I know this is a very popular movie. It's just a little to weird of a comedy for my liking.

**It's a reference film, although it's not exactly my cup of tea.**
Well, first of all, I have to acknowledge the impact and popularity of this film, not just at the time it came out, but even today. It was one of the great successes of the time (except for the United Kingdom, shaken by the death of Diana Spencer, and where the film only later, on physical support, came to gain popularity). It is one of the most popular comedies of the late 20th century and was instrumental in consolidating and expanding Mike Myers' career. However, I don't think it's exactly… my cup of tea. And I will explain why.
The script is, basically, a parody of the James Bond films… Austin Powers is a flamboyant and liberal spy who is described as the man all women want and all men want to copy. This is hilarious because the character is ugly, kitschy and has the manners of a deeply misogynistic sexual pervert. Nothing against it, I'm not a fan of political correctness. What really bothers me about this movie is the total absence of funny jokes and the emphasis on the sex theme. Almost all jokes have a sexual connotation, and this proved not only ineffective but tiresome.
The plot is simple: in the Sixties, Powers fails in his attempt to neutralize his greatest enemy, Dr. Evil, when he escapes and freezes himself in a cryogenic capsule. In order not to be left behind, the spy offers to go through it, being frozen until the day his enemy returns, which happens in the late 90's. From here, a whole sub-plot is generated in which both characters, in their own way, will have to adapt to the new period as they prepare for the final confrontation.
Myers is the driving force of the entire film, taking on the skin of two of the important characters: the hero and the villain. This is not something new in cinema and has already been carried out by Peter Sellers and Alec Guinness, two references that Myers took into account in his work. And even though I didn't really like the film, it wouldn't be right of me if I refrained from praising this actor, and his ability and commitment. Elizabeth Hurley played a spy, daughter of a former colleague of the protagonist, being the "Powers-Girl" in this film. She is good enough for the task and does a pleasant job.
Technically, the film does what it needs. A regular cinematography with good colors and sharpness, a very pleasant rhythm and no dead moments. I liked the props and the sets, especially Powers' car (a classic Jaguar). His costume, clearly inspired by 18th century clothing, also seemed creative and original to me, although I have some difficulty in finding any credible basis for this option in the fashions and aesthetics of the 60s. Finally, a note of praise for the very good soundtrack and, in particular, for the lively dance sequence that accompanies the opening credits.

I am a little suspect to talk about of this one - was on my bucket list for ages and finally I could see the director's cult version of it. It simply wasn't anything that I was expecting... and it was way more. Normally this would be a 3 star max, but I took in account the movie editing and the 30y gap.
Maybe if I watched it 30y ago it would be a different sense - it deal with the over glorification of serial killers by (old - and now we have again that trend) media shows and that many serial killers have difficult family backgrounds with child abuse (but not all turn to killers and ice-versa, I think the main dialog here is about mental disease in the family).
If no one said to me that it was Oliver Stone Behind the camera's simply I couldn't tell. It looked simply a Tarantino movie, and guess what? The screenplay was of him, and "heavily" (?!) edited by Oliver Stone.
Sorry for the fans but I am not one of the Tarantino Movies, they rely too much in violence and puns to hide little if any talent for screenplays. I expected way more of the screenplay after Oliver Stone revised it.
Some aspects of the movie can be said positive: the acting of the Knox (Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis) as a modern version of Bonnie and Clyde and Robert Downey Jr. as the show presenter.
The cinematography by the talentful Robert Richardson (that works constantly with Tarantino, but with other huge names as Scorsese and Oliver Stone himself) is frenetic and psychedelic and so is the editing that is huge in between scenes, done by Hank Corwin and Brian Berdan (Tree of Life, Don't Look Up, Vice, etc) and the music score is perfect by Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails (especially Cowboy Junkies "Sweet Jane" and Jane's Addiction ones).
Otherwise even the tone of violence is just comic by today standards - but the visual of the killer couple is very aesthetic and some scenes like the opeding and the wedding ones.
I would give it a 7.0 out of 10.0 / B

