If you are thinking this sounds like a spoof of Star Trek you're on the right track. Tim Allen (Home Improvement, Last Man Standing) adds his brilliant comedic contribution to this star studded cast which includes Sigourney Weaver, Tony Shalhoub, Alan Rickman, and Sam Rockwell. They are the aging stars of the one time hit TV series Galaxy Quest. None of them have worked much since the series ended and they make a meager living reprising their characters at various sci fi conventions, or worse, store openings. Tim Allen loves appearing for die hard fans of the show as "Commander Jason Nesmith", but none of the other cast members are very thrilled about these appearances, and resent the attention the "Commander" receives.
The cast finds a high quality mock up of the show's space ship at a store opening appearance, as well as some "extras" who are nothing if not 'in character' as members of an alien race seeking help from the famous crew.
Before they realize what has happened they find themselves in space on a real life adventure. This is a FUNNY movie which had me laughing to the end. I was really sorry when it was over, I loved it that much.

Really good watch, will probably watch again, and can recommend.
Look, it's a movie based on a video game about shooting demons from hell. It is far from perfect, it's probably a horrible Doom movie, but apart from that, this is a lot of fun.
It follows most of the zombie rules for infection, but the learning curve is one of the things that keeps the movie interesting as it drip feeds information as the infection gets out of control.
As great as the cast is with this one, it seems pretty clear from the beginning that the big billers, Dwayne Johnson and Karl Urban, are going to go head to head, whether it be against or back to back against monsters.
The monsters are done with great practical effects, they're creepy looking, and competitive with the available technology. They're even used in creative ways.
When it comes down to it, the movie is fun, and a reliably good watch.

Now you could watch this, I guess, I wouldn't stop you. But for a movie only a decade and change old, _Doom_ has dated **hard**, and it's not just 'cause of that garbage CGI.
Weird like the videogame it's based on, but still fucks up the lore that I can't see it sitting well with that crowd either. _Doom_ might genuinely have been made for no one.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

I was 12 when this came out. At the time, Doom 3 was an obsession of mine that my parents could not break. They were semi-Christian, and when I got to the part in the game where pentagrams were spawning demons all over the place, I got nervous and told Mom. I was allowed to play any and all games, as long as they didn't involve demons or satanism. This was because, ostensibly, "the demons could come out and influence your life in bad ways, and you don't want that." So I had to return Doom 3.
By the end of that year, I had all kinds of posters and magazines and memorabilia of Doom 3 in my room. An obsession is the only thing you can call it. I had everything Doom related you can think of, except the actual game. So when I heard about this movie, 12 Year Old Me obviously was all over it. And when I found out about they changed the plot from satanic monsters to Experiment Gone Wrong, you bet your ass I got my dad to take me to the local opening midnight screening of DOOM. One of my happiest memories. We were the only ones in the theater.
Fun movie.

Not all that far adrift from the original, for me.
I would class 'Zoolander 2' as a step below its predecessor, but there's not much between them in my opinion - admittedly, I only found the first film to be marginally passable. It starts off well, I was liking the opening few scenes. That interest of mine definitely waned as the run time went by, though there's still enough there to avoid proper boredom.
Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Will Ferrell and Penélope Cruz make the film watchable enough. Cyrus Arnold does alright as the kid, while the numerous cameos are minorly amusing to see. I can't say it's a film I enjoyed or that I'd rewatch, but I didn't find it be all that bad either.

