**One of the great comic films of the 70s.**
Mel Brooks is one of those names in comic cinema that I haven't explored much yet, and that I know more from his fame than from having seen his work. I decided to change that a little by watching this satirical film, which he directed, and in which a grandson of the infamous German doctor and nobleman Dr. Frankenstein, after years denying his name and any association with his grandfather, is called to the family castle for... what? In fact, the script badly explains this decision, but it is important for the film that he returns and that is what he will do. There, he contacts the locals and decides to further explore his grandfather's attempts to reanimate human corpses.
As already understood from these lines, the script is not this film's strong point, with a weak story and many problems with a lack of logic. The film needs the characters to make certain decisions, and they will make them without worrying that this corresponds to a logical and understandable attitude. Of course, being a comedy, this is unimportant, and the nonsense also adds to the film's joke, but there are one or two moments where I missed this logic.
Brooks' direction is inspired and well done. On a technical level, the black-and-white cinematography stands out, clearly designed to emulate the visual aspect of the great Frankenstein films from the 30s, with Boris Karloff. The lighting work also deserves a positive note, as does the design of the sets, costumes and props. The dialogues, sometimes improvised, work wonderfully and the jokes are excellent, even those that are a little more naughty. As for the cast, the highlight goes entirely to Gene Wilder's inspired performance, in one of the most memorable comic roles he left us. We will always remember him as Willie Wonka, that's for sure, but this film is not far behind and deserves an honorable highlight in the actor's filmography. Alongside him, we also have Marty Feldman, in his most iconic film and in an incredible performance. Peter Boyle and Cloris Leachman also deserve a note of praise.

I'd probably best start by saying that I love the writing of Mel Brooks, but I detest the acting style of Gene Wilder - so my views on this are somewhat mixed. It is a spoof - and James Whale ought to be writ large in the credits, as should Glenn Miller and a host of others who have inadvertently contributed to the wonderfully paced script that rarely draws breath. Wilder - the grandson of the eponymous, famously mad scientist - decides to visit Transylvania where he stumbles upon a formula that might just bring the dead back to life. In my view, the acting plaudits go to Marty Feldman, who is great as henchman "Igor" trying desperately to foil the over-the-top antics of the star - who just seems to play each role he takes on in the same, super-hammy, fashion with big eyes and loud, grand gestures that I find most unfunny. Coupled with Brooks, they are, however, on cracking writing form and as parodies go this sets up the whole genre - sometimes overtly and sometimes subtly, but regardless - when you listen to the dialogue you can't help but laugh. For me, it could have done with a less annoying star - but the writing has stood the test of time well and is still very much worth a watch.

When I had the opportunity Ro watch this film again after decades, due to a Cloris Leachman tribute, I couldn’t resist, despite feeling there was a risk of a familiar problem: that of me not liking a program or movie as a mature adult as much as I had as a young man.
I needn’t have worried. This is not Mensa material here, but it is a good example of what Mel Brooks did best, spoof movie genres or other cinematic cliches.
Everyone seems to have great fun making this movie, and it shows. Some of the bits have become catch phrases: the horse neighing when a certain name is mentioned, the hilarious sight gag of the secret door (“Put the candle back!), and other classic lines. This doesn’t make any of my Favorites list, but it was well worth revisiting it for the laughs and a glimpse at what my younger self thought was funny, and older self agrees with him.

For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius.
Young Frankenstein is directed by Mel Brooks who also co-writes the screenplay with Gene Wilder. It stars Wilder, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle, Teri Garr and Madeline Kahn. Music is by John Morris and cinematography by Gerald Hirschfeld.
Filmed in black and white, Brook's movie is an affectionate spoof of the Frankenstein movies that came out of Universal Studios back in the 1930s.
There wolf, there castle.
You are either a Mel Brooks fan or not, there doesn't seem to be any middle ground. However, even his most ardent fans admit not all of his productions have paid dividends, but when on song, as he was in 1974 (Blazing Saddles also released), it's justifiable that those fans proclaim him as a spoof maestro. Ineviatbly a bit tame when viewed today, Young Frankenstein is still a picture of high comedy and clinical execution of the film making craft. Everything works, from acting performances, the gags that are both visual and aural delights, to the set design of the Frankenstein castle. It also boasts a smooth storyline, this is not a hodge-podge of ideas lifted from those Universal monster classics, it has a spin on the story and inserts its own memorable scenes along the way (Puttin' on the Ritzzzzzzzz, Oh my!).
Of its time for sure, but still great entertainment for the Mel Brooks fan. 8/10