**A brutal criticism of our society, in which the film itself takes advantage of what it is criticizing.**
Oliver Stone is not one of my favorite directors. What happens when he teams up with Quentin Tarantino? This. The script written by Tarantino is an authentic carnage that massacred not only a random number of extras but also popular culture.
Ever since the mass media appeared, alarmist and high-sounding voices have occasionally emerged to warn of the enormous dangers they pose. Over the decades, criticism has echoed around the appreciation for what is violent or has sexual connotations. I agree with some, if not most, of the criticisms, although I cannot accept people being considered stupid enough to start carrying out massacres or sexual orgies just because of what they see on certain TV shows. The vast majority of people do not allow themselves to be influenced in this way, and those who allow this already have, a priori, an imperative need for psychological support.
The film starts from this premise to create a bizarre story in which a terrible couple of killers, bloodthirsty and sadistic to an extreme point, end up being transformed into authentic “pop” superstars, with legions of fans, interviews and a public frenzy around them. their violent acts, and the heartless hunt that the police carry out against them. I appreciate the satirical tones given to the film, which shows a society where everything that in a normal world only deserves to be execrated is worshiped. However, by taking this path, it is part of the “problem” and is so extremely violent that it bothers any human being with a minimum of compassion.
Everything in this film has Tarantino's touch, implicit in a latent hysteria present in almost everything: the direction is raw, rude, the soundtrack is intrusive, and the editing uses brutal, fast cuts and scenes that an epileptic would not be able to handle, including sudden cuts of black-and-white films, TV news and other materials. The visual effects are of excellent quality, but eye-catching. The fast-paced action transforms the film into a race through a world of extreme violence, histrionic and unpleasant characters, and incessant noise. The dialogue is written to be shouted rather than spoken, and the heavy use of swear words may make some people's ears ring.
There is a very strong cast in this film that deserves to be highlighted for the superb work it gives to the audience. Woody Harrelson is convincing and appropriately sadistic in his role, which is one of the most brutal and impactful of his career to date, and Juliette Lewis, despite not being particularly “sexy” as required by the character, is believable, intelligent and pleasantly naughty. Robert Downey Jr., who was still far from the stardom he achieved in recent years, is truly devastating in the final part of the film and Tommy Lee Jones, an always competent veteran, is suitably crazy, as if he no longer has a sense of reality and had no fear of abusing the powers with which he was invested. Tom Sizemore ends up being the most restrained actor among those that the script most favored.

Thirty-odd years later, and this is still a classic piece of cinema. It all centres around best pals "Thelma" (Geena Davis) and "Louise" (Susan Sarandon) who are a bit bored with their respective fellas and set off on a drive. Stopping off at a roadside bar, things get out of hand when the latter woman shoots dead a man trying to rape her friend. Now it's a dark car park and they had been drinking and dancing with this guy all night, so circumstances being what they are - the girls decide discretion is the better part of valour and off they drive. Not long after, Harvey Keitel's dogged police officer "Hal" shows up and pretty soon the girls are on the run. They have to stay one step ahead of their pursuers, find a way to get some cash and decide what to do with the hunky "J.D." (Brad Pitt), an hiker who has hitched his team to their wagon - much to the delight of "Thelma" - en route to safety in Mexico (just not via Texas!)! It's a film about self discovery I suppose, but really it is an entertaining romp from two women letting the badger loose. Pitt provides the now legendary eye-candy in his 501s and the whole things demonstrates a light-hearted criminality reminiscent of "Bonnie and Clyde". There are plenty of laughs to be had, the performances all round are engaging and charismatic and it's full of attitude. If I'd been on a jury - they'd have walked!

***Entertaining but tragic road flick with Sarandon and Davis***
Two women from Arkansas (Susan Sarandon & Geena Davis) become fugitives and travel through the Southwest pursued by authorities (Harvey Keitel & Stephen Tobolowsky). Brad Pitt plays a cowboy drifter while Michael Madsen and Christopher McDonald are on hand as the beau and hubby of the women.
"Thelma & Louise" (1991) is an iconic crime drama/road movie spiced with a few thrills. It’s entertaining, but not really empowering for females, unless making rash, stupid decisions and ruining your life is empowering. It’s amusing, dramatic and scenic, yet ultimately tragic.
Sarandon was 41 during shooting while Davis was ten years younger. Both look great, but their characters are a bit of a turn-off during the opening reel, especially the ditzy Thelma (Davis), yet they win sympathy as the movie progresses.
The film runs 2 hours, 10 minutes, and was shot in Southern Cal and Utah, as well as Bedrock, Colorado.
GRADE: B

Ok, this movie is pretty dated compared to modern sci-fi movies, but try to keep in mind it was first released back in 1994. This film is worth its salt simply by the virtue of being unique. To my knowledge, there hasn't been another movie to tackle this subject, and you have to admit the whole idea of extraterrestrial life building the great pyramids is pretty damn intriguing. I'm a big Kirt Russell fan but, unfortunately, he looks like he was utterly bored while making this movie.

