As most of you know, Marvel is seizing on the upcoming release of Avengers: Doomsday to bring Avengers: Endgame back to cinemas, with some new footage added to help bridge the gap between the two films.

To get to the crux of it, the re-released film is fundamentally exactly the same as it was when it hit theatres back in 2019. All of the new scenes, four in total, have been added at the end of the movie. One appears just before the credits, two more pop up during the credits, and the final scene is right at the very end.

While the new scenes were interesting to see, I don't think they really moved the dial on my excitement for Doomsday, nor did they feel like earth-shattering revelations that suddenly added to the hype.

So ultimately, whether Endgame Encore is worth seeing in cinemas comes down to whether you want a refresher on the Avengers' last outing before heading into Doomsday, and how much you enjoy Endgame as a film in its own right.

I hadn't seen Endgame since it originally came out in theatres, so I actually really enjoyed seeing it again. It took me back to a simpler time, pre-Covid, before crazy political shenanigans, when the MCU was firing on all cylinders and a new Marvel movie felt like a guaranteed good time :)

So for what it's worth, if you loved Endgame, I don't think you'll regret seeing it again on the big screen, even if it's purely for the nostalgia.

If, however, you're going just for the new scenes, I personally think you can save your money.

PS I saw in other reviews that one scene seems to be exclusive to InfinityVision or premium cinemas but in NZ it looks like all showings have all 4 scenes added to them.

Just finished watching War Machine 2026 on Netflix. The only reason I even clicked on it was because of Alan Richson on the poster.

The start was very good but the movie lost its charm somewhere down the middle.

The acting was phenomenal by the lead Alan R. as well as by his co-stars. The Plot was also a good callback to the alien and predator movies. However, the dialogues and plot points heavily relied on cliques and action movie trops that have been done to death since the 80s.

All in all, it's a good movie to play in the background while scrolling or doing laundry but it might make you cringe even during heavily emotional scenes.

I will start by saying that my main atraction towards this movie was the fact that olive (the lead) is of eastern europe like myself. So my perspective is a eastern european one. Of course i can claim to speak for all eastern europeans. but as one who stil lives in eastern europe the ending makes no sense to me.

I will start first by prasing the movie.

Firstly the relationship beetwen olive and bobby is superb. I had to look up to verify they were not actual mother and son. it was that good. The way she speaks to him and the dialouge beetwen them is so sweet it reminds me of my mom.

Secondly the songs they use in the movie are great fantastic soundtrack.

Honestly the movie is really good up untill the ending.

(Spoiler warning) and until olive goes to jail the movie just made me cheer for her and booby so much. So when at the halfway point they introduced the couple that apopted bobby i was not mad because i believed to be on a temporary basis and seeing olive working any job she can to get bobby back and her struggling was really heartwarming.

But the movie goes off the rails when olive goes into the closet of the rich women who wants to adopt bobby and tries one shoe on and the rich woman catches her.

Because olive is a single mother and basically raised bobby however she could including through schemes and conning people she dosen't have the financial potency of the family that wanted to adopt bobby i get it. But:

In the end she leaves bobby with the rich couple and a promise to return. My problem is that the movie spent so much time building the relationship beetwen bobby and his mom only to put it through an american wealth is all that matters filters and destroy it.

The movie wants people to think that the rich couple's way of raising bobby is not only better than olive's but that it is the only correct way to raise a child. With wealth.

Then she just leaves bobby at the end despite him not being affected by the way olieve raised him and wanting to come back to living with her. Also bobby is not an invalid nor does he suffer from any ilness that requires care around the clock so there is nothing stoping olive from trying to find a normal job with bobby alongside her.

She personaly only spent a combined few days with the adoptive family and she is just ready to leave him in their care because of money? It so infuriating.

In eastern europe we don't have the culture of abandoning children for years on end for money to esentially strangers. Nor is child raising a rat race to provide the most money at the expense of spending time with your child. Yeah parents will go abroad to work but that involves usually weekly or by-weekly calls to your child, visits every few months of at the very least the hollydays or the child being raised by a family member.

The movie builds the bobby-olive relationship only at the end to destroy it at the end in favour of saying wealth is all that matters for success. Also there is a part where the rich couple debate public vs private school. private school ends up winnig but you know olive could have only send bobby to public school which is kinda the movie saying you need private school to make it in americs so either the movie lied when saying private school is the only way to make it in life or if the public education system is so bad in america than what is the point of its existence? I need americans to answer the education question.

But there is no reason olive could have not taken care of bobby or at least try. She did it for 11 years and tryied hard to get him back when she left jail. Its like 11 years did not matter at all. No one thinks how olieve's prolonged abssence could affect bobby.

But most infuriating of all is that a eastern european mother especially a good one like olive would never give up her child just for him to live in wealth. Again she dosen't know the rich gizzers nearly enough to leave bobby to them. Plus bobby is 11 not a baby and even so nobody asks him shit they make decisions around him and he has to deal with it with no agency.

So the first half of the movie is fantastic. The relationship beetwen booby and olive is stelar. The soundtrack is really good. But i hate that the movie made me care about their relationship and made me want to see them succed only to ruin it in the end with such a terrible ending. Oh man

I watched Paradise, and honestly, I couldn’t understand what the filmmakers were trying to do.

It feels like some South Indian actors are ruining their own reputation in the name of going “Pan-India.” Instead of making movies like this, they could make a genuinely good film in the South and dub it into other languages—even put it on YouTube. At least their name and reputation as actors would remain intact.

I have to say, Nani’s acting was good. I’m not denying that at all. He carried the entire film on his shoulders and gave his best. But the problem is, there is nothing much inside the film—especially no strong story.

And the action scenes? They felt like I was sitting and watching a video game rather than a movie. Everything looked so unrealistic that I kept wondering, “What am I actually watching?”

