Johnson turned in a good performance with the material she had and the supporting cast were quite plausible. It is by no means the best super hero movie I have ever seen and I probably won't ever watch it again but it is not atrocious.

This is not an easy watch but I feel many reviewers have been too hard on it. Many of the actors (especially Lena Headey) and special guests have put in strong performances. I cannot comment on suggestions of scientific accuracy that many have brought up but I don't think that is really the point and I am sure most sci-fi can be accused of that to some degree. It is a complex plot with a timeline that is not immediately intuitive to follow. You will not be able to watch this while chatting with friends as you won't follow what is going, it will require your full concentration. The question is whether all that hard work is worth it? For my part, I largely enjoyed it and it certainly gets better from about the third episode but I wouldn't watch it a second time! Why the makers made it so difficult to follow in such a non-addictive fashion is beyond me. I presume it was a style thing - taken a bit too far IMHO. There are some interesting ethical questions asked for this day and age and the story, once unravelled, isn't bad. Production is also pretty good. In short, don't sit down and expect a nice easy plot like you might get in Star Trek!

There seems to be some kind of hate campaign against the CW! Sure, some of their content has not been the greatest BUT they have made some really good series.

Consequently, I find some of the really low ratings quite curious. Interestingly, those not invested in darkening the CW name have given this quite high scores - there seems to be little in the middle.

It is also odd that a series might be rubbished so early in its run. Come on folks - give it a chance!

For me, it is certainly not as good as Superman & Lois - yet. But I felt it was a reasonable start. So it's a different slant looking at the time after Batman. Surely that gives it a relatively clean slate and lots of potential?

The acting is nothing like as bad as some reviewers would have you believe. In particular, I felt Olivia Rose Keegan as Duela and Anna Lore as Stephanie Brown were standout newcomers. There's lots of action, the story pulls you in and the sfx are credible enough.

I shall certainly continue to watch it to see how it progresses. Hopefully, all the CW haters will actually go away and stop giving dumb reviews without foundation and let "normal" reviewers assess this properly on its own merit!

I never read the original stories so maybe that helps? OK, so there's the typical CW WOKE element but that just seems to be a sign of the times. There's so much of it these days, I've grown immune to it now and it bounces off me (mostly). The show clearly does not warrant huge adulation but, at the same time, I felt I needed to add a review that was less negative than most! I managed to watch all of the initial 10 episodes (and likely the only 10) without too much trouble finding it mildly engaging enough to want to reach the season conclusion. The story and production is competent and, ignoring the WOKE, the character development was quite reasonable. I don't suppose there'll be a Season Two but I will watch it if there is. I've seen considerably worse - notably Batwoman which I found unwatchable. Tom Swift deserves to be in a higher league than that at the very least.

There are two ways of viewing this film.

If you want a hot action movie with a great story - you won't like this!

If you are looking for some far from serious fun and a complete micky-take of the 007 genre - you will enjoy this!

Money has been spent on the cgi and there is a bevy of beauties with good action throughout. It ain't going to win an Oscar but if you are in the right frame of mind, it is 100 minutes of frivolous entertainment that is quite amusing in places. Best served with large quantities of (Australian) beer and hot wings.

Devs covers the interesting and relatively novel topic (for TV drama) of determinisim. It deserves a better score for its originality but I cannot be that generous when it is so flawed. The actors put in good performances, the sets are pretty good and effects are more than adequate. Many of the reviews for this series state how slow it is while others state it needs to be slow to be "moody". My truth is that it is way too slow and too long. The moodiness does not require such slow progression. To be honest you could watch episodes 1 to 3 and the final episode and "get" more than 85% of what is going on. I can understand why many have said that they struggled to make it to the end. As well as being slow there are a number of "red herrings" that I felt were just unnecessary such as the vast majority of Kenton's input as Head of Security. Dare I suggest, it felt like having secured such a notable actor as Zach Grenier, the studio was fleshing out his part to ensure they got their monies' worth. A lot of what he does seems incongruous to the rest of the plot and just plain unnecessary. I also suspect that, as many have also mentioned, that the last 15 minutes were something of an afterthought probably forcibly imposed to satisfy the network. The story would have "stood up" and likely have been better without it. At, the very least, the addendum could have been less than 5 minutes. Overall, I have given it 7 because I think new ideas and intelligent concepts should be encouraged but just wished it hadn't been such hard work to watch - the length of the series did not add gravitas.

It's always a mystery to me why certain pictures seem to attract such hatred and low scores. The 355 is one of those. There is no doubt in my mind this SHOULD average somewhere around 6.5. For my part, I gave it 7 to give it a helping hand. It started out averaging 4.8 on IMDb but has gradually managed to creep up a little. There is no doubt, as some critics point out, that this film is unlikely to win any awards but it is, nonetheless, a decent watch. OK - it's another girl power thing that seems to be the trend these days but it is not as horribly WOKE as many TV series have become. The leading ladies all put in stellar performances and there is a lot action which is well done. The plot is a little predictable but there are some good twists. I have a family that bizarrely loves to rate all movies "out of 10" at the end and not one of mine gave it less than 6. Consequently I am reviewing this to give it a better chance. It is unlikely to become one of your favourite films of all time BUT if you like James Bond / Charlie's Angels stuff, this will not disappoint.

Is it slow? Yes! Are there a lot of aliens in the first half of the series? No. It is certainly a slow burner and, maybe, a little too slow. There is a lot of human melodrama but, actually, I think there would be in an alien invasion. On the whole I think the melodrama is quite well done in an "Apple" kind of way.

We are too used to loads of action and CGI these days and as awe inspiring as some of this is, it is kinda getting a bit old. Invasion takes a different approach which I think is healthy. When the special effects are used, albeit sparingly, I think they are pretty well done and leave something for your imagination. Remember books?

There are several threads of intigue in the story that leave you wondering where it might all go. For my part, I hope there is a second series. Something different always gets criticised but I think it is worth give it a "go".

I don't understand all the seriously bad reviews! Sure, it's not Game Of Thrones - but it's not meant to be. It's just a bit of fun.

Plus it has Sarah Shahi starring in it who is one of most beautiful women in the world - gotta be worth "6" for that alone!

Vampires from outer space that are honourable citizens and no longer kill to feed themselves! Vlad (Roger Daltrey) - a renegade vampire, kills Vampirella's father and flees to Earth and joins nasty vamps as we better know them. Vampirella pursues him in seek of revenge. Sounds trashy? Yes it does! However, while this film will never rank amongst one of the great classics, it does provide 80 minutes worth of mindless viewing that is not entirely unsatisfying. Talisa Soto (Vampirella), apart from being a stunning beauty, carries this film quite well often with a semblance of some good acting skills. Roger Daltrey is Roger Daltrey. Some of the support acting is scarily awful at times but, as B Movies go, this is not the worst I have seen by far.