Like so many other movies this one has been politicized in some of the more negative reviews because...well, I really can't say,I honestly have no clue what Stargate has to do with international politics...at all.
Ostensibly it's because it is the American Military meets folks still living like its Ancient Egypt and kill their god that critics are objecting to on IMDb...
...Forgetting, of course, that their god enslaved them all.
I am further to the left than most people I've met and...I just don't buy that this has ANYTHING to do with politics.
I think this flick was pitched as "Indiana Jones meets Star Wars" and I am 100% certain that it was made to be Indiana Jones Meets Star Wars.
And of course they can't name it that so they called it "Stargate" And I am going to review it like it was meant to be reviewed.
This film is Indiana Jones meets Star Wars. It was made to be a hit, in fact, it should have been a far bigger hit than it turned out to be.
I mean, just the concept makes me want to watch it all over again...It's the same concept as "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" except they remembered that Indiana Jones has no place in the world of Aliens.
In fact I would have even loved the TV show if, you know, all the Alien worlds they visited didn't look a lot like Canada.
All you have here is a really fun action adventure sci-fi movie that doesn't try to make any statements. It is just fun.
Stop putting politics into pulp trash.

I've seen this movie a couple of times over the years and while it's entertaining enough, there was always something holding it back. It's got some creativity, a decent cast with Kurt Russell and James Spader and the premise of a portal to another part of the universe is interesting (and more than enough to spawn a couple DTV movies and a couple TV series), but can't really put my finger on why. **3.25/5**

"_What's so great about the truth? Try lying for a change, it's the currency of the world._"
Unpleasant people: The movie! I couldn't believe I hadn't seen this yet and now that I have I have 2 thoughts. First thought is that these 4 really did acted their parts well in this and second... I felt nothing for them by the end.

Writer "Dan" (Jude Law) likes to spend his evenings, when not with his American girlfriend "Alice" (Natalie Portman), teasing other blokes on sex-chat sites. One night he sets up doctor "Larry" (Clive Owen) with a promise to meet at the aquarium with "Anna". The horned up physician duly turns up, only to discover that meantime "Dan" has vengefully despatched the real "Anna" (Julia Roberts) - his part time lover/photographer, to unknowingly meet him instead. Embarrassed looks, sighs and "Larry" feels like a prat but, maybe the outwardly rather aloof "Anna" is interested? What now ensues is all a bit entertainingly far-fetched as an unwitting ménage-à-quatre emerges, becoming increasingly more intimate, then loving, then manipulatively toxic. Are any of these people destined to find happiness with any of the others. Quite frankly, do they deserve it and do we care? I've always found Owen as wooden as a washboard, but here - especially sharing the screen with an on-form Portman, he actually seems to be able to act (a little). His character, I found, comfortably the most odious of the four. Portman is the star of the show, though. Her portrayal of the needy sex kitten vacillates from provocative to desperate with a compelling ease. There's frequently some vitriol in the writing and the juggled storylines well paced as this story of unlikeable people moves along quickly. I think this might work well on stage, it has a characterful intensity to it, but on screen it's well worth a watch - even if it's all a pretty grim appraisal of human behaviour.

**Menage a Quatre**
You may like _Closer_ because of its flawed characters and their doomed relationships. I like it because it's square. The assorted combinations of love and friendship, scorn and resentment, among two males and two females are literally geometrical. Typically, the dependable love triangle pits three characters together, often a heterosexual convention establishing a male lead zig-zagging between two females, or a female lead choosing between two male suitors. What if we include an extra character? How many triangles can be made with four individuals? Four! And _Closer_ expertly covers them all. Next time you see it, draw out a square with each character occupying a corner. Then connect each of the couplings and triangles as they occur, beginning with Julia-Jude-Natalie. Jude falls for Natalie, introduces her to Julia who gets intimate with her camera. The Jude-Clive-Julia triangle is a clever one. Clive is introduced when Jude seduces him online pretending to be Julia who he meets at the aquarium. Often when a movie script or stage play adheres to a strict formula, it turns out flat and predictable. Not _Closer_. Applying a quadrangular network forces each character to cover all the bases, tagging up every way possible, pushing each juncture to the limit.