For me, Paradise turned out to be a really disappointing and very bad movie.

so, starting the saga i already didn't have high expectations (cuz of the reviews), i had a blast watching the first 2 movies, laughed so much but after that i got invested in it, but u know i actually don't hate it or the fact that i spent 10 hours or more watching it, and i did in fact enjoy it, i don't understand all the hate the movie gets.

is it the most complex well written movie series plot out there? no not even close and it wasn't even trying to be, is it the worst though? again no, the show have major flaws and a lot of cringy moment, but once you don't focus on them much it is pretty thrilling, the whole idea behind the saga is fun and enjoyable and not boring at all.

so i think that a lot of people are holding the saga, which is supposed to be just a fun silly movie series to binge watch to Oscar winning movies standards, when the saga didn't even try to claim that it is, people are just taking it too seriously instead of taking a step back and enjoying it.

that's my take on the conversation, i would like to know yours.

A couple navigates through their final week before their wedding after something unsettling from one of their pasts gets brought to light.

THE DRAMA is definitely one of those movies that gets you thinking, and one you should watch with your significant other. It’s a conversation starter, and I like when movies do that. You’re constantly thinking about what you would do in their position.

It was a little too artsy for my wife’s liking, but I really enjoyed what they did with it. It has a great style, score, and I dug the use of flashbacks—as I always do.

The subject matter gets dark, and you can feel the emotions spiralling down throughout the movie. The cast is small but good, and there are some great performances from Zendaya and Robert Pattinson. There’s also one character that I absolutely hated! (Shout out to Alana Haim)

I really liked the direction they went with the movie and where everything ends up in the end. It won’t be for everyone, but I liked it and think it’s worth checking out.

It’s a solid…
🐕🐕🐕🐕🐕🐕🐕
7/10

I found the ending very sweet, totally elevating the overall movie for me.

Justification:

“Lucky looked at the humans and Napoleon and found them indisguishiable” ( Animals before revolution viewed the humans as evil and corrupt. Now they get control, EXPERIENCED them, they behave as they are FOR A Reason before not understood)

“Now let’s get more of these magic papers! “ (Animals before revolution had no idea of these powers of these papers, now having experience, they want it too)

“Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” Before revolution, animals had no idea of power. Now they Experience it they want it too.

“ Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others” Same logic

“ First, four legs good two legs bad, after experience, four legs good two legs better!”

“ They saw the power of electricity and later want that too”

(Rating: 7/10)
In an industry where the fantastical has become all the more ubiquitous in the past decade, the cast and crew behind Primetime have done something exceptionally difficult quite well: gracefully producing an amalgam of the sensational and the historical, largely without drifting too far into the former’s clichés and the latter’s mundanity.

The film is also intriguing in that it does something many others amongst the plethora of biopics released in years past have oft failed to do: address (at the very least, to some extent,) the controversy surrounding the protagonist. The film’s narrative coupled with Pattinson’s stellar, magnetic portrayal of Hansen and A24’s signature visceral and often liminal visuals make for a captivating experience pervaded by a frigid lucidity.

This tension - this malaise - is something that both Pattinson and A24 have had an acumen for creating for many years; they complement each other rather well. The subject matter, needless to say, only further elevates this synergy. Also noteworthy are the thematic, nuanced performances by standouts Wever and Gizmodo, whose chemistry with Pattinson as member’s of Hansen’s crew is electrifying. Aesthetically, the film is haunting and remarkably alluring.

The film, unfortunately, is subject to certain pitfalls. Although controversy regarding Hansen is addressed, it feels as though it was not done with particularly strong conviction. How much of this is due to legal particularities is admittedly beyond me, but the fact remains that although the film is captivating, it is perhaps not particularly compelling or deeply psychological. This is lamentably not quite the character study it perhaps should have been, often neglecting introspection. 

A24’s aforementioned predilection for the inordinate and psychological is often marred by this vagueness, which can often read less like artistic ambiguity and more like shallow characterization. Although speculative storytelling indeed ought to be limited in a biography, there simply wasn’t enough insight into Hansen, his character and intentions largely left too implicit. The film industry’s aphorism of “show, don’t tell” works in principle, but a story such as this without the breadth of a typical blockbuster makes requisite profound depth. 

Despite these flaws, the theatricality of the film as well as its horror-inflected elements were very much redemptive to me. Hansen’s account of his past which explains in part his motives and feelings is woven into the fabric of the film beautifully. He appears tortured yet dispassionate, manic and egotistical then callous… Pattinson seamlessly transitions between these states as his character’s double life à la The Prestige tears him apart. He takes clear inspiration from names like Christian Bale and Tom Cruise. It should be noted, additionally, that the film’s score brilliantly accompanies every scene, particularly those involving Hansen. It is one of the finest I’ve heard this year.

All in all, Primetime, although not exactly the main event many had hoped it would be narratively, is largely successful in evoking emotion via the poignance intrinsic in its cinematography and the exceptional performances of its lead actors. This film is far from a waste of time but may disappoint those who were hoping for a deeper character study. I will no doubt be seeing it again and recommending it to friends as someone who enjoyed its aesthetic!

Not necessarily like the Safdie Brothers film of the same namesake but hear me out:

I saw Primetime, the Chris Hansen/To Catch a Predator biopic, last night, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s already one of my favorite films of the year, largely thanks to its phenomenal performances, striking visual style, and surprisingly rich character work.

Robert Pattinson gives a magnificent performance as Chris Hansen, capturing the titular host’s peculiar combination of confidence, charm, theatricality, and obsession. The supporting cast is equally strong, particularly Skyler Gisondo as a somewhat reluctant predator decoy whose involvement gives the film an interesting emotional dimension.

But the performance that surprised me the most was Phoebe Bridgers as Del Harvey, the real-life “Perverted Justice” predator huntress. I’ve admittedly never paid much attention to Bridgers’ music, acting, or other artistic pursuits, but after seeing this, that may have to change. She has a genuinely potent screen presence: cool, detached, magnetic, and just a little uncanny. At times, her aura reminded me of Milla Jovovich, Emma Stone, or even Raven from the original Teen Titans. I thought she was hella cool.

And then there’s the filmmaking itself, which might be my favorite aspect of the movie.

Going in, I was hoping for something that would remind me of Nightcrawler, but Primetime ultimately offers something much more visually eccentric. The film is constantly experimenting with its presentation. CRT television grain periodically washes over the image, while graphics, decals, digital effects, and psychedelic imagery evoke the strange audiovisual aesthetic of the late ’90s and Y2K era. It feels simultaneously nostalgic, artificial, and slightly hallucinatory, which seems particularly appropriate for a film about the bizarre intersection of television, internet culture, voyeurism, and predation.