ZOOLANDER 2 is the follow-up to the 2001 comedy that originally tanked at the box office due to its release just after September 11, but then became a pop culture phenomenon once it was released on home video.
We again meet male fashion model Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller) and his former rival Hansel (Owen Wilson), but both have lived in seclusion for years due to a tragedy that strikes just after the events of the first film. They are drawn back into the world of fashion when they receive an invitation from designer Don Atari (Kyle Mooney) and fashion mogul Alexanya Atoz (Kristen Wiig), but they are perplexed by the changed fashion and social mores of 15 years later, and the fashion world treats them like veritable dinosaurs. Will Ferrell's villain Jacobim Mugatu returns, and the plot is again driven by a conspiracy to commit a heinous crime, which Zoolander and Hansel must thwart with the help of an agent, played by Penelope Cruz, from Interpol's fashion police (fashion police, get it?).
This sequel was savaged by critics, and sadly I have to concur with that judgment. The film's problems are legion. For one, this is one of those sequels that thinks that any gag that was funny in the first film has to be repeated almost verbatim here. But this time, those gags just fall flat. The Zoolander story is too aware of itself as a phenomenon to have the underdog charm and quirky originality of the original 2001 film. The pacing is badly thought out; the unfunny exposition takes so long that the real meat of this comedy has to be compressed into so few minutes that ultimately, it's over almost as soon as it started. And then there are the utterly pointless cameos: Katy Perry and Neil deGrasse Tyson are brought onscreen with absolutely no relevance to the events that are transpiring, and audiences are just supposed to laugh at seeing them? Bizarre.
There are some nice parts here. I think Kyle Mooney is one of the most interesting and versatile comedians working at the moment, and his part here as a tiresomely ironic hipster ("You guys suck, I love you!") had some laugh out loud moments. To play Mugatu, Will Ferrel again gives an over-the-top performance that you could tell he had put a lot of thought and effort into, and it's so sad that his part was essentially relegated to a minor one in the end. But as I laughed at the good bits here, I kept wishing they could somehow be extracted from this film and placed instead into a much better one. Overall, this is probably worth avoiding even if you enjoyed the the 2001 film.

> An unnecessary follow up! Foolander!
Everything I wrote was just my personal opinion, definitely not intended to offend anybody. Ben Stiller is a good actor, but a fine filmmaker, His directional ventures were awesome, especially after his last film 'Walter Mitty' the expectation was very high on this, but I did not think it'll end like this. It hits the rock bottom, the lowest point in his directional career. His odd film experiment had failed, just for one project and I know he will come back strong. But as an actor, he still got the star value and I'm looking forward for his upcoming project.
It has been 15 years since the original film and I don't remember much of it. But before this, I had a very quick re-view, so I'm to get a clean flow for a better understanding. Anyway, the film gave a brief report about the past events in the beginning, but when I saw the first face in the opening scene I knew it will going to suck and it did.
Okay, the first, the story was decent, but not the jokes. And the next, there are too many cameos that kind of ruined its pace to keep quiet for sometime and to focus on actual story development. From all those, the best part and where I actually had a brief laugh was to see Neil deGrasse Tyson. The second films are always very crucial, because it is a bridge between the original film and numerous follow-ups to set up a franchise status. So clearly this film stumbled and I don't think there will be any more films in this series.
The original 'Zoolander' had its own brand appeal, but with this bad film it got lost. The production was very good and so the performances, but the humours were average. No offense, there are some people who still liked it, but I did not, so I won't recommend it for the 'Zoolander' fans as well as if you're looking for a good comedy. But like I always say who knows you might like it, so think twice in which one is if you're reading this review and the second is analyse it before to decide anything.
3/10