'The Scorpion King' isn't one to take seriously, but based on sheer entertainment factor I did suitably enjoy this. It was, at least for yours truly, a fairly breezy 90 minutes, they did a solid job at keeping the action paced well across that run time. The casting is good too.
Dwayne Johnson isn't the best actor here in terms of how he says his lines and all that (his acting has improved since), but I'd say he makes up for that by fulfilling the physicality requirements. Michael Clarke Duncan, Kelly Hu, Grant Heslov and Bernard Hill are ones I liked seeing too.
Steven Brand is the only actor that I wasn't sold on whilst watching. I do think his Memnon character is just about passable, but at the same time I'd consider him as the weakest link. Elsewhere, the special effects seemed minimally used (at least compared to the originals) - that's a plus.
It always fascinates me when I find out about these sorta franchises, simply because it is somewhat difficult to believe that they could produce five releases and have none of them enter my knowledge - until now, of course. I am interested in checking them out though, no question.

Spawned from the "Mummy Returns" this rather stolid and lurching drama tells the tale of “Mathayus” (Dwayne Johnson) an “Akkadian” - an ancient sort of Mesopotamian - who tries to overthrow the tyrant king “Memnon” (Steven Brand) who reigns with the aid of sorceress who can predict the future (Kelly Hu doing her best Jane Seymour impression). This is as formulaic as I've seen in this genre and leaves little for the imagination. It has humour, on occasion, but is anything but subtle. It's all just an action vehicle for the star that does look good but has little else to recommend it to anyone.

When _The Scorpion King_ first came out in '02, it would be hard to imagine that between this franchise and its forebears (_The Mummy_ & _The Mummy Returns_), that it would be _The Scorpion King_ who would continue to live on in the following decade. Though that's maybe less shocking knowing that _Tomb of the Dragon Emperor_ happened.
_Scorpion King_ delivers on a small amount of the hammy fun it could have been, though I can't help but wonder just how amazing it would be if we had gotten a _Fast & Furious_ level Rock portraying Mathayas.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Nails the "post-apocalyptic except the world didn't end" vibe.
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

A Snake, a Brain, a Cabbie, a Duke and the President Of The USA.
It's 1997 and Manhattan Island is a walled off prison, during the flight of Air Force One the president's plane is taken over by a terrorist and the president ejects out in the safety pod. Sadly for him he lands right in the middle of Manhattan Island. When an armed unit lands inside the walls they are told that the president has been taken hostage and they must get out of their prison ASAP. At a loss what to do, the authorities decide to send one man in alone, ex war hero turned criminal, Snake Plissken, not only does he have to contend with surviving the incredibly hostile prison, he also has a time bomb implanted in his body that, should he not get the president out safely within 24 hours, will explode and mean no more Snake Plissken!
Made in 1981 and set in 1997, it's safe to say John Carpenter is not the best predictor of the future around. However, his vision of a future where America has thrown all its criminals on one island, where they create their own society out of harms way, has to rank as an incredibly adroit piece of work. This place is grim and deadly, the flotsam and jetsam of society thrust together in this bleak and desolate place of class separation. What Carpenter has achieved with his usual minimal budget allowance is a smouldering sci-fi classic that may be as daft as they come, but it pulses with cool and cheekily slaps you around the face with its cheeky satirical edginess. Kudos is given to the great production design from Joe Alves, who along with Carpenter has crafted this brilliantly dirty netherworld of crime.
Our anti-hero of the piece, Snake Plissken, is superbly played by Kurt Russell, the original choice interestingly was Tommy Lee Jones, but Russell fuels Plissken's mantra to make him one of the eighties coolest grumpy bastards, and his work here is first class in terms of the films' apocalyptic structure. Surroundning Russell is a wealth of quality performers each adding their personal bits to this tick-tock stew, Lee Van Cleef, Ernest Borgnine, Donald Pleasance, Harry Dean Stanton, Adrienne Barbeau and Isaac Hayes all earn their money and flesh out the story to the end.
Calling Escape From New York an action picture would be setting first time viewers up for a real let down, what action there is is minimal but highly effective, the machismo flourishes acting more as a point of reference to the picture's time bomb urgency. I like to think of the film as being more a sci-fi adventure yarn laced with darkly comic humour, with of course machismo thrown in as a side salad to accentuate the bleakness of it all. A wonderful concoction indeed. 9/10