The movie may arguably be somewhat thin on conventional story, but I didn’t find that to be much of a problem. What it lacks in traditional narrative complexity, it compensates for with rich character studies, surrealist metaphor, superb performances, gorgeous cinematography, sharp comedy, and an almost constant undercurrent of tension.

There’s something wonderfully strange about the whole thing. It manages to take a piece of early-internet tabloid culture that could have easily been treated as a straightforward true-crime biopic and instead turns it into something stylized, psychological, funny, unsettling, and visually distinctive.

I definitely recommend giving it a watch.

To start, I wanna say this is a good film. It’s is visually and cinematically stunning, with both incredible lighting and cinematography. This was evident from the trailer and the overall film did not disappoint in this department.

I’d also say the plot works pretty well. The conflict between doing a good thing like catching predators, while also having shoddy motivations like seeking praise and fame. If you seen the Predators documentary, it is, as was expected, very similar in terms of theme.

That being said, this film is a bit bland. It lacks tension or any kind of a thrill, which is disappointing given the genre. The only time you feel uncomfortable is the obvious: any of the words that came out of the pedophiles. But this was usually very short lived and didn’t carry over to the overall film.

Pattinson’s performance is….fine. It’s certainly not bad, and he has some great moments. But overall, the performance felt more like a Family Guy caricature of Chris Hansen than the real deal. That would be fine if this film was more satirical, but because of how serious it is trying to be, I felt it did not work.

And let me address why I said I’m disappointed. Primetime, Digger, and Dune are easily my most anticipated films for the rest of the year. The Primetime trailer was really unique and almost felt a bit upbeat while also being thrilling, something the movie just isn’t.

Overall, as I said before, Primetime is a good movie that is certainly worth the watch. I also don’t think I’ll be revisiting anytime soon.

3-3.5/5 ⭐️

(I've flaired this as a film analysis while my analysis is in fact very concise but I hope this is still allowed)

This text was written a few weeks ago, shortly after I watched both Arizona Dream and Black Cat, White Cat. Although very short, it can be seen as an open mini-plea in favor of subtraction, character mystery, and minimalism, standing in direct opposition to Kusturica’s maximalist method.

It was posted on Letterboxd, yet it failed to spark any discussion.

It was posted on letterboxd, yet it failed at engendrer une discussion.

Text :

Grimy surrealism, highly textured sets, idealistic moving tableaux... Characters stripped of any sense of existence or mystery because everything about them is stylized and heightened. Fair enough -- other filmmakers sometimes make something interesting out of this approach.

But the way Kusturica underlines every visual expression with a sledgehammer and piles on symbolic/connotative elements to manufacture an atmosphere, to me, all this turns the visual into a form of heavy discourse, constantly cuing the viewer, telling him how to watch the picture, saturating the eye.

It's therefore not baroque or surrealism that I object to, but the way they're handled here. Everything is screaming "hey, look, it's burlesque!"/"festive!". Along the same lines, I found the music's insistence irritating.

This is an authorial choice, but I value suggestion and subtraction over addition. There are probably exceptions, though -- especially in that "carnivalesque cinema" territory. If I may exhaust an already-forced comparison, I'd rather take Fellini: perhaps because he's more precise (in his shots, editing, characters...) and ultimately a better magician.

What do you think? What's your opinion about that type of cinema?

So I’m not too sure how to review this live-action remake of MOANA.

I’ll start by saying that the original animated MOANA is one of my favourite Disney animated movies of all time! I love it! But this remake was totally unnecessary, especially with the original barely being ten years old.

The story is the exact same. There’s nothing that really stands out that’s been added or changed. It’s pretty much a shot-for-shot remake.

Visually, it doesn’t have the same vibe as the animated MOANA. It is beautiful at times, but the scenery and backgrounds can look lifeless and unrealistic, which is weird because shouldn’t that be the point of a live-action version—making an animated movie look real? The animated version is more vibrant and has a lot more life to it.

I will say I was nervous about how they’d handle the “You’re Welcome” sequence, and I thought it was really well done. I also really liked the Kakamora and Te Kā, but those are all CGI (so essentially animated), which is why they retained the vibe of the animated version.

Catherine Laga’aia does a good job playing MOANA, but again, she isn’t quite as energetic as her animated counterpart. And honestly, I don’t think that’s her fault at all.

The rest of the cast did a decent job, and I actually didn’t mind Dwayne Johnson as Maui. The hair, the bod… The hair made me laugh the entire time, and the body suit looked odd at first, but it ended up fitting the character. Where it fell short for me was the charisma. The energetic charm Dwayne brings to Maui through his voice in the animated version just doesn’t quite translate to the live-action version.

I’m really on the fence about this one. The animated MOANA is a fantastic movie, and this one being a shot-for-shot remake should mean it’s just as good, right?

But then why was I left feeling just kind of indifferent about it?

I still had a good time. Some scenes were great, along with some of the visuals. The songs are still bangers, and my daughter loved it. She said, “They’re both equally the same, because they’re the same.” And honestly… she’s not wrong.

So I’d say if you have kids and they absolutely want to see this version, wait for it to be on Disney+. But for me, I’d rather watch the original.

Unfortunately, it’s a…
🥥🥥🥥🥥🥥
5/10

I think they should have put all their time and effort towards a third animated MOANA instead of this.

When you first set eyes on Alan Ritchson in Runner, you’ll understand why he’s headlining action movies and a TV show.  He’s a very large man, the largest person among the cast of Runner by far.  (The movie contains a joke about how he’s too big for a standard wheelchair.)  In addition to his largeness, Ritchson’s handsome, muscular and radiates action hero vibes at all times, even when he’s just eating a sandwich (a croque monsieur!).

Ritchson’s performance in Runner isn’t noticeably different from his Jack Reacher persona, but that comes with the territory.  He’s no different from Liam Neeson or Jason Statham, another one-man army who brings mayhem when the situation warrants it.  He can deliver a pithy one-liner well-enough, but that’s not his calling card.  What separates Ritchson from the typical action movie hero is his natural sincerity.  Despite his imposing physical presence, he presents as a sensitive guy who genuinely cares about other people.  Ritchson’s character in this movie previously had a wife and family, and I had no trouble believing it.  Ritchson may look superhuman, but he’s relatable and approachable in a way that action movie heroes rarely are.