This infamous flop is a pretty-to-look-at mess of confusion, tension, and some very good performances. In Norway, Detective Harry Hole (Michael Fassbender) and his new bright-eyed partner Katrine (Rebeecca Ferguson) are investigating a series of disappearances that have been going on for years, some centered around philanthropist Arve Stop (J.K. Simmons). A calling card, the titular snowman, is left at the crime scenes, and are the signature of some anonymous letters Hole is starting to receive. Harry and Katrine go through the motions, taking advantage of the police department's new piece of technical marvel equipment. Harry also involves himself in his former girlfriend Rakel's (Charlotte Gainsbourg) life, and the couple seem to be pining for each other once again.
It's never a good sign when your film's director admits that he only had time to shoot 85% of a screenplay he was handed after being brought on when the original director, Martin Scorsese, dropped out. There are a couple of scenes in the trailer that didn't make the cut of the film simply because there was nowhere to insert them in this incomprehensible story. Oscar winners Claire Simpson and Thelma Schoonmaker were credited as editors, but their expertise can't salvage this mess. The film takes place in Norway, with travels to Bergen in Germany, but all the performers speak English. The setting and character names are Scandinavian, try to stop laughing at the name "Harry Hole," but the film makers oddly went with this cast instead of moving the setting to Canada or Alaska, or hiring a Norwegian cast.
On the positive, and I don't know how, the cast is great. Fassbender is seen waking up from a drunken stupor a few too many times, but his performance is very good. Ferguson is okay, but Gainsbourg turns her ex-girlfriend character into something special, and I wish we could have had more of her. Karlsson has her new boyfriend is achingly polite and naive, not quite picking up on the chemistry between Harry and Rakel. Aside from a few iffy special effects shots, the true locations are gorgeous, cold, and snowy. Based on a series of novels by Jo Nesbo (why start shooting with the seventh one?), this should have been a franchise starter, but the box office returns took care of that idea. From what I have read online, the screenplay strays from the novel on key plot points and kills off a couple of major characters who would return in later novels.
It's too bad this didn't work, I would have liked to see more of this character in less convoluted, confused cases. "The Snowman" left the viewer, and apparently the film makers, cold.

Honestly, it should probably be shown in one of your early lessons in a film class. Slap on any given scene and ask the question "Now which decisions did you spot that should never have been made in this or any movie?"
Honestly the only reason it even comes away with a whopping(!) one-and-a-half stars, is that minute to minute, _The Snowman_ is so bizarre, that it actually reaches levels of laugh-out-loud funny.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

"Clive" (Adrien Brody) and "Elsa" (Sarah Polley) are a couple of genetic engineers charged by David Hewlett's "Barlow" with discovering an important gene that could lead to huge advances in medical science. Using a mix of human and animal DNA that have varying degrees of success before the evolution of a creature "Dren" (Delphine Chanéac) that develops more human attributes - as well as a tail with a stinger and the ability to grow wings. As we progress through this frankly rather disturbing story, we discover that "Elsa" quite literally has skin in the game as they must both seek to protect their creation from not just their employers but from her increasingly violent and lustful tendencies. I was quite interested in the underlying premise but the execution here is really poor. I never did really get why Brody was ever successful in the first place and here there is no chemistry between him and Polley; the storyline which could have been challenging and thought-provoking instead borders on the absurdly far-fetched and the ending couldn't really come quick enough as we really do struggle to reach any sort of a satisfactory conclusion - either from a personal or a scientific perspective. It does highlight the dangers of unfettered scientific experimentation but sadly in no more an entertaining fashion that we have seen many times before - more enjoyably - from Hammer Studios!

Brundledren!
Splice is a tricky picture to evaluate, for its ideas are superb. One could argue that it brings a new petri dish full of meddling scientists facing the consequences of their actions, while conversely it justifiably feels like a Cronenberg knock-off.
Psychological discord is in abundance, with its slants on skew-whiff parenting giving the pic a dark fascination, and as unpleasant as the male fantasy angle is, it does hold a morbid interest factor.
Yet come the final third the makers let things run away from them, the bonkers dangers of tampering with science giving way to daft schlock, even managing to be distasteful in the process - while the finale is a weak attempt at a "TBC" cliff hanger.
Lead cast members are turning in good perfs. Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley as the meddling science couple hold court well, and Delphine Chaneac as the Chimera splicer of the piece really nails all the various emotional strands required for a tricky role.
Director Vincenzo Natali has shown with Cube and Cypher he has something to offer the horror/sci-fi splinters of film, but this is a mixed bag. A film of great ideas let down by overheating the plot for shock values, while the levity inserted into the play is misguided and damaging for dramatic worth. 6/10

The FX is OK and the uneasiness and thrill is always there but the script is stereotypical, weak and full of holes.

