Reviews

I watched this movie courtesy of The New Yorker's website as I began my prepping for Oscars 2023 telecast. The basic description alluded to the topic I was to watch, but the overall film is very impactful. Having seen the movie "Arctic Tale" many times, narrated by Queen Latifah, I was aware of walrus migration and their need for sea ice. This documentary, which is almost in a movie format, shows the impact of less/no sea ice for the walrus' to rest on as they approach land where they may feed, mate, and rest. The sheer enormity of the walrus gathering is something I've never seen even in a National Geographic film. I applaud the filmmakers for documenting this phenomena and the impact climate change is effecting. Also, side note, for a documentary short subject feature, I found that the sound/audio quality was very well done by the sound engineers.

I watch this movie on Thursday the 13th via Peacock. I was very excited for this movie being a long time fan since 1981 when I saw the original as I was seven years old. The 2018 movie and follow up Halloween Kills really set up the scene for what I'd hoped to be a very good conclusion. The first hour and 20 minutes was so depressing because it wasn't even Michael Myers doing the killing, and it really felt like I was watching a different movie than a Halloween movie. I felt like there were elements of trying to be a rom-com which is not a horror movie trope. The movie was entirely too long, and the alternative killer aspect felt desperate. A franchise such as this and supposedly Laurie's last hoorah deserved better. Overall I believe this is a very forgettable entry.

I'm not sure where to begin. I'll talk about the acting, plot, pacing, and overall feel.

The acting is plan horrible. Other than Fassbender, I would describe the acting as "emotionally hollow." It seemed like everyone was just running the lines as opposed to emoting them. I had no connection to any of the characters, and usually, I do. Think about how you are engaged with Ripley, and she commands your attention. You don't have any of that with this film.

The plot suffers from a serious identity crisis. Is this Alien? Is this Aliens? Is this Predator? Is this Aliens vs. Predator? You can see so many references (rehashings?) of other films that it just seems like one endless set of slightly connected scenes. And, seriously, I think a 3rd-grader could predict everything that was about to happen. Absolutely no originality!

The pacing of the film is somewhat steady, but way too long. This film takes itself way too seriously and tries to be "artsy,' but it falls flat. For such a build-up of "Run," on the posters and the trailer, it tries too hard to be dramatic. Did Fassbender's agent require these scenes to get him back in the project? I don't know, but about 40 minutes before the end of the movie I started wanting the film to just end because I knew they would neatly sew things up just to end it, and they did.

The overall feel of the film is "Let's put out a crap film with a recognizable brand to see how much money we can make." Fans of the Alien franchise will view this once. It is the ROGUE:One of the Alien franchise---view once, and never watch again.

This is a direct sequel to "Prometheus," and supposedly the second film in a prequel trilogy where the third film will completely bridge the gap to the first "Alien." I will see the third, if made, but if it is more of the same, then it is time for Ridley to let this baby go off into deep space and not come back. I hate to say it, but I have serious concerns now for the upcoming "Blade Runner," sequel!

The only reason I watched this movie, a western, was because it had Michael Fassbender in it, who I have a true admiration/lust for, and it was only 90 minutes long. I figured I could handle that length of time.

I am not going to describe the plot because the tagline/description in IMDb sums it up nicely. I read reviews stating that the film had bursts of humor in it. I counted 2 bursts of humor that made me laugh out loud. The story itself was stretched to fill the 90 minutes. If you are a fan of slow westerns, then you may really like it. There really isn't much here other than a beautiful video of New Zealand showing a few people riding horseback, having minimal dialogue, a few odd adventures, and a very violent ending. I gave it a 6 out of 10. I almost quit watching about 40 minutes in, but I decided to stick out the remaining 50 minutes.

I just returned from a midnight showing of the "Underworld: Awakening." I was very pleased with the film. NO SPOILERS, SO HERE GOES!

1) The film is high-energy and fast-paced just like the predecessors. 2) This film is a direct sequel to "Underworld: Evolution," and does not reference "Rise of the Lycans," at all. 3) If someone goes with you to the film who hasn't seen the original films, there is a brief introduction at the beginning that explains the majority of the first two films to bring people up to speed. 4) Action sequences are very good, shot at very good angles/perspectives, and multiple sequences are expertly edited to show all of the action.