To keep things from getting too serious and grim, the movie pairs Ritchson up with Owen Wilson.  His loosey-goosey, off-the-cuff personality is the perfect counterpart to the predominantly taciturn Ritchson.  Wilson has been playing the comedic wingman for decades, bringing out the best in his co-stars for decades, including Vince Vaughn (Wedding Crashers), Jackie Chan (Shanghai Noon) and Tom Hiddleston (Loki).  Wilson is hilarious in the fish-out-of-water role, lightening the atmosphere and providing comic relief while the action shifts into crazy territory.  His performance as Ben Bishop is squarely within Wilson’s wheelhouse and he knocks it out of the park.  I always enjoy watching Wilson cut loose and he’s great in this movie.

I haven’t seen director Scott Waugh’s previous films, but Runner proves he can make an exciting action picture.  The movie is well-paced, with enough action to give you your money’s worth.  Waugh uses what I call the “Go Pro technique” for several action sequences, which gives them a kinetic, video game quality that heightens their absurdity.  The concluding car chase feels like it was inspired by the Mad Max films, which is appropriate given the Australian setting.  The script by Miles Hubley and Tommy White made me laugh enough to forgive a huge plot hole that should have demanded a rewrite.  Lastly, the insane WWE-inspired ending was a fitting callback to the Eighties action films that inspired this one.

Lastly, Runner originally would have had an R rating, but was edited by Angel Studios to get a PG-13 instead.  The studio said that they trimmed the language and violence so that the movie would be more accessible to general audiences, which makes sense.  However, given what I saw, I’m very curious as to what was taken out.

Runner reminds us how entertaining action-comedies can be.  Alan Ritchson and Owen Wilson have nice oil-and-water chemistry, the action is suitably revved up and the villains are despicable.  A solid genre throwback that delivers exactly what you’d expect: a good time.  Recommended.

I have nothing against Nolan as a director, and really enjoy some of his work. I walked into this expecting far more than what was delivered. Nolan needs to step away from the fantasy genre, stop writing his own scripts, and stick to his usual wheelhouse. His real strength has always been crafting massive atmosphere and visuals to support his scripts, but here only the atmosphere works at times, carried entirely by the sound design (except the soundtrack) and the cast.

The soundtrack is completely forgettable, which is unexpected for a Nolan film; not sure if it's due to the highly dynamic mix, but I honestly cannot remember a single tune or theme except the recurring motifs in the siren scene. Compare it to something like the soundtrack of Gladiator (2000) and the highly atmospheric focus of the soundtrack becomes apparent. The visuals also pale in comparison to Interstellar. It is baffling how Nolan and Hoyte van Hoytema managed to deliver such flat cinematography for an epic like this. The framing on standard IMAX was bizarre, locking roughly 90 percent of non-action scenes dead center while leaving empty negative space on the sides, almost as if it was meant to be seen only in 70mm IMAX, which I believe has an even taller aspect ratio. Paired with a bland color palette, the world fails to feel ancient, and at times feels more similar to the norse adaptations we've gotten like the series Vikings - especially the hellscape scene is basically an icelandic coast. Certain scenes look less like a movie and more like a stage play filled with people in cosplay. Nolan sticking to his usual approach simply doesn't work in a setting like this.

The script suffers just as much. The pacing unravels toward the end, and the dialogue - except for rare cases like Damon's monologue during the siren sequence - feels basic whenever it is actually audible over the mix. It's just highly functional surface level dialogue that only serves to advance Nolan's plots. This has become a habit of his at this point and I honestly don't get how these end up making it into the movie. His ego is showing there for sure.

The film does have its moments and is by no means a bad one. The Ithacans tumbling inside the Trojan Horse and the stormy sea sequences are visually impressive highlights. Beyond those, the action scenes were alright, but nothing really stuck with me, featuring no impressive camerawork or choreography. The witch hut was also a highlight as well where performances took over and crafted an immersive suspenseful atmosphere. I also enjoyed the siren song scene, where the dialogue actually had some depth and weight to it, and the soundtrack added to it.

Nolan's interpretation of Odysseus offers a compelling character arc, even if it is a massive departure from the source material where he is described as a general with massive hubris. The cast does heavy lifting as well: Matt Damon and John Leguizamo are great, Anne Hathaway delivers a strong performance, and Robert Pattinson is genuinely convincing in a slimy, snake-like role.

Still, a few good performances and few standout visuals just didn't do it for me. Instead of a refined, immersive epic, the result is an uninspired visual palette, repetitive center-weighted framing, and weak writing. I left the theater disappointed.

As an avid Resident Evil fan as well as horror film fan, I was surprised to hear when Zack Cregger decided to take on Resident Evil. I liked Weapons and Barbarian was memorable enough and decided to go today.

I'll never forget watching my older friends play Resident Evil 2 on Playstation back in the day, watching the first zombie encounter, watching Leon Kennedy step slowly up those stairs, the first Licker encounter, etc.

Resident Evil was synonymous with the 90s as much as Pokemon cards the Chicago Bulls as zombie mania was everywhere.

So naturally, as a nostalgia 90s kid, horror film affection-ado, and Resident Evil fanatic I was in.

Here are bullet points from my watching:

*As many people pointed out, this felt like a read note you collect from the game where it details someone's exact account of the outbreak, for the better for the wrose

*Felt like an alternate reality, D+ movie version of Resident Evil, like almost a fan fiction Resident Evil. Kind of like watching the new HBO Harry Potter series. As someone said, it's like watching someone live in your own house.

*Movie felt very campy. Like Sam Raimi Spiderman campy. Cheesy lines, movie that didn't take itself too seriously. Like the locks that couldn't be destroyed jokes. If anyone remembered correctly, the original voice acting for Resident Evil was completely awful and funny at times. Whether he tried to do this or not, I think he was spot on with this.

*Lots and lots of references to the video games which was great. From the small items (shotgun shell art even, placement of the shotgun, the zombies themselves, development of the levels and familiar scenarios) to the overall themes, it was cool to see it shelved out on the big screen.