Loved-up couple "Gatsby" (Timothée Chalamet) and "Ashleigh" (Elle Fanning) arrive in New York to spend the weekend together. Barely have they arrived, though, when she - a budding journalist - is given the opportunity to interview famous film director "Pollard" (Liev Schreiber) who introduces her to an actor who has designs on more than just her scribbling skills. Meantime, he decides to revisit some of his old haunts and flames as the rain pours down. Maybe a carriage drive through the park can restore the couple's equilibrium at the end of an interesting day? Maybe not? It's quite an easy watch this with Chalamet relaxed in his role as the posh boy - well he is called "Gatsby", revisiting his youthful life and learning quite a thing or two about his assumptions then and now. Fanning also delivers enthusiastically as the ostensibly naive young thing who'd never seen Manhattan before, but who quite quickly adapts to the gently predatory attitudes of the industry about which she wants to write. Talking of writing, though, that what lets this down a bit. It's all just a bit too bland, reliant on stereotypes and when it wants to shock it merely contrives to frequently make you cringe a bit instead. It's watchable enough; it's a good looking movie that shows off the sights of the city with some fine musical accompaniments including some vocals from Timmie, but otherwise it's entirely forgettable fayre.

'A Rainy Day in New York' is a faint, tinny echo of Allen's early masterpieces - yet another neurotic comedy-drama about an anxious hero in a tweed jacket who adores Cole Porter and black-and-white movies. It has no discernible point except to display some of Manhattan's swankiest apartments and most historic hotel bars.
- Jake Watt
Read Jake's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-a-rainy-day-in-new-york-a-waterlogged-romantic-comedy

I love Adam Sandler movies. This one is another favorite. A hick guy finds out he just inherited millions. Very funny movie, sneaky sneaky sir! Never underestimate the sneakiness.

Decent watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
This has all the hallmarks, and cast, of most typical Happy Madison productions, but with a lot of money involved, both in the characters and the production value. I think this is the movie where John McEnroe started getting involved.
The character work in this is either drastically good or drastically bad, and they definitely experimented with some ideas they had in the backlog.
The "rags to riches" trope crossed with the "NYC is a cesspool of money corruption" trope is actually inspired. There is a great script in this movie, behind all the Sandler style humor, but that humor does make it fun, I just wish there was an adjustable setting sometimes.
Ultimately anything that isn't funny or charming in this is brief enough that you can overlook it pretty easily.

It's... fine?
Not as good as it was hyped up to be in my opinion. The movie was okay, but it wasn't anything special. It had _a story_ but it wasn't outstanding. The same goes for every other aspect of the movie. Worth watching if it's your thing, even if only for DeVito's performance, which is probably the best bit of the movie.
There are definitely parts of the movie that heavily rely on Marnie's attractiveness instead of the storyline and acting, trying to play it off as comedic when Julius doesn't understand what's going on- but that's obviously not what's going on here.
Overall, 6/10. Movie is fine, worth watching, but I don't think I would ever list it in a top movies list or anything.

'Twins' is terrific!
It is another one 'of those films' that I've heard about for as long as time (though post-watch it doesn't seem as (relative) well known as I thought it was!) but clearly never got around to watching it. Well I have now and I'm certainly glad I did, it's a great watch. Danny DeVito and Arnold Schwarzenegger are a fantastic duo.
DeVito is always good, one of my favourites to see onscreen. Schwarzenegger impresses, I've obviously seen a decent amount of his work but I'd have to say this is the most I've enjoyed him so far I think. I have basically only seen him as a brute force machine before, so it's pleasant to see a performance of his with a bit more depth.
Interesting to see Kelly Preston appear, even if I wouldn't have recognised her if it wasn't for the opening credits. I enjoyed Marshall Bell's role, one I actually would've liked to have seen more of to be honest - he made for a good bad guy!
It'a a shame that we won't be getting a sequel to this, it would've been awesome to see DeVito and Schwarzenegger back together older... especially with the early rumoured addition of Eddie Murphy. I reckon that would've been fun.