Where do I start? Not since Derek Jarman at his most outlandish, have I seen so many people leave a screening mid-film. With Jarman that was almost certainly because his style of film-making and storytelling had a profoundly polarising effect; not so here - it was purely, and simply, because the film is terrible. I have always struggled to quite get why Ian McShane (a bit like Clive Owen) gets film roles - he always comes across as "Lovejoy" what ever the part is. Harbour and Javovich bring nothing to the party, either. I think this is my turkey of the year (and possibly last year, too). It would have to be an exceedingly long flight before I would recommend anyone go near this dross - and make sure you drink the bar dry, first!

Horrible.
"If humans didn't kill monsters, maybe monsters wouldn't be that bad."
I guess, maybe, the good thing I can say about this movie is that, if you are part of the "everything has to be political all the time," crowd...it injects the obligatory The Last Jedi woke politics...just to make sure everyone won't complain that there wasn't a political injection in a super hero movie.
But then, that's kind of a trope of all bad movies lately.
Really though, from the start it makes a point to bore the audience to death with not one, but fiver separate introductions that drag on for far to long and introduce us to concepts and characters that have, well, absolutely nothing to do with the movie.
And then to rush it's way through the second act--that the audience probably would have been interested in if they hadn't rushed their way through it, assuring that, by the time the conclusion comes around everyone is sufficiently bored and irritated enough not to care or really even be amused at what should be the bulk of the action and the most exciting part of the film.
In other words, it's the type of movie that people are tempted to walk out of.

I went into this movie with low expectations. Ron Perlman was my perfect Hellboy. David Harbour was so good I hardly noticed a difference which is saying a lot. I think David put in a lot of research and work into trying to be a little bit like Ron but he also made this part very much his own. I actually found myself liking his version so much better because it felt more solid. It captured the spirit of what hellboy is supposed to be. I truly did enjoy this movie from start to finish. Beautiful visuals, story was very decent, the lore was very interesting... I would recommend this movie for anybody who liked the previous Hellboy movies even if you like Ron as Hellboy please consider giving David a chance because he kills it in so many good ways.

If Guillermo del Toro’s version of Hellboy is the imaginative grand symphony, this version is the discordant heavy metal little brother. Based on “The Wild Hunt” and “The Storm and the Fury” storylines in the comics doesn’t save it, either.
Lacking the Del Toro’s vision, the character and monster designs are pedantic at best. David Harbour plays the titular infernal hero and while at first the costume design seems grittier than Ron Perlman’s Hellboy, it becomes clear very quickly that, while Perlman became the character and almost seemed to meld with his costume, Harbour seems to be fighting his costume. It’s like watching one of the most uncomfortable and anxiety-ridden wrestling matches one can imagine. I kind of felt sorry for Harbour as he’s a good actor with the right material, but he got handed such terrible material to work with. To his credit, it’s clear that he does try to sell it, but when you’re selling crap, it’s still crap.
The characters come off more as caricatures. Their relationships are so basic and one-dimensional even if they exist that we find that we don’t really care. And that’s the major problem. The stakes aren’t built up enough to make us care. It’s a good versus evil comic-book film and we don’t really care whether the good guys live or if the bad guys win. Making the audience care and identify with the characters should be the bread and butter of “Hellboy.” Instead, we’re given a cracker and told to run along and play.
Don’t bother unless you are a major fan of the comics or the actors and simply HAVE to see it. Even then, you might want to consider steering clear as it could taint your love for these.

I may not be a big fan of Guillermo Del Toro (talented filmmaker but I don't stand at attention with his every project), yet his visual flair was on display with 2004's Hellboy, something that was sorely lacking in this reboot. Also lacking was Ron Perlman's stellar charm, something David Harbour, fine actor and all, didn't possess underneath the comic-accurate make-up and prosthetics. But beyond all that, this was an ugly movie with no creativity and, quite frankly, outright dull at times even during the action scenes. It was only two hours but felt so much longer, happy to see it flopped at the box office.