"Too little of too much" would describe this movie well, which presented us a dystopian New York with development potential and characters whose background is shared, exposed with brief moments of characterization that made me feel like I was missing this movie's predecessor. It didn't exist, and so the end result was of an expanded universe of unknown circumstances - except for the brief introduction we got in the opening credits - where the events barely told the story during the time it was running. But where this movie failed in terms of script, it almost made up with atmosphere and music. It sounds great throughout, but the credit goes to the opening theme that is as minimal as the presentation is grounded, in that humble approach of whom ambition wasn't unheard. Sadly, it's not the case of a classic whose production values challenge the computer generated visuals of today (and ironically this movie's novelty was the wireframe view), but if you're interested in history and want to make a contextual analysis, you may find something worth treasuring.
__________________
When authors create they sign. When editors hack they design.

There's a tendency with this film to just think of the genius that was Gene Kelly and his umbrella with the title song, but as a wonderfully enjoyable three hander between himself, Debbie Reynolds and my own favourite from this film Donald O'Connor, it is so much more the that. It just oozes charm and style. The plot centres around the aspirations of a silent movie company to make a talkie! Their long established stars "Don Lockwood" (Kelly) and "Lina Lamont" (Jean Hagan) have a successful on-screen (and in-press) persona as the dream couple - in reality they can barely stomach each other - but they must embrace progress and with the arrival of the sound equipment and new ideas man "Cosmo" (O'Connor) the challenge is on to make a smash hit. Anyone who's seen any silent movies will know that not everyone successful in that medium had the, shall we say - attributes - to make a go of this, and soon we have a bit of a battle going on between Hagan and Kelly's actual gal in this movie "Kathy" (Reynolds) for the big part! The settings allow the costumier to have a field day, and the three are very much in their elements trying out all these would-be scenarios from the creative head of "Cosmo". Songs? Well, where do you start? Betty Comden and Adolph Green hit a real purple patch with his - they trawled through musicals from the twenties and thirties and present us with the likes of "You Were Meant For Me", "Make 'em Laugh" and "Good Morning" as well as the theme song that get our feet a-tapping and our smiles a-raising. Reynolds' singing voice came courtesy of Betty Noyes, but the dubbing is perfect and it matters not a jot that she isn't actually singing. There is plenty of light-heartedness (and a healthy dose of jealous back-biting too!) and the dancing isn't perfect, which helps lots too. For much of the time, the routines look and feel natural, like pals making it up as they go along and having fun in the process. A lavish looking production and a wee bit of Cyd Charisse and Rita Moreno too - what more could you ask for...?

I'm clearly in the major, major minority. Honestly though, I didn't enjoy this.
It's certainly worth noting musicals are probably my least favourite genre, but I'm still more than capable of finding entertainment with them - e.g. 'The Greatest Showman', 'The Sound of Music' and others.
'Singin’ in the Rain', however, simply didn't connect with me. There's one, maybe two, good songs that I had already heard, while Gene Kelly (Don) is solid fun in the lead role. The premise, minus the music, is actually very interesting, what with the silent film transition era. Given it's a musical, though, they don't delve as deep into that as I wanted.
None of the songs, aside from the previously alluded to "Singin' in the Rain", landed well with me, I kinda found them a chore to sit through to be frank. Elsewhere on the cast, aside from Kelly, I found Debbie Reynolds (Kathy) alright but Donald O'Connor (Cosmo) a little irritating - he tries too hard, for my liking. Jean Hagen (Lina) is likewise a tad annoying, though that's intentional with her to be fair.
I will acknowledge that the film, aesthetically, looks excellent. I wish I liked it more overall, but I just didn't. Do feel free to ignore me!