Fun and all around enjoyable comedy that doesn't devolve into cheap humor (i.e. constant jokes about their height for instance) and instead two opposites working well off of one another. Schwarzenegger is great as sweet innocent and naïve while Devito as a schemer and crook still was likeable. **3.75/5**
I think I had seen this sometime back in the 90s but didn't remember much of it.

Good watch, could watch again, and can recommend, if you're okay with a date movie.
This movie holds up surprisingly well. It is dated quite a bit, just the dollar amounts they mention are off, and car phones and pay phones. I give full credit to the delivery of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito that keeps this movie enjoyable after all this time.
The premise is almost laughable in 1988, but since then we've come so far as it actually being possible that this moves from science fiction to realistic fiction.
Yeah DeVito's character is awful on the redeemable side, and Schwarzenegger is comically pure, but it's about using both extremes to find a middle ground in the solutions to our problems. It is also about families reuniting, and strengthening bonds: it's a touching story when you get past the comedy and gunfire.
Worth a watch if you can stand a trip in the way back machine to 1988.

So much fun to be had here.
As long as you know what to expect, and really that shouldn't be too hard to do when you are getting ready to watch a movie that has Danny DeVito & Arnold Schwarzenegger as twin brothers!
Julius (Arnold) & Vincent (Danny) are the result of a genetic experiment that should have realised the perfect child, instead they were born as twins, separated at birth and both went on to lead different lives. Julius was raised on a gorgeous island, he is greatly educated and knows no fear of the world, Vincent on the other hand is a low class womanising weasel from the big city. Upon learning of having a twin brother, Julius sets off to the big city to find the brother he never knew he had, trouble is, is that Julius has no comprehension of city ways, and coupled with the fact that Vincent really isn't the brotherly kind, this only compounds the situation further.
Twins is a very tidy piece, the two leads play off of each other very well, and as dumb as the plotting is, it sure as hell makes for a good fun night viewing. Female gravitas comes in the form of the sultry Kelly Preston and the criminally undervalued Chloe Webb, but really the film's charm is all down to the little and large act of DeVito & Schwarzenegger, plenty of laughs here. So open the ale, chomp on the popcorn, and leave the brain at the door. 7/10
Yakety Yak, Yakety Yak.

Hero: Zhang Yimou's Cinematic Poem of Movement and Meaning
In "Hero", Zhang Yimou transcends the martial arts genre, transforming physical combat into a language of profound philosophical discourse. What begins as a seemingly simple narrative about an assassin becomes a breathtaking meditation on individual sacrifice and national unity.
Drawing from Kurosawa's multi-perspective storytelling in "Rashomon", Zhang creates something entirely his own. Each retelling of the story is not just a different perspective, but a different visual poem - choreographed fights that are less about violence and more about inner emotional landscapes.
The film's fight sequences are revolutionary. They aren't mere action, but abstract ballets where movement, color, and spatial relationships communicate complex philosophical conflicts. A battle in a chess pavilion or a dance of warriors in falling leaves become metaphors for human connection, political ideology, and personal destiny.
Zhang's visual language is extraordinary. Color isn't decoration, but narrative - each sequence bathed in a different chromatic tone that reflects emotional and philosophical states. Red speaks of passion, blue of melancholy, white of purity and sacrifice.
"Hero" represents an elevation of Zhang's gift for storytelling: a narrative film that is simultaneously a political allegory, a philosophical inquiry, and a visual symphony.

I found this a far better disaster-scenario movie then most, as Dustin Hoffman plays a military doctor on the hunt for the source of a lethal virus that could potentially eradicate life in the USA in a matter of days. Hoffman has to convince his boss - Morgan Freeman and his boss Donald Sutherland that he is up to the job and after a few false leads is soon on the trail of an African monkey that may hold the solution. Denied sufficient resource from the Army, he enlists the help of ex-wife (and expert in disease control Rene Russo) to help him grapple with his predicament.The story is tautly delivered with Sutherland rather good as the slightly unhinged general whose almost "nuke 'em" strategy leads for an uncomfortably strained relationship with the scientist. There is a smattering of plausible science and plenty of action - Cuba Gooding Jr. is his sort of "Mr. T" sidekick and Kevin Spacey and Patrick Dempsey add a bit of collateral too. Given the April 2020 Covid-19 situation, "Outbreak" has an added poignancy as to just how simply these things could occur!