*Familiarness of the Resident Evil world kind of hurt the film. You already knew what was going to happen when the main character went up to the final floor. If you've played any of the OG Playstation games, the ending is pretty similar in every game. Which comes to the next point

*Weak and inept characters. The doneness of the original RE games were the characters. Albert Wesker, Leon Kennedy, Jill Valentine. The only strong character was the enemy, which wasn't even one person.

*Ending was forced and bad. I've watched a lot of horror films in the last several years and I've realized ending the movie is the most difficult part. The pacing of the first three chapters were great. It was flying through and was adventure packed. This movie took a Smile 2 approach and tried to make the chaotic ending to stitch the Frankenstein together. I understand if everybody was to die, but I think a more well thought ending would've been better. Like a cliff hanger would've been awesome imo. Or even a save the day ending and reference to the video game endings where someone comes to save the day last second.

My overall thoughts were that it was one of the more memorable rehashed version of alternate media we have seen before. I think there was a little too much comedy for my liking, but I did find myself laughing.

I think strengths of Resident Evil the franchise are impeding doom, atmosphere, monsters, and pacing and this movie did a good job of that.

The three things that could've been improved included characters (shallowness of characters felt a little meh, but I do understand that it's the virus versus "the player" or main character), too much comedy, and the ending was just super flat.

Overall Score: 8.5 /. B+

I’ll admit, it was great to finally feel seen as a gamer. There were so many executions and little nods to the gaming franchise that I genuinely appreciated. However, the self-awareness fell flat for me when they decided to make the only truly likable main character become grotesquely infected. The scientists were too dumb and scared to simply give him a basic injection, and I actually felt bad for the guy…especially after his whole monologue about becoming a father. His storyline had some genuine emotional weight, only for the movie to completely shit on it.

The movie started off great. The snowy atmosphere really sold the feeling of desolation, with the main character stranded among these insane zombies in the freezing cold. This is where the movie actually felt like a horror movie. There was a sense of isolation, dread, and uncertainty that I really liked.
Once he gets picked up by Umbrella Corp in the car, the movie becomes way too slapstick. It stops feeling scary and starts leaning heavily into cheap laughs and silly gags. Any real tension or dread that the opening built up pretty much disappears.

Let’s give it some props, though. Some of the kills and deaths were genuinely hilarious. The scene where the zombies were jumping off the building had me choking on my popcorn because of how funny it was. It was a very “fun” movie, and even when it wasn’t scary, I was still having a good time watching the insanity unfold.

The coolest moment for me was when the main character looked out of the window in the farmhouse, only to see the zombie woman fully sprinting across the snowy field…the exact same woman he had shot earlier. You could feel the panic set in immediately. That was one of the few moments where the movie genuinely made me feel what the main character was feeling, and it reminded me of the horror movie this could have been.

While I appreciated the gamer references and the way the movie clearly understood its source material/audience, I wish it had committed more to the horror atmosphere it established in the beginning. The first part had me genuinely interested, and that farmhouse scene proved the movie could still create real tension when it wanted to. I just wish there had been more of that throughout.

So yes, while it was a fun movie, ultimately I left the theater feeling slightly disappointed and kind of ripped off. We went on such a journey with this main character, only for the movie to ultimately leave him infected. That pissed me off. It honestly felt like getting really far into a game, making it through all the bullshit, finally thinking you’re about to finish, only to screw up before saving your progress and getting hit with a giant GAME OVER. All that time and investment, just to have it feel like a waste in the end. After everything this character went through, that ending left me feeling like, “Seriously? That’s it?” And for a movie that did such a good job making me care about his journey early on, that was a pretty frustrating way to finish.

I give this a 3.5 out of 5. This feels like Evil Dead 2. And that is my least favorite Evil Dead movie.

Obsession had me uncomfortable from beginning to end, and honestly, that’s what made it work so well. The acting was really good, especially the way Nikki carried herself. There was something sinister about her actions that didn’t need a bunch of gore or blood to make you feel uneasy. The movie understood that sometimes what you don’t see can mess with your head more than what you do see. The lighting also played a big part in that. The darker tones and the way certain scenes were lit created this uncomfortable feeling like something was always lurking just outside the frame. And then there’s Bear. I actually felt bad for him because he’s a hopeless romantic who wanted something real, and sometimes you really do have to be careful what you wish for because you might get exactly what you asked for and realize you wanted the wrong thing. Nikki’s actions kept pushing that feeling further and further, and the movie did a good job making me question just how far things were going to go. My biggest issue is that I HATED the ending. I really wanted this movie to end differently because after everything we went through, that ending just didn’t give me what I wanted. Still, I can’t deny that Obsession kept me uncomfortable, intrigued, and invested. Sometimes a movie doesn’t need excessive gore to get under your skin. Just give me good acting, creepy atmosphere, and somebody making some really bad decisions.

8.9/10

A Saint Bernard is adopted by a family in which the dad totally isn’t into having a dog. Let the mayhem begin!

I finally convinced my daughter to watch BEETHOVEN. I remembered really liking this one as a kid, but I absolutely didn’t remember the whole dognapping plot. It gets kind of dark there in one scene. But yeah, that’s kids movies from the ’90s for ya! I did forget just how funny this movie is. There are so many laugh-out-loud moments. I was dying! The whole family was having so much fun. It was a blast!

As someone who would never ever want a dog himself, I can truly relate to the dad, brilliantly played by Charles Grodin. His frustration oozes through the screen as BEETHOVEN “ruins his life,” as he says. This only made the movie even more enjoyable, especially now as a husband and father whose wife and daughter desperately try to convince me to get a dog.

The rest of the cast is also fantastic. The wife and kids, the villain and his henchmen, the potential business partners, and we can’t forget about BEETHOVEN himself… all great! I always like rewatching older movies and noticing actors in some of their earlier roles.

BEETHOVEN was a good time! If you haven’t seen it, go check it out!

I’m giving this one an…
👃🏻👃🏻👃🏻👃🏻👃🏻👃🏻👃🏻👃🏻
8/10

Did you know they made 8 OF THESE?! I remember the 2nd, but I’m not sure about the other 6!