I'm happy again!
Singing In The Rain is to me the greatest musical ever made, sure many others push it close, The Wizard Of Oz for one will always be a 10/10 movie in my opinion, but Singing In The Rain is a film that has no flaws, it is a perfect movie.
Don Lockwood is a star of silent movies but his life is boring, then talking movies arrive and with them he eyes an opportunity to greatly improve his life. A chance encounter with dancer Kathy Selden will further shape his destiny, and along with best pal and partner Cosmo Brown, their respective fortunes will hopefully dovetail towards fulfillment.
Where do you start? The film is a homage to happiness, be it film making or love, or friendships and honour, the film is pure and simply joyous from the first reel to the triumphant last shot. Featuring stunning choreography, Singing In The Rain doesn't cop out by merely having characters plodding thru a script and then bursting into song occasionally, each song furthers the characters and fleshes out the story unfolding to keep the plot lines tight and crucially, important.
Make 'Em Laugh, Good Morning, and Singing In The Rain are just some of the brilliant songs and dance routines on show here, with the latter a now legendary piece of cinematic history that speaks volumes for the joyous nature of the film, whilst the finale sequence of the 'Broadway Ballet' is magic & elegance personified. The cast are uniformly excellent, Gene Kelly, Donald O'Connor & Debbie Reynolds interplay together like they were hatched from the same egg, and the joint direction from Stanley Donen (along with Kelly) is seamless.
Full of hat tipping and self-referencing winks, Singing In The Rain regularly hits the top ten lists of critics and movie fans alike, so lets not beat around the bush about it...it flipping well deserves it. 10/10 in every respect.

Just a masterpiece mixing an interesting background story, great script with good humor, exceptional singers and dancers and a Gene Kelly that is just genial, well sided with Donald O'Connor and Debbie Reynolds.
A must to be seen.

Pretty good movie. I was angry, mad, surprised, and laughed a lot. Whos's that pretty girl in that window there....What window where! Lol!

A rather good sequel!
'T2 Trainspotting' is exactly what I expected it to be. Turns out, it was also exactly what I wanted it to be. I thought it was great! I mentioned in my review of the original that I didn't like the characters, at all. Whilst that is indeed the case for that film, in this follow-up it does a grand job at making you care for the main bunch more; well, aside from Franco but we don't talk about Franco.
It probably is missing out on as much substance (pardon the pun), if only when compared to the 1996 flick, but evidently I'd argue it makes up for that with improved (harsh/wrong choice of word, perhaps) characterization. Even though I only watched the other movie for the first time a mere few hours prior, it was still cracking to see Ewan McGregor, Ewen Bremner, Jonny Lee Miller and Robert Carlyle back together in their respective roles - aged 'n all.
I appreciate both films, albeit in different ways. This one I actually 'properly' enjoyed, whereas before it was more an appreciation of how effectively it was told. Terrific productions either way, really.

OK...it may be bias, Trainspotting was one of my favorite movies, and one of the better, if frustrating, books I experienced in High School.
And, I really want to avoid any hints towards the plot as....it might kill a lot of the humor for those that haven't seen it. So excuse the vagueness, but after watching it, you might see where its necessary from an entertainment not a twist standpoint.
So...the bad: It is NOT "Porno" which breaks the heart because, well, "Porno" was absolutely hysterical, right down to why it had its title.
That being said, the draw is the cast. Trainspotting was one of those "how the hell did they make this book into a coherent movie" movies and in many aspects "Porno" would have been easier, but would certainly still fit into that mold. So it's likely better that T2 didn't follow the book.
Anyway, the joy is just seeing the crew back together again, the chemistry is still there, it's totally an ensemble cast and that was really the principal draw to the first film as well.
I don't want to give away the plot, but the cast just works so well together, they know their characters and live them. And the characters are delightful to watch.
I sort of feel that they could have thrown any script at them, and so long as the cast and characters stayed the same...the film would have been thoroughly entertaining.
It doesn't hit as hard as the first film, but everyone has aged and it's still....brilliant.
Really, you're watching it for the cast and characters, and it pays off in sheer entertainment.

**To face a revenge threat!**
Okay the first film was good one. Then I thought it was unnecessary to make a sequel for it. But someone clarified that it was not made outside the novel to make money. It's indeed adapted from the sequel book of the original film's source. Though coming out 20 years later was the disadvantage. Except some praises it had received, particularly by its hardcore fans, it was average at the box office and I thought same as well.
I did not like the story. It was just a random drag, not knowing what direction to head. That's until the third act, and once all the three main characters come together, so it gets interesting with something. Like surviving from from a revenge threat. It was the actors who saved the film. Otherwise, it is not even an average as I consider now. I don't think retaining the title was a good idea, but I think it was just for its fans. Or else, a new title name would have done a decent justice to what it had narrated.
As I know, this is the director's first ever sequel and he's not getting better since his Oscar win, a decade ago. Especially the last two flicks, despite based on the very good subjects. Definitely no to the T3. Instead, I want another Oscar nod film from him. This would have been ever worse if somebody else would have made it. Yet, a watchable film, only if you had liked the first. So just think about it before going for it after seeing only positive words from a few people.
_5/10_

**A perfect "trash" movie.**
When I saw this movie a few hours ago, I didn't know it was a sequel to “Evil Dead”, a movie I haven't seen yet. I generally like to start the franchises in the right order. However, and as far as I was reading, this film is the one that most differs from the antecedents, not least because the action takes place in the medieval period, and revolves around the possession of a book, the legendary Necronomicon.
Contrary to what one might think, the Necronomicon was not an invention of Sam Raimi, or any of the elements in the film. The book was created by the writer H. P. Lovecraft, and the idea came to be used for the film. Raimi is a creative and original director, and it's not surprising that such a bizarre film came out of his head. Basically, what we have here is a simple warehouse employee who, after handling the book, is teleported to the year 1300. And of course, to return to our time, he will have to find the book there, and overcome dangers of various order, starting with the medieval nobles themselves, at war with each other.
Bruce Campbell is the only actor who deserves mention in this cast of vast names in which there is no one who stands out positively. The cast is really one of the weaknesses and uninteresting of the film! And even Campbell is so irritating and arrogant that I didn't sympathize with his character at all, even though I know he's the hero and will somehow end up saving the day.
The film is corny, it's quite cheap (we only need to look at the poor quality of the stop-motion animations and visual or special effects to see that) and it's so absurd that it's hilarious. There are scenes that seem to be taken from a satire, or a school play. It is impossible not to laugh at such a film, a perfect “trash” film.

Army of Darkness is such a mix bag for me, on one hand it is a very fun and whimsical fantasy adventure but on the other it is such a step away from the franchise that it feels out of place. It is marketed as a horror film, but there is absolutely zero tension or spooks to be had in its entire runtime, luckily the movie was actually quite funny. Raimi tried to do a bit too much in the special effects department, leaving many of the effects feel cheap and out of place. The green screen technology especially just was not there for the time. Raimi's direction was very relevant, and his signature touch on the film really helped. The performances and writing absolutely save the film. Bruce Campbell is the best he's ever been, with incredible line delivery that had be legitimately laughing out loud. The quick witty dialogue between characters was hilarious. Overall, Army of Darkness is by no means a bad movie, but it does take a step a little too far from the source material, which just didn't resonate with me as much.
Score: 67% 👍
Verdict: Good

"Ash" (Bruce Campbell) is a bit of a loud-mouth hardware salesman who somehow manages to get himself, and his car, transported back seven hundred years and into a mediaeval combat zone! "Lord Arthur" (Marcus Gilbert) is his new master and together with his fellow prisoner "Duke Henry the Red" (Richard Grove) is soon facing doom at the bottom of a deadly pit! Luckily, he has a few useful things in the boot of his car, and the timely use of a chainsaw helps him escape and become the designated saviour who will retrieve the "Necronomicon". His quest will involve a treacherous journey through the land of the "Deadites" in search of a sacred book. Only the immortal words of Michael Rennie himself: "Klaatu Barada Nikto" can save the day... Well, needless to say, none of this grand plan actually works. He forgets half of his magic phrase and only succeeds in resurrecting a somewhat narked army of dead folks who are determined to lay siege to their castle and retrieve the book for themselves. Enemies soon become friends, arrows become strapped to dynamite, trebuchets start lobbing high explosives and all are now hoping to defeat, well, the already dead! This actually benefits hugely from not having a star. The whole ensemble cast join in to create a quickly paced, "Camelot" style action adventure that borrows heavily from twentieth century references (I'm sure the script has a bit of Jack Hawkins from "Ben Hur" here too) and Ian Abercrombie does a fine job as the wiseman. There's plenty of pyrotechnics and swordplay, a generous amount of rather daft humour and, for my money, is one of Sam Raimi's better, more entertaining features. Derivative? Yes - it is, but that doesn't stop it being an enjoyable romp through history and legend that is well worth an afternoon in front of the telly.