***Scarier than any horror flick — and ultra-suspenseful***
After a deadly incurable African virus is brought to a Northern California coastal town via a monkey the military moves in to quarantine the village. While Dustin Hoffman seeks to find an antidote, the two generals in charge of the quarantine (Morgan Freeman & Donald Sutherland) strangely decide to annihilate the town. Can Hoffman find a cure in time? And, even if he does, can he stop the firebombing?
Wolfgang Petersen's "Outbreak" (1995) is an outstanding drama/thriller, which I suppose you could designate as a disaster flick. Although viruses are so small they're invisible, they have the potential to be the biggest monsters of all. Certain deadly viruses, if let loose, can wipe out an entire town in a couple days. This is the scenario in "Outbreak." It COULD happen and is therefore realistic, which naturally makes the story more horrifying than most horror flicks or monster movies.
But "Outbreak" is more than just a scary what-if story, the second half involves a military cover-up and is edge-of-your-seat suspenseful, all the way to the final minutes. It's like an avalanche that slowly builds momentum.
Cuba Gooding Jr. is also on hand in a significant role as Hoffman's partner in the race-against-time. And, for those who care, there's a romantic subplot about Hoffman’s character and his ex-wife, played by Rene Russo. Will they get back together?
The locations are magnificent, filmed in the coastal towns Eureka, Arcata and Ferndale, California, all in the extreme Northern part of the state, just south of the Redwoods and West of Bigfoot territory (i.e. Willow Creek). The African sequences were shot in Hawaii.
BOTTOM LINE: This is top-of-the-line cinema — equal parts scary, dramatic and suspenseful.
The film runs 2 hours, 7 minutes.
GRADE: A-

'Superman II' is a more rounded affair, though is no more entertaining than the first film - I enjoyed both the same, more or less. Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder remain as watchable as before, but Gene Hackman isn't as memorable in this follow-up - still good, mind.
I like how we got to see extra of Zod, Ursa and Non in this one, if only to see more of Terence Stamp - who I've only really seen later in his career, he's terrific in 2011's 'The Adjustment Bureau'. Sarah Douglas and Jack O'Halloran as the other two characters are decent.
A perfectly solid sequel, you can't ask for much more than that.

_**Continues the super-story of the groundbreaking first film**_
Three Kryptonian criminals escape imprisonment in the Phantom Zone (Terence Stamp, Sarah Douglas and Jack O'Halloran) to harass citizens of the United States, including the president (E.G. Marshall), while Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) schmoozes them. Meanwhile Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) suspects that Clark Kent is Superman (Christopher Reeve) during an assignment to Niagara Falls before flying off to fight the Kryptonians. Susannah York plays Kal-El’s mother while Jackie Cooper is on hand as Perry White.
"Superman II" (1980) was mostly shot simultaneously with the first film in 1977 wherein director Richard Donner had shot 75% of the film before focusing on finishing the first movie. When the flick went back into production in 1978 Donner was controversially fired and replaced with Richard Lester, who was already working on the project with Donner as second unit director. Marlon Brando’s scenes as Jor-El were cut (obviously because he wanted too much money, i.e. 11.75% of gross US box office earnings) and redone with Lara (York).
Despite the behind-the-scenes drama, this is a thoroughly entertaining sequel with some people even claiming it’s better. What makes the film work so well is that (1) the three Kryptonian villains are interesting and their superhuman exploits are engaging, (2) Luthor is likewise amusing, (3) the sci-fi ambiance and special effects are state-of-the-art for the late 70s and (4) the drama involving Clark/Supes and Lois (and Perry White) is consistently entertaining. On the downside, I could do without Otis’ goofy antics (Ned Beatty) and the movie is slightly overlong.
The film runs 2 hours, 7 minutes and was shot in Paris; Norway; Niagara Falls & Calgary, Canada; Pinewood Studios (the Metropolis scenes, etc.), Chobham Common, Surrey (the East Houston, Idaho, scenes), & London Underground, England; and St Lucia.
GRADE: A/A-