I did not give a "10" rating because: 1) The CGI in the film is decent, and the Lycans do not look quite like the Lycans from the first three films. So, a little "different." 2) I won't give it away, but there is a scene near the end that could have indicated a bigger climactic scene than what the actual finale was. So, I was a little disappointed that it didn't happen, but, the finale itself was still pretty good. 3) There were a few scenes of photographs showing Celine in action, and to be honest, the photographs looked very cheaply made. Better detail could have easily been made.

I really consider this to be an excellent entry in the series, and perhaps the beginning of a new trilogy (if you consider the first three a trilogy). At 1 hr 28 mins, the movie flies by.

I would have given this movie a 10, but there were two issues I had a problem with. First (THIS IS THE SPOILER), there is a scene in there that is directly taken from a show I saw on either Discovery or National Geographic. I was expecting totally new and original footage, so I'm now wondering how much of this film is new? Second, (non-spoiler), I was watching the movie on a DLP screen. A few of the scenes, especially when you see the zebra running on the sand, are grainy. I would not have expected something filmed probably in hi-def on a DLP screen to be so grainy--especially if it is completely new footage. I love my techie stuff, and pristine images is something I really enjoy.

Other than the two things above, this film is VERY enjoyable and amusing in some sections. There was a trailer on this movie for "The Oceans," which is coming on Earth Day in 2010. I am already looking forward to that film.

If you plan on taking your family to see this movie, make it a matinée. It's a good thing to watch with your family---they do show a few "kills," but there is NO blood nor carnage shown. Also, you're basically paying to watch an expanded and should-be-new version of a TV original, so no need to pay high dollar when you can pay matinée. By going to the movies to see this, you're saying you want to see more films made like this, and hopefully, you care about preserving the planet and animals so that more films like this will happen!

To have remade this film, you would have thought the producers would have developed it a bit better. I do agree that the first 10-15 minutes were good and that it lulls for a bit. However, what I hate most is when during the chase/action scenes the camera moves all over the place. Why do they do that? NONE of the original Friday films did that, so why start now!? I think that the film could have been more, it had a lot to live up to, and some of the new plot elements (the hidden catacombs underneath the camp?) were a bit too much. I think this is the weakest of the remakes so far that Michael Bay has done. I did like that it started out showing the mother getting killed, which adds to it. But, something I don't like with these remakes is how they make them too "slick." In the original Fridays and Halloweens, the characters were everyday citizens who happen upon bad fortune. These cover models running the woods don't do it for me.

Growing up in the Bible belt, it's quite easy to see how gullible people can be when it comes to religion. I can only imagine how during the time period that this took place, how religion was the end-all, be-all, and scientific discoveries hadn't disproven most of it, that people would easily believe that someone was powerful. For example (spoiler!!), the scene where the wood falls and the lady is tried for being a witch because another lady saw it fall and then blames the first lady as causing it with her "witch" powers. Have these people never heard of gravity or earth tremors that make things fall naturally? Apparently, they haven't. If you do not find religion to be all that is cracked up to be, you'll find this movie quite enjoyable because seeing how Winona Ryder's character and a few other's employ the "witch" factor to their advantage is quite funny.

Alien3, theatrical version, was not a good follow-up to my favorite film of all time, Aliens. However, if you buy the Alien: Quadrilogy, box set, and watch the Assembly Cut which adds almost an hour to the movie as well as changes some of the other aspects, Alien3 becomes an entirely different movie---and a much much better one. You get more history of the prison, more history of the prisoners, and overall more plot development. Also, SPOILER!!!--the alien doesn't come from a dog, it comes from another animal. The only bad thing about Alien3: Assembly is that the Alien is still blue-screened. I don't understand why they couldn't have used stunt actors dressed up in the suits to make it more realistic. If they had done that, I would almost rank this movie as good as ALIENS. But, without a doubt, "ALIENS" is the best sequel ever made!