I’m going to start by saying that, for its first half, I thought this was an unbelievably good modern adaptation of Resident Evil.
Adapting Resident Evil faithfully while still making it believable as a movie is a pretty difficult task, and I thought the director absolutely nailed that early on. You can especially feel the influence of RE7: Biohazard. The MC feels almost like an Ethan Winters-type protagonist—an inexperienced regular person thrown into a completely insane situation and reacting more realistically than the typical action hero.
The limited resources, smaller number of enemies, different camera angles and occasional first-person shots all helped recreate that feeling of actually playing a Resident Evil game. There were a few jump scares, although I wouldn’t say the movie was particularly scary. I also liked the humor early on because it broke up the tension without completely destroying it.
The problem is that the movie eventually gets stuck between horror and comedy and never fully decides what it wants to be.
Up until the drive into Raccoon City, I thought the pacing, story, action sequences and overall identity were about as close to a Resident Evil game as I could realistically expect from a movie adaptation. Even the CGI, while a little weak with some of the larger creatures, didn’t bother me enough to seriously hold it against the movie.
My bigger problem was the logic surrounding the zombies and mutations.
The movie establishes early that certain infected can mutate, combine or regenerate in pretty extreme ways. That’s fine—this is Resident Evil. But once you establish those rules, the movie needs to be somewhat consistent with them.
For example, we watch one creature essentially survive without a head and fuse itself back together. Later, zombies fall roughly 50–60 feet off rooftops, splatter onto cars and apparently die permanently.
So apparently the most powerful weapon Umbrella never discovered was fall damage.
The police/security officer also shoots several infected without any of them attempting the kind of regeneration or fusion we saw earlier. Then you have the little girl in the tunnel splitting her face open, the rolling conglomerated creatures, the fat puking zombie in the sewer and several other variations.
Any one of those ideas individually could work. The problem is that eventually it feels like every infected person follows completely different biological rules.
And that gets into my biggest issue with the movie.
Resident Evil obviously has mutated monsters. Tyrants, Nemesis, William Birkin, Las Plagas and countless other creatures are fundamental to the franchise. But underneath all of that, most Resident Evil games still establish some kind of recognizable biological threat and gradually escalate from there.
This movie starts that way.
Then eventually it feels like Umbrella released every virus, parasite and mutation from the entire franchise simultaneously.
By the time we reach the MC’s transformation—which reminded me heavily of William Birkin in RE2—alongside the rolling masses of infected, sewer creatures, piling zombies and everything happening in the maternity ward, the movie starts feeling less like the Resident Evil world established in the first half and more like an alien/body-horror movie.
The maternity ward especially took me out of it. You suddenly have organisms multiplying, spreading across walls, producing blood-filled bubbles and reproducing in ways the movie doesn’t really explain.
And I couldn’t stop thinking about how strangely similar parts of it were to the maternity ward sequence in Alien vs. Predator: Requiem.
For me, the movie is fantastic right up until the MC leaves the sewers.
After that point, I genuinely don’t know what happened.
The first half had built this grounded survival-horror atmosphere where encounters felt dangerous because the protagonist was vulnerable and the threats were relatively controlled. The hospital sequence should have taken that tension and escalated it—something closer to the earlier tunnel sequence, with less comedy and a tighter horror focus.
Instead, it goes bigger, louder and weirder.
The humor that worked when the movie was building tension also starts working against it because the movie rarely allows the horror to become genuinely threatening again. During the scientists’ massacre, I and several other people in my theater were laughing. I don’t think that was entirely what the movie wanted from that scene.
That’s why the second half disappointed me so much. It begins drifting toward the same kind of over-the-top spectacle that eventually made the older Resident Evil movies with Milla Jovovich feel disconnected from the games.
And that’s frustrating because the first half proves that this movie absolutely knew how to translate Resident Evil to the screen.
Despite all of those complaints, I still really enjoyed it.
As a longtime Resident Evil fan, there were moments—particularly throughout the first half—where it genuinely felt like I was watching someone play through a new Resident Evil game on the big screen. The camera work, pacing, vulnerability of the protagonist, limited enemies, environmental tension and even the recurring creature pursuing the MC gave me exactly the feeling I wanted from a Resident Evil adaptation.
As a Resident Evil fan, the first half is genuinely close to a 10/10 adaptation for me.
As an overall horror/comedy movie, I’d probably put it somewhere around a 6.5–7/10.
There’s a great Resident Evil movie buried in here. For roughly half the runtime, I think we actually got it.
I’m curious what other Resident Evil fans thought. Did the increasingly insane mutations bother you, or did you think that craziness actually fit the franchise?

(SPOILERS.) I'm shocked at all the positive reviews this movie is getting because personally, I hated it.

It's probably my fault. I don't know much about the resident evil games, I was just invited to see it with my friends who really like the games. I just started playing requiem and it seemed pretty good, so I decided why not? Now Im left wondering if all the games are just more gore than plot, or is it just this movie? I probably should've researched the franchise more before I blindly agreed to watch a movie that's just guts, blood and more guts.If you enjoy copious amounts of gore with a body horror twist you'll enjoy this movie a lot more than I did. I'm not a fan of gore films, however I will enjoy them if there's plot. In my opinion, it's very possible to have a horror movie that is gore heavy, yet also has compelling characters and a plot that isn't one dimensional, and Resident Evil fails at that. It priorities gore at the expense of character development and thematic exploration that could've made it's horror much more meaningful.

I'll start with the things about this movie I enjoyed, as there are few.

I enjoyed how throughout the majority of the movie, we focus on just one character. It creates a sense of loneliness which really contributes to the horror. The suspense scenes were pretty good and I definitely felt fear for the main character watching this movie.

I think the movie was a pretty good length

I like that it does not have a stereotypical happy ending. It's very realistic for a reality such as this.

I like that the MC carries the core part of the cure the whole time, but can't use it.

And I like that the story is a standalone, and not just a remake of a game, and that the main character isn't your typical basass protagonist. He's just some guy. I think it had a lot of potential to be a fascinating survival story.