Fun packed and humanistic sequel is worthy alright.
Superman II stars Gene Hackman, Christopher Reeve, Terence Stamp, Ned Beatty, Sarah Douglas, Margot Kidder, and Jack O'Halloran. It was to be a troubled shoot that saw two directors involved with the project. Richard Donner had completed about three quarters of the film before being taken off the project, so Richard Lester then came in to finish the film. Because of the back stage problems there are a host of writers credited on the film and both Robert Paynter & Geoffrey Unsworth were involved with the cinematography. Filmed using the Megasound system the score is a reworking of John Williams original score by Ken Thorne.
Something of a miracle in itself that Superman II, in spite of all the behind the scenes shenanigans, is a very fine sequel to the massively successful Superman from 78. Sure there's some odd tonal shifts, a couple of things don't quite add up (to be corrected later on down the line with the release of the Richard Donner cut), while the villains are badly under written, but this has enough comic book adaptation savvy to please most comic book lovers.
This time around sees Superman pitted against three villains who have been released from their prison due to Superman himself detonating a hydrogen bomb in space. The big kicker here being that the three convicts, General Zod, Ursa and Non, are from his home planet of Krypton and had been imprisoned by his father Jor-El. Now they are free they are hell bent on revenge against the son of Jor-El and the planet that worships him. If that was not enough for Superman to contend with, he also has affairs of the heart to deal with as his love for Lois Lane grows ever stronger by the day. While a certain Lex Luthor is plotting his escape from prison...
Pic nicely fuses a humanistic heart with exciting set pieces, to make Superman II a worthy sequel to the wonderful template that is the first film. Ultimately we should embrace both cuts of Superman II or it would go downhill from here... 7/10

**He was called Non because that is the amount of brains he had.**
Great sequel that expands on the introductory scenes in Superman (1978) where we met General Zod, Ursa and the massive moron, Non - although I wouldn't call him a moron to his face. (Perhaps if I had a ladder)
But anyway, these three criminals are inadvertently released from the Phantom Zone by Superman and they naturally head toward Earth seeking revenge on the son of their jailer.
Hackman receives top billing this time now that Brando collected his pay cheque and was at the bank cashing it.
A very entertaining and funny sequel thanks to Richard Lester's expert hand at comedy.
- Potential Kermode

A good cast, including some relatively new actors, lead this edge-of-your-seat thriller about, you guessed it, a man unhinged.
Unfortunately, after the first "unhinged" act, this is one of the most predictable films I've ever watched.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
Boasting a ferociously captivating Russell Crowe as an absolutely lunatic driver, Derrick Borte delivers a purposefully exaggerated premise based on something that occurs every day to pretty much everyone. The rated-R action is surprising in its amount of gore and unrestraint in murdering every character in the most shocking yet incredibly entertaining fashion.
However, Carl Ellsworth's screenplay lacks character depth, leaving the viewer with barely any knowledge of anything remotely relevant about the protagonists besides basic relationships, which are merely used as plot devices to more bloody killing. The narrative goes through hard-to-believe developments, and the ending still possesses the cliche "dumb protagonist's decision that no sane person would ever think about".
Still, I defend that its main narrative is closer to reality than fiction, especially the first two acts. In the end, my main issue might actually be that Caren Pistorius' character was indeed guilty of the event that propelled everything. She demonstrated arrogance, selfishness, and the inability to simply apologize to someone who was initially polite. That, to me, it's her biggest sin and the reason why I couldn't care less about what happened to her or her family.
Rating: B-