Bruce Campbell at his "gimme some sugar Baby" best.
Klatu Verada mumble mumble...
What could possibly go wrong!?!?
This is just a fun, entertaining movie.

My name is Ash and I am a slave. Close as I can figure, the year is thirteen hundred A.D and I'm being dragged to my death.
Army of Darkness is directed by Sam Raimi and Raimi co-writes the screenplay with his brother Ivan. It stars Bruce Campbell, Embeth Davidtz, Marcus Gilbert, Ian Abercrombie, Richard Grove and Timothy Patrick Quill. Music is by Joseph LoDuca and cinematography by Bill Pope.
Ash (Campbell) is transported to 1300 A.D., where he must battle an army of the dead and retrieve the Necronomicon so he can return home.
Unofficially it's Evil Dead III, but as the fans will atest, this is a very different animal to the two films that preceeded it. Blending high energy jinks in medieval times with comedy horror staples, it's a riotous idea that mostly works. Of course one has to accept it on its riotous terms, this for sure isn't a pic for the highbrow crowd. Though it should at least be given the chance to brighten a dark day.
Campell as Ash is put through the mangler once again, with some nifty physical comedy nestling nicely with that of Ash's anachronistic verbalities. It's all breakneck stuff that's performed with a wonderfully self mocking attitude that's easy to warm to. It's a comic book brought to life and it never sags, but some of the cartoon sequence beasties sadly do look a little flat.
Great fun if prepared for what type of pic it is, it's not hard to see why it is so beloved in Evil Dead fan circles. 7/10
Footnote: There are alterante ending versions, of which I have only seen the downbeat time potion one - but being the miserable sod that I am, I love this ending.

