Pleasant film.
'Soul' didn't connect with me on any deep level, but it is an undoubtedly sweet film. It attempts a lot of heart and I respect that. Jamie Foxx has been in some of my favourite films and he is good as Joe here. I also like the casting of Graham Norton as Moonwind.
One thing that probably stopped me thoroughly enjoying this is the animation and character design, particularly when in the "Great Beyond". It's not that it looks bad, or anything close, but I just found it a bit too plain. I never felt attached to any of the characters or settings there. I did, though, enjoy the sounds and music, especially in the aforementioned afterlife area. They do do that nicely.
It's definitely a good film and one with a nice and honourable message, I just needed that something extra to enjoy it more personally.

Really good watch, would watch again, and can recommend.
I'll have to admit, I went into this thinking it would be Disney's yearly racist progressive attempt, so the bar was pretty low.
The movie is actually delightful, and shockingly deep. The title indicates it has to do with the human soul, so I was expecting something along the lines of "Inside" or having to do with jazz, and while it has a rather nice combination of those two things, the attempt on the deep inner workings of the universe in the "inbetween" is incredible.
I imagine everyone will have their own interpretations of what the movie represents mechanically, but the story itself focuses on the pursuit of dreams and happiness combined with the experience of life.
The movie animation is fantastic and the voice actors are all top shelf. The story is awesome, and the characters are strong, deep, and interesting. I find it hard to believe that anyone would actually not like the movie.
The structure is a little basic for something so fantastical, but I think that's by design to keep appeal to most audiences that expect a general family Disney format.

Soul is the latest effort by Disney Pixar, a beautiful and wonderful film that will leave anyone to ponder about life, its value and the magic inherent in existence.
The film tells the story of a man who accidentally falls into a ditch and "dies". However, he does not accept his death and begins a journey into his own afterlife until he is able to reunite with his body, in a coma on earth.
For a children's film, Soul is surprisingly deep, perhaps even too deep, especially for a child. The film touches on various existential themes, from purpose to the meaning of life, and will make us lose ourselves in thoughts about our own life.
The characters are a marvel, especially the protagonists, because they are complete with complex layers that give us all kinds of feelings. The voices that bring them to life do an excellent job in making all the emotions that pass through them appear.
When it comes to animation, once again Pixar exceeds itself and brings us a film that is a living work of art, each frame a beautiful picture of colours and movement that extends for two hours. It's really magical to see life on the small screen, the realism in some of the scenes will leave the audience really amazed.
The smaller ones, however, may not understand the complexity of the film, and I don't feel that this is exactly the most entertaining film that will make them pay attention in 100% of the scenes, much due to the fact that it is not necessarily as energetic as many of the most watched animated films in recent years. It is, however, a valuable lesson that is present in the film, and letting children try to understand it will be the right choice to make when viewing Soul.
All in all, this effort by Pixar is worthwhile, wonderful, beautiful and moving. The truth is, I found myself reevaluating my whole life and pondering the fact that time is money, because time is life.

In a year where most of us have been trapped indoors, the timing of 'Soul's' release can be seen as either a blessing or a curse. For some, it will act as a calming balm for a tough year; the perfect vehicle for inducing a good cry. Others, on the other hand, may reject it as yet another unnecessary mirror held up to their biggest fears exacerbated by a year where living with perceived “purpose“ has been near impossible. No matter which side of this you fall on, 'Soul' implores you to find beauty and gratitude in your circumstances. There is no doubt that is by far the best film Pixar has released in years - possibly even this decade.
- Ashley Teresa
Read Ashley's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-soul-pixars-finest-work-in-years

This is my favorite Disney Pixar movie, even beating Monster's Inc!
There wasn't a minute where I wasn't enjoying the movie, there's very powerful meaning to this movie (that will go over kids' heads) and for once, it (in my opinion) tackles an issue big with teens and adults more than kids (at least more than usually).
The movie's message is (from what I understood it anyway) about anxiety, sadness, and fear of how you choose your life path. Even going as far as showing how you're so-called purpose in life may not even be correct (or real to begin with).
This is by the creators of Inside Out, which gave really good messages across about feelings. It was more kid-oriented, so Soul (in my opinion) being more about teens or adults was a surprise that I did not expect. I'm not saying this isn't a kids movie, I'm saying you shouldn't avoid it if you're not a kid.
It probably helps this movie that it's got it's messages across with Music as an instrument (get it?), as I too love music heavily including all kinds of genres (seriously, if you saw my YouTube music history you would think I'm somewhere between a 5-year-old girl, to a 101-year-old Beatles fan).
I seriously recommend giving this one a watch.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
Out of my Top15: Most Anticipated Movies of 2020, eight were removed from this year's schedule due to the current global pandemic, so I didn't have that many films for which I felt incredibly excited. I love pretty much everything that Pixar puts out, and at the start of 2020, I noticed that the studio was releasing not one but two original animated movies, something quite uncommon in their history (only happened in 2015 and 2017). Onward was yet another success, but everyone knew Soul was the studio's big gun. December release date means better chances to win an Oscar, and the highly anticipated return of Pete Docter (Monsters Inc., Up, Inside Out) to the director and writer's chairs also elevates the film's expectations.
I'm no different. My expectations were high as the sky, but the main question in my mind wasn't really if Soul was going to be a great movie, but if it would be so good I'd love it more than Wolfwalkers, my favorite animated flick of the year so far? Well, let me write that it's a wonderful, beautiful, heartwarming tie. I love them both very much, and I wouldn't be surprised if I saw them in my Top10. However, this is Soul's spotlight, so let me get to it, and spit out the only minor issue I have with the film. During the first act, I couldn't feel a connection to the story nor the characters. It took me a while to really get fully invested in the narrative, and even technical aspects such as the animation style and the score (Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross) felt weirdly out-of-place and surprisingly not that enthralling.
Nevertheless, this slow, unconvincing beginning doesn't negatively impact the movie overall, as most of these apparently awkward components improve as time goes by. From the moment it clicked with me, I went on that emotional rollercoaster I always expect to ride in a Pixar feature. The studio is known for its extremely heartfelt, shocking, tear-inducing third acts, and even though Soul isn't an exception to that rule, it's far from being one of those mind-blowing, jaw-dropping, devastating final minutes. Its third act is astonishingly emotional, and it sends a lovely message to the audience, one that made me reflect on the entire year and a specific moment in my life.
Pete Docter, Mike Jones, and Kemp Powers explore the taboo subject of life's meaning in a predictable yet profound and entertaining manner. The approach on philosophical questions like "what's my purpose?", "what's my spark?", or "what does it mean to have a soul?" is cleverly developed and very well-written. There's a sequence with the protagonist near the end that will make tons of viewers experience it simultaