AziziOthmanMY

Jurassic World: Rebirth is a visually slick but narratively clunky addition to the dino-franchise that feels more like a calculated algorithm than a film with soul. While the action sequences deliver the expected thrills and the CGI dinosaurs are as polished as ever, the script leaves much to be desired. The dialogue often feels like it was generated by a chatbot trying to mimic human emotion-generic, stilted, and oddly sterile.

Characters spout exposition like NPCs in a video game, and emotional arcs are shoehorned in with the subtlety of a T-Rex crashing through a wall. The plot moves as if it's ticking boxes on a corporate checklist rather than organically unfolding. You can almost hear the prompt: "Write a Jurassic Park sequel with themes of family, redemption, and a genetically enhanced super dinosaur."

It's not unwatchable, but Rebirth ends up feeling more like AI-generated content fed through a blockbuster blender-slick, safe, and soulless. Fans hoping for the emotional resonance of the original or the tension of Fallen Kingdom may walk away disappointed, but if you're just in it for dinosaurs smashing things, you'll get your fix.

Just don't expect it to feel human.

M3GAN 2.0 brings back the stylish blend of horror, satire, and sci-fi that made the first film a viral success. This sequel continues to explore the dark side of AI and the ethical consequences of creating sentient machines for emotional companionship and protection. While it delivers some tense moments and clever commentary, it doesn't quite reach the same level of novelty or impact as the original.

That said, one of the most promising aspects of M3GAN 2.0 is the introduction of M3GAN's "sister" - a new AI character that adds a compelling twist to the storyline. It opens up exciting new territory for the franchise. The emotional and thematic potential of two AI entities with contrasting personalities, goals, or loyalties could truly elevate the next chapter.

I'm glad the filmmakers are beginning to expand the M3GAN universe, but 2.0 feels like a bridge rather than a breakthrough. Here's hoping that the third installment digs deeper into this "sibling" dynamic and gives us the full-scale AI showdown or philosophical depth this franchise is clearly capable of delivering.

28 Years Later had the potential to be a haunting, meaningful return to the bleak, rage-infected world that first stunned audiences with 28 Days Later and its solid follow-up, 28 Weeks Later. Unfortunately, the latest installment delivers a visually competent yet narratively hollow experience that squanders its legacy.

The film does manage to re-capture some of the atmosphere that made the original so iconic-desolate cityscapes, tense silences broken by bursts of frantic violence, and that persistent feeling of hopeless survival. The performances are serviceable, and there are a few moments where the emotional core threatens to break through the surface.

But then comes the ending-a frustrating, empty finale that offers no real payoff, no thematic resolution, and, worst of all, no meaningful contribution to the world it inhabits. Rather than expanding the lore or delivering a final statement on humanity, rage, or survival, the conclusion feels like it either ran out of ideas or deliberately chose ambiguity over substance. It doesn't provoke thought-it just ends, with a shrug.

After nearly three decades since 28 Days Later, audiences deserved a story that either pushed the universe forward or gave it a satisfying closure. 28 Years Later does neither. It's a return, yes-but not one worth remembering.