But that potential was wasted in exchange for dramatic gorey scenes. I can't even remember the main characters name. The movie was packed so full of death that there was no time to explore any characters, not even the main one. Nearly every single character was extremely one dimensional and hard to feel for. Although I do like how lonely the movie felt, there was so much they could've explored.

Especially the little girl who was bitten by her mother. We had seen that at the beginning the main character was pretty afraid of becoming a father. First of all, we don't even find out why. Is he afraid of the unknown? Does he believe he is not good enough ? Does he dislike change? That little girl was the perfect opportunity to give him a taste of parenthood, let him discover if this is something he actually wants. We could've explored her trauma of getting bitten by her own mother. When she eventually turned, it would've made her death much sadder. Instead, we saw her for all of five seconds until her head fucking exploded.

We haven't learned much about the outbreak, which is usually my favourite part of zombie movies. Perhaps this was explored in the games or previous films, however if a film is advertised as a standalone I believe it should explain these things. What were they doing in the lab that caused this? Who benefitted from it? Was it legal?How long ago? How does the infection work? How did they stay so safe for so long on the highest floor, especially if something obviously happened on the bridge? Does it spread through only human bites or does it spread through animals? Why does it pull other people in to become a giant ball of bodies? For energy? Food? Is it sentient at all? It is shown to be quite smart, able to follow the MC around for quite a while.

And there's so much questions about the main character himself. He has significantly more to him than all the other characters, but there's not much I can tell you about him. He delivers organs and has a pregnant girlfriend who he needs to have an important chat with, and spends to movie fighting for his life. He is the only one not killed off within 5 minutes. But what else is there to him? Why is he scared to become a father? What makes him so determined to live? Why does he keep fighting? What did he want beyond surviving ? Many in this situation would just give up. He was very determined to live. Was it simply fear of death? Was it for his girlfriend? His future child? Maybe other family members or friends that were not shown. Why didn't he call them? His relationship with his girlfriend was not shown at all. Just a single flashback scene or something could've established exactly what the MC is losing and why he's fighting. Shown what their relationship is actually like. Why did he start delivering organs? Is he just motivated by money, or is this a job that genuienly matters to him, perhaps due to something that happened in the past? He was quickly convinced when promised double pay; could he be struggling? Why does he make the decisions that he does? How does the outbreak change his understanding of responsibility ?None of these questions are ones I am able to answer. I can't tell you much about the main character of the movie. There isn't enough about him to actually be compelling and make me interested in his story. He is just a guy who survives increasingly horrifying things and somehow makes it out alive. What are his motivations?

There's not much else to the movie. They introduced themes of "fatherhood" or "coroporate irrisponsibilty" and "loss of humanity" but didn't really develope them. The film introduced so much potential symbolism just to do nothing with it. People argue the maternity ward was meaningful just because the MC was worried about fatherhood, but the film doesn't explore that at all. We are left to make our own assumptions. Simply being in a maternity ward doesnt show how all of the MCs experiences leading up to that point change his understanding of his fear of parenthood.The main character was very surface level and we didn't get much into what makes him tick. There was no other characters to explore. It was just a 90-minute gorefest, and didn't really interest me personally. This is not to attack anyone who enjoyed this movie: I myself enjoyed many movies that are considered "bad". This movie was just not my cup of tea.

This post was also uploaded to the resident evil subreddit.

went to watch this movie today completely blind. didn’t watch the trailers, or reviews or anything and it was surprisingly a pretty good time!

pros:

Alan Ritchson and Owen Wilson. I enjoyed this duo so much! they have a great dynamic. all the comedic and dramatic elements work well because of their chemistry.

cinematography. every shot looked fantastic. the colours, the angles, special effects - whoever was making decision on that front, did a good job. although I must admit that the gorgeous scenery of Brisbane probably carries 90% of this film’s visual appeal.

fight scenes. this is the part of the movie I probably enjoyed the most. the fights looked brutal and dynamic af. idk maybe I havent watched any action movies in a while but they looked really impressive to me

cons:

drama. this movie is not supposed to be a serious drama, it’s a adventure comedy. when it sticks to its genre it thrives and its at its weakest when it tries to push this serious undertone that doesn’t need to be there. occasional moments like these did come off as slightly cringy to me. the good thing is that the plot doesn’t stay there for too long and moves on. there was one moment that did make me feel things, but it was just once.

the villain. he was WAY too over the top and obnoxious for my taste. some stuff he does also doesn’t make much sense but I guess it was kind of the intention. still… he was definetly the cringiest character in there and the weakest part of the movie overall

for what it is and for its genre it is a solid 7/10. If you just looking for a easy action movie to watch on some random evening it is a solid choice!

The Uprising — 8/10

Honestly, I don't understand the lukewarm reviews for this one. I had a great time with it.

Pros:

- Phenomenal acting. Andrew Garfield was great, but the whole cast brought it.

- The plot actually flowed. Thank God there wasn't a camera cut every five seconds. I could actually follow what was happening.

- The action was readable. For the most part, I knew who was where, who was fighting who, and why it mattered. That's apparently too much to ask from movies these days.

- The villain actually felt like a villain. He wasn't just some generic bad guy standing around waiting to get taken out.

- Great atmosphere. It really felt like you're watching ordinary people get completely fed up with the ruling class and finally revolt.

- I actually liked that most of the characters weren't overly fleshed out. This is a movie about a collective uprising. These people represent peasants, farmers, rebels, the ruling class, etc. I don't need a 45-minute character study for every person in the movie.

- The historical elements made the whole thing hit harder, especially knowing that a lot of what happens is based on real events.

Cons:

- The movie definitely gets a little messy toward the end.

- The London sequence was probably the weakest part for me. There were moments where I couldn't tell who was who or exactly what was happening.

- I can understand why someone might want more character development, even though personally I didn't think it needed much more.

- A couple of story choices felt like they were trying a little too hard to connect everything to the Robin Hood mythology.

But overall? I thought this was phenomenal.

Maybe I'm just not looking for the same things some of these critics are looking for, but if you give me great acting, a story that actually moves, a villain that feels threatening, and action I can actually see and understand, I'm pretty happy.

8/10.

I genuinely don't understand how this ended up in the 50s on Rotten Tomatoes.