I don't really get the intense vitriol directed at the 2019 _Hellboy_. I mean it's not especially good, it's certainly worse than both del Toro movies, but the absolute dogpiling it got doesn't seem 100% warranted to me. There does seem to be a lot of mismatches in the developmental process that are very apparent in the final product though.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Despite the less than stellar ratings this movie has received I have to say that I quite liked it actually. It is a much more violent, gory and adult movie than the previous Hellboy movies and this is probably contributing a lot to my appreciation of it. I so dislike when they dumb down a story or character just because the bean counters think they can get more kids to watch it and thus make more money. Or worse, because they want to cater to the easily offended whiners.
This movie starts off already in the first scene where the language make it clear the easily offended should have stayed home. It continues in the same manner. It is indeed a quite violent movie with a lot of gory effects. At least for a movie based on a “regular” US comics book character. When the big demons are released towards the end of the movie and the human casualties mount the movie becomes quite inventive in the various gory ways a human can be killed.
Then we have the scene with the “birth” of Hellboy which is, luckily, fairly true to the original story and shows not only Nazis but doesn’t resort to any SJW dumbassery and tries to obfuscate parts of the Nazi uniforms. Instead the swastika is displayed as it should be. That should be enough to get most SJW whiners to shit themselves. Needless to say there is not much politically correct preaching in the movie either which is a relief.
The story is fairly okay. Nothing really to write home about but not really bad either. The action is, obviously, quite good. Hellboy himself is played fairly well by David Harbour and Ian McShane is not bad at all as Professor Broom. Milla Jovovich never really shined as The Blood Queen though.
There are a few things that where not stellar as well though. That warthog looking changeling which played a central part of the movie was often just ridiculous and the outburst by Hellboy and rant about why humans and demons could live in piece or something was completely unnecessary. Also, I felt that Hellboy was on the receiving end of the clobbering a bit too much. It was really not until the six-month-after scenes at the very end that he really displayed the self confident ass-kicking character that I would like to see him as.
Anyway, I quite liked the movie and it’s a shame that it didn’t get better ratings. That Rotten SJW tomatoes gave it shit ratings was expected of course although even with their new censored user rating system they didn’t manage to get their “audience” to get in line with their “critics”. 17% critics rating while over 50% of the audience gave it a rating of six or more. Big fail again RT.
The after scenes made it quite clear that they hoped for a sequel but with the poor performance I do not think that will happen. A shame if you ask me.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
Guillermo del Toro's pair of Hellboy movies were always pretty acclaimed by both critics and audience. So, if a reboot was in the works, it had to be way different from the originals or, at least, capable of separating itself from them. Neil Marshall's film is definitely distinct, but not in a good way. Sadly, this is one of the worst movies of the year, so far. David Harbour tries super hard to bring this story to safe haven, but his outstanding performance can't fight back all of the painfully long and repetitive exposition dumps, an editing worthy of a Razzie Award (if they had such a category), and cringe-worthy comedy bits.
The trio of writers failed in almost everything. Even Hellboy, as a character, becomes a caricature of himself at one point. Milla Jovovich, who is not a bad actress at all, offers such an over-the-top display that only comes off as cliche, cheesy, and the complete opposite of menacing. Obviously, her extremely villainous script doesn't help. Sasha Lane (Alice) is the only one who actually portrays a likable character (excluding the protagonist) and delivers a compelling performance. Daniel Dae Kim is also good as Ben Daimio. Unfortunately, a talented cast is not enough to overcome the undeniable screenplay issues, which tells a convoluted story, filled with heavy exposition through annoying flashbacks (I lost count of how many there are).
The rock'n'roll score doesn't always work, becoming uneven and making some transitions just weird. However, credit where credit is due, it does make the action sequences a lot cooler. There are some great action moments where Hellboy shines, but overall they are ruined by sloppy editing. Honestly, I don't know how Marshall can direct such beautiful one-take fights (or "stitched one-take" sequences, like one towards the end) and horribly edited ones in the same film, so many times. The visual effects disappoint as much as they impress, but Hellboy's makeup and costume are, at least, on-point. In the end, the story and the characters are the two pillars of any movie, and Hellboy fails to deliver a well-written and captivating adventure, as well as compelling characters.
All in all, Hellboy is a huge misstep in Neil Marshall's filmmaking career and he's going to have to work hard to get another opportunity at a blockbuster. His film is already suffering losses at the box-office, which proves that the interest in the reboot of this franchise is not big enough to warrant a sequel. Admittedly, it has its good moments and David Harbour embodies his character seamlessly, carrying the movie for as long as he can. Nevertheless, a good cast and some occasionally cool action sequences are not enough to fight back writing issues, uneven soundtrack, cheesy comedy, heavy exposition dumps, and the worst editing I've witnessed this year, so far. It's a headache that most people might not find worthy of the price of admission...
Rating: C-

Brilliant and full of action!

