The_Right-Brained_Reviewer

James Gunn's Superman isn't a total misfire. It has heart, a few great moments between Lois and Clark, and it carries a sense of optimism in a way that feels refreshing at times. But for me, it still fell short of something greater.

I've always seen Superman as a symbol of self-discipline and steady moral strength. He's someone who inspires because of his restraint, not his reaction. But in this version, he's a bit too outward with his feelings, like a young man still trying to figure himself out. I missed the mature, noble presence I've come to expect from the character.

The pacing wasn't bad, the CGI wasn't completely underwhelming, and the crowded cast didn't bother me much. There was also some real charm here. Most notably, Rachel Brosnahan brought back the spark to Lois Lane, which has been missing on the big screen since Margot Kidder's portrayal of the character (Sorry, Amy Adams). And, a few scenes, such as the one-on-one interview between her and Clark as Superman, really do land. I also welcomed the changes to Superman's origin story. But largely that's where my praise ends, as I felt the movie leaned too heavily on flash, and not enough on the strength of the story.

The bigger problem is a cartoonish tone that creeps in through side characters and comic relief, especially with Krypto. Some of the dialogue feels dumbed down, and while I get that Gunn likes to inject cartoonish humor, I think it came at the expense of deeper storytelling. There were opportunities to go somewhere more meaningful, but most of them were sidestepped for spectacle and lighthearted folly.

At the end of the day, I wouldn't call James Gunn's version progress. Man of Steel had more gravitas and gave us a Superman who felt fully formed. This is a character who's endured for generations because he stands for something timeless. I just hope DC finds its way back to that.

A smart, well-written drama that follows the real-life investigation by New York Times reporters Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, whose reporting helped expose Harvey Weinstein's history of sexual misconduct and sparked the #MeToo movement.

The writing is tight, purposeful, and respectful of the subject matter, keeping the story grounded in the work itself rather than sensationalizing the events. It moves at a good pace and effectively shows the challenges of getting sources to talk, let alone go on record.

However, the film's clinical tone tends to hold the viewer at arm's length, softening its emotional impact. The acting feels a bit too flat. Zoe Kazan plays everything on one note, and Carey Mulligan remains so composed that she barely lets any tension rise to the surface. The direction is also overly restrained. Scenes that should feel charged come off as quiet and subdued. While thoughtful and deliberate, the film never fully pulls you in.

Still, it's a worthwhile watch, especially if you appreciate investigative dramas or stories based on real journalism. Just don't expect powerhouse performances or much emotional punch. The strength here lies in the story, not the delivery.

This show has a strong ER vibe, but it feels more raw, more immediate, more graphic, and not as distracted by personal relationships outside the hospital. The setting plays a big part in that. Nearly all the action takes place in a brightly lit ER, called "the pitt" in the series, and each episode accounts for one hour of a single day. This storytelling approach makes everything feel a little more confined and intense. There's a constant sense of urgency, like there's no room to breathe, and that tension carries through in every scene.

Noah Wyle brings a steady, experienced presence to the show, demonstrating his well-crafted range and control. The rest of the cast is superb. The writing is smart, the pacing is tight, and the show doesn't waste time with filler.

It may not reinvent the genre, but it brings a sharper sense of urgency, clarity, and grit that makes it worth watching.