Given that the premise of the movie is pretty much entirely "What if Superman was a dick?" (something that has already been explored pretty thoroughly by DC themselves) I did not expect so much of the focus of the film to be taken up by the family dynamix inherent in the difficulties of parenting.
A pretty mismarketed movie I think. Presented in trailers initially to be a sort of a twist on the superhero genre, and as we got closer to the release of the film, to be a Scary Supes movie, who _Brightburn_ should really be targetting is gorehounds, because it's their avenue in which it most excels.
Neat sting at the credits though.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
Brightburn is one of those few movies throughout the year that can grab everyone’s attention solely due to its premise. In a world where the superhero genre is oversaturated with almost a comic-book-based film each month, the Gunn family delivers an unique concept that I don’t think it was ever explored this way. “What if Superman was evil?” is an idea that can be developed through so many different ways, depending on the director and screenwriters’ approach. David Yarovesky clearly drew inspiration from Zack Snyder’s version (Man of Steel), and that’s where the movie is best: in exploring the vast and interesting possibilities that a screenplay like this can pursue.
Usually, when someone writes something along the lines of “it felt like two movies”, it’s not a good sign. Brightburn is a dark, mysterious and suspenseful film during the first half, but then it pretty much transforms itself into a horror-slasher flick, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I firmly believe that no audience member (and I would even dare write critics as well) will leave the theater completely satisfied or entirely disappointed. If you expected the Gunn family to delve deep into Superman’s mythology and explore some twisty paths, they do rely on classic scenes to show how it all could have been if “Clark Kent” wasn’t a nice boy.
If you were expecting a movie closer to the horror genre, the last half of the film offers some good sequences. However, that’s when the movie loses what made me go watch it in the first place. It’s a very short film and it ends in a way that leaves me wanting more. The big problem here is that it’s likely not going to get a sequel, and it could have easily added extra 20-30 minutes to deliver a more fulfilled story.
Production-wise, having in mind its low budget, it looks remarkably great. Some good moments of gorgeous cinematography, and beautiful wide shots. The jump scare sequences of the second half aren’t nearly as effective as they could be, but at least the editing throughout the entire runtime is seamless. With a few more creative and entertaining scenes, Brightburn could have been a lot more menacing and scarier. I only remembered it was R-rated once the first bloody and quite violent moment occurs, and these specific moments are definitely eye-opening, gruesome and horrifying, even though it gets too over-the-top a couple of times.
Elizabeth Banks (Tori Breyer) delivers a notable performance, as well as David Denman (Kyle Breyer). Their characters have a compelling backstory, and they actually have a well-developed script. They don’t make dumb or irrational decisions, like the generic horror characters that we all recognize. Jackson A. Dunn (Brandon) is pretty good as the evil Superman, even if his performance ends up being too monotonous for me. Looking at the overall feedback from both critics and audience, this seems to be part of those rare films each year which I enjoy a bit more than most people.
All in all, Brightburn doesn’t take off powerfully like Superman, but it’s still able to fly for a bit. With good performances, remarkable production design, and an adequate use of its R-rating, the Gunn family delivers an incredibly captivating concept which is explored through an interesting yet unfulfilling screenplay. The second half turns the movie into a pure slasher flick, which might positively affect some viewers, but for me it took away what was really entertaining. The ending is just a taste of what the film could have been and it’s disappointing that it doesn’t explore its fantastic idea more in-depth, but the final feeling about the movie isn’t too bad either.
Rating: B

Great concept, very gory, just did not live up to the hype.

Greatful film with good special effects, interesting story and cool cast. Superman vision of horror became best anti-superhero movie I have ever seen.
But the movie has one big problem. There is no Sergey A. at the lead role. I think, that Sergey could be good lead character of this film.

Bad Superman
What if superman was a bad guy? That's the premise Brightburn is built upon.
To my mind its a more mature concept than the traditional good guy Superman. It makes sense on a certain level too. A superior being would inevitably assert its superiority over lesser beings. That's how evolution and predator/prey relationships tend to work.
Whether you agree with my Darwinian assumptions or not, this is a decent horror sci fi film. There's a sense of the comfortable and familiar family dynamic being turned on its head. The innocent, much loved, adopted son, transformed into something so overwhelming powerful and ruthlessly destructive, that even his parents come to fear him.
Its the abrupt contrast between these two realities, that makes this film genuinely unnerving.Helped in no small part by a clever climax, that underlines the fall from grace humanity faces, at the hands of this alien other.
A decent watch I rate 7/10.

> Would you let your dream go for the sake of love of your life!
I watched it specially for Scott Eastwood. I did not like his performances in the previous films I had seen, so expected this one to change my perspective and I'm truly happy with it. If you are a romance novel and film fan, then you probably would have heard the name Nicholas Sparks. I haven't read his books, but I surely love almost all the films based on his material. So expected this film to be another romance masterpiece, but it was not, not entirely.
Yep, it is not a great film, but still a beautiful and enjoyable film. The cast was good, especially I love anything with Britt Roberson. The film had dual layer narration, one being set during the 40s onwards and the other was the present time tale. Both of them were about the young romance and their fight to overcome various issues surrounded their relationship. Kind of original and that's the best quality of this film.
I think the director did his best who's known for some fine works. The film should have been a lot better, only if it was a bit emotionalised, which is very essential for a theme like this. I thought the final scene was cliche, but after waiting for a few more seconds, I relieved for changing its course in the final minute to conclude decently. The drawback was the length of the narration and the overall slow pace, other than that mostly you won't end up disappointed with this. Recommended!
7/10

This movie is just "This movie is just "prescindible". Boring without end for a story we know how it will end, full of stereotypes, like the collecting Jew couple. Viewers are still trying to understand the hidden metaphor connecting the story of the old man (and why does he have letters at all?) and the young couple.
I don't think the cast performs too bad, the script is just horrible.