It’s criminal how underrated Battle LA really is.

Most underrated film ever.

**Battle: Los Angeles is a grounded and well-done invasion movie that tells its story with a realism unique to the genre.**
Battle: Los Angeles is excellent! I am baffled by the low Rotten Tomatoes score and bad reviews. Battle: Los Angeles tells a gritty and realistic story of what it might actually look like if otherworldly extraterrestrials invaded. There aren’t any larger-than-life characters like in Independence Day - just courageous soldiers fighting to save the lives of everyone they hold dear. The realism makes this movie feel like Black Hawk Down with aliens. Even with this film being over a decade old, the clever use of CGI doesn’t feel overly dated and looks better than many films today. Aaron Eckhart leads these heroic marines with a strong, authentic, powerful performance anchoring the rest of the cast and the movie. Battle: Los Angeles has its flaws, but this war/sci-fi blend is done in a way, unlike any other invasion film. Don’t get caught up in the reviews. If you enjoy alien movies and invasion films, give this movie a shot.

Click here for a video version of this review: https://youtu.be/kdUtKcM4rJA
_Battle: Los Angeles_ is a 2011 film that Wikipedia describes as a “military science fiction apocalyptic action film”. That’s a lot of genres mashed into one movie, but boy do they pull it off. So what’s this all about then? Here’s the official description:
_The Earth is attacked by unknown forces. As people everywhere watch the world's great cities fall, Los Angeles becomes the last stand for mankind in a battle no one expected. It's up to a Marine staff sergeant and his new platoon to draw a line in the sand as they take on an enemy unlike any they've ever encountered before._
I originally saw this in a theatre when it came out, and just like back then, this second viewing was a real good time. What I think makes this so good is that while this is basically a sci-fi movie about an alien invasion, what makes it stand out from the crowd is that it's put together like a war movie. Much like _Monsters: Dark Continent_ and _Dog Soldiers_ this is a soldier movie with aliens, not an alien movie with soldiers. This is quite a big difference.
There are some familiar faces in this, there's Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez, Michael Pena, and a very young Joey King. Everyone is in good form, but this isn't a star power movie, its a blow your hair back action film.
The story itself is pretty simple. Their first mission is to get to a police station and rescue some civilians. On the way there its full of urban warfare like you’ve seen on many videos from overseas in YouTube videos, but this time it’s in America amongst a very familiar looking urban environment. The focus then shifts to a search and destroy mission and it all winds up to an action packed finale. Adding to the chaos all along the way was the film-makers choice to not give you a super clear look at the enemy. It adds another level of tension to it all.
This is a great turn off your brain type movie that cracks along at a good pace and has lots to entertain you all the way through.

When it comes to violent film - I'm divided.
I don't go out of my way to watch movies about actual, historical battles, because I know that real people died (or were physically or mentally crippled); sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, mothers and fathers . . . even children. The prospect of of reliving those tragic (even if heroic) deaths is too painful for me.
And yet, give me an alien invasion and I'm "all up in that".
I find the fantasy of war exciting, and yet I have to be aware of how such films glorify violence; glorify war. I'm conflicted, enjoying this guilty pleasure.
I'm a little surprised by the low rating.
Have there been too many movies of this sort? a burnout by the viewing public? A burnout - when it comes to war? Another sign that we might be a war-weary nation / world?
As for me, I don't watch a lot of flicks, so I'm not "burnt out" when it comes to military action films. So, this was not "same-o, same-o" for me.
I thought the script was impressively tight. That applies to character development as well; quick snap-shot profiles; a glance, a nod and you had pretty much all you needed to know about this or that character.
I'm not a fan of the "shaky-cam", but I thought it was well employed in some of the battle scenes. I've never been in such a situation, but I think the camera gave us that sense of heart-pounding, out of control terror that being shot at and bombed can produce; often no knowing even where the fire is coming from as you hunker down and question your very soul.
Yes, this is a familiar theme - seasoned tough old lifer in charge of a bunch of kids - typical of many such films (Heartbreak Ridge comes to mind; many more).
I wonder, also, if there is more of a connection with military vets; something the civilian population can never really get (no offense; just fact; I served but never got shot at)?
From my experience, I thought the military portrayal was pretty spot on (military gear, tactics, fallibility, rank, age differences, rancor, "I got your 6", sense of duty and dedication to mission; never give up, never surrender).
Predictable formula script? sure, in some ways, but I found plenty of surprises as well.
Maybe if I watched this sort of film all the time, I'd be as cynical as many here.
I really enjoyed this film (gave it 8/10; probably would have given it 7 1/2, but it deserves better than what I see others giving it).
Recent revelations from sources such Bigelow and Elizondo, have all but confirmed that we are being visited by aliens. And, who knows, maybe they will decide to harvest our water before we contaminate it any further, as we creep and crawl closer and closer to our own nuclear annihilation.

Surprisingly great watch, will likely watch again, and do recommend.
My expectations of this one were rock bottom: I honestly didn't think much of the trailer. I thought they were ruining "The New Warriors", my mistake, and I didn't realize they gender bent a character I was already familiar with. (Moonstar is basically another guy character from "The Initiative" in Marvel Comcs)
What is really interesting, and NEVER ADDRESSED is what the facility is, who runs it, and what the point is. There just aren't answers to be had so simply during an uprising. Honestly worst part of the movie, but unless you're paying too much attention, you probably won't even notice.
The characters are deceptively interesting, to the point where I was actually surprised at certain points, but they are what makes the movie. The discovery of the characters, they're evolution as a team, and their personal struggles are what makes the movie great.
It is also FILLED with action after a certain point, beautifully rendered and weighted combat with something somewhat meaningful behind it.
If you're into super powered action on any level, then give this a watch.

As both a horror and X-men fan, I was looking forward to this mashup since the first trailer dropped. Even recently with mostly bad reviews and press, I wanted to see it for myself.
And ... it pretty much sucked. That doesn't bode well for future work from Josh "The Fault in my Stars" Boone (e.g. "The Stand" mini-series.
We pretty much know the gist from the trailers. Young mutants are haunted/harassed by something in a mental hospital.
The best parts are pulled from the X-men series in which mutants first find out their powers, typically represented effectively on screen. Most times these scenes are fun, but the special effects are a mixed bag, jumping back and forth from decent to cheesy.
Most of the ensemble cast are relatively new up-and-coming stars such as Maise Williams ("Game of Thrones"), Anya Taylor-Joy ("The Witch/Queen's Gambit"), and Charlie Heaton ("Stranger Things") but the acting is mediocre, and worst of all, they butcher whatever accent they are supposed to have (Irish, Russian[?], and U.S. southern respectively).
And the story -- disappointing to say the least.
If you drop your expectations to a bad 90 minute "Buffy the Vampire" episode, then maybe you'll find something to like.

The problem with The New Mutants is that it fails in so many different areas that's its difficult to pin point why it's such a bad movie. If you're a X-Man fan you'll be disappointed by the main characters mutations, if you're a thriller fan you'll be disappointed by the villain.
**When to watch:** The only scenario I would recommend you watch this movie is if you are die hard fan of one of the actors (Even still you might be disappointed)
**How to fix this movie:**
1. Replace the villain, stop trying to make this a weird horror crossover and focus on what made X-Man good to begin with. A PROPER VILLAIN.
2. Far to much focus on the poorly written backstory for each main character.
3. Make the Mutations better! The super powers should make the audience want to be them.
4. Cut the cheesy dialogue and pick a clear genre, this is a toss up between, Sci-Fi, Action, Horror, Romance, Cheesy B Level Movie.

Just like 'Dark Phoenix', Fox's greatest loss is Disney's greatest gain: even as 'The New Mutants' opened, the discussion was already focused on how Disney's MCU is bound to resuscitate 'X-Men'. That's a shame because Josh Boone's relic from a defunct franchise, unceremoniously dumped in cinemas in the middle of pandemic, was a step in a potentially interesting new direction.
- Jake Watt
Read Jake's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-the-new-mutants-an-enjoyably-small-scale-superheroic-character-piece