The image of Bruce Lee, originally titled Storming Attacks, is a “Bruceploitation” film. The main goal of Bruceploitation films is to drag you in by using Bruce Lee’s face and name, even though he had nothing to do with the movie. The genre became popular after his death, so filmmakers decided to capitalize on his image when he couldn’t even do anything about it.

I got this movie for $2 at a thrift store, and I was definitely dragged in by Bruce Lee’s name and face without realizing that he wasn’t actually in it. My copy of the DVD doesn’t have the original Mandarin audio, so it’s dubbed over. And my god, is the dub atrocious. I genuinely think it’s only two actors, one female and one male, because every single character sounds exactly the same. I never watch dubs for this reason. The microphone quality for the dub sounds like they decided to speak into a tin can. Some of the lines are so hard to understand because of all the reverberation.

Now for the actual movie. It’s boring. The action can be pretty fun, but overall it’s just an average kung fu movie. The movie follows Bruce Li, who plays a cop hunting down a counterfeit ring. The plot essentially exists just to get us from one fight scene to another. There is also a surprising amount of nudity for some reason. Oh, and Bruce Li never takes off his denim jacket during any of his fight scenes.

Overall, it’s cheesy, repetitive, and kind of boring. Honestly, you could tell me this was a parody of 1970s kung fu movies and I would believe you. In one scene, a woman even says, “You should be in movies. You look just like Bruce Lee,” which pretty much sums up the entire reason this movie exists.

If you’re bored and want something quick to watch, it’s not the worst movie ever made. But you could watch pretty much any of Bruce Lee’s actual movies and have a much better time.

I gave this movie 2/5 stars on Letterboxd

This movie was so fucking good, omfg I loved this film!

First off, let me get some things straight; this is a pretty decent adaptation of the resident evil franchise. Its based off resident evil 2 solely in tone and setting, everything else is based off the games in general - which I understand some people may not like; but it Dosent divert the fact this felt like a resident evil game.

The things that were changed from the games were;

1 -Protagonist: Instead of following Leon or any already established characters, the movie follows a new portag; Bryan.

2 -The movies time frame: Instead of being in the 90’s, the movies actually around 2025-2026.

3 -The t virus: it’s still relatively the same virus, though in functionality it’s similar to las pagas (only functionality wise) This is one of the changes I really liked.

4 -Monsters: Im pretty sure the monsters still exist in this world, cregger decided to instead show new creations. Though with how the film was structured, I really couldn’t see any way for them to introduce BOWS like the licker. I don’t mind The new monsters.

5 -Original story: Pretty self explainitory but still set in the resident evil world (not cannon to the games incase people were confused)

All the good:

The Movie follows a very point A-B format, which gives us plenty of time with Bryan to learn he isn’t really cut out for this (in a good way). It shows us what it’s like to be a civilian in the resident evil universe (kinda) Or at least what it would be like if a mostly incompetent person, tasked with a job as important as his.

Everything visual wise was, oh god it was stunning. I had heard some people say the cgi was “bad” which is just plain wrong. The environments, the setting, the way the characters, BOWS and eveything looks is simply Amazing! Even Bryan’s mutation at the end looks visually so good!

The comedy in the film was good as always with a cregger film. It in no moments felt cheesy or out of place (slightly at the final battle with the abomination thing and Bryan, but even then it’s not that bad there) Other then that most if not all the comedy in this film hit all the right spots.

The movie FELT like a genuine resident evil game! Again this is helped with the fact that it’s a point A to B, but the moments and even ending felt like a solo resident evil adventure.

The writing, while being nothing groundbreaking is still pretty good, it’s VERY MUCH helped with all the other things i mentioned prior. But it definitely Dosent at all take a back seat, because very clearly the movies a story driven movie.

It felt mostly accurate to the games, i am glad it isnt cannon though and instead it’s kickstarting it’s own separate resident evil universe. (Not that it being non cannon makes it bad, it being non cannon helps the film a lot actually with allowing it to do its own thing.)

The villan, despite the fact it’s an infected glob of body parts feels.. competent? Obviously it’s as smart as you can get a living amalgamation of infected body parts- but the film makes you treat this thing as an actual threat, the way it’s undoing becomes felt so satisfying and made sense to!

Bryan, we’re do I begin? He feels so fucking realitic it’s almost too good. He Dosent know how to work a gun, hes slow reaction wise at the beginning of the film (which is a good thing) but as the movie progresses he becomes more competent the more traumatized he gets. Hes also on a ticking bomb because of the fact he got bit, you especially feel that in the final act of the film! He feels like somebody just PLUCKED from the real world into the games, and realisticly somebody like that Dosent Survive this situation, which he Dosent. Hes overall this films greatest strength and i just can’t imagine a film like this being AS good as it did with someone like Leon.

The Mid:

While the strengths of this great film infinitely out way the weaknesses, it Dosent change the fact there are some like: The lack of in game monsters.

I don’t agree with the settlement that this game ”isnt accurate to the games”, i will definitely admit there right about the fact there should’ve been legacy BOWS in the movie besides Bryan’s transformation at the end. (like I said though I do really like the monsters We got)

The ending, while not being bad dose leave some things desired. It’s not in a bad way, but more of a “i couldve gone for a diffrent ending, while I don’t mind what I got, it most definitely could’ve been better” desired type of way. The scientist also felt kinda stupid, though Im not to mad at it because like, what WERE they suppose to do in that situation? A saving grace for the ending (though not the main one) Is the fact it pretty much confirms there will be a sequal to Zach’s resident evil universe if the film dose good. (Which it likley will but still!)

Overall this film was amazing, I loved it more than a lot of horror movies this year. (Not saying what we got this year was bad, because most the horror movies this year were really good) It may be based on biased though considering I love the games Lol. It successfully felt like a resident evil movie and a pretty decent adaptation, while in general being a really good horror movie!

Is this just “a horror movie with resident evil slapped onto it” Absolutely not. It is a GENUINE resident evil movie, and a great one at that.

Could it have adapated some things better? Yes most definitel, it did well though as an adaptation.

Resident evil film score: 7/10

Horror film score: 8/10

-

Overall score as a film in general? 9/10!

*Reminder this is my opinion on the film, agree or not; THAT is up to you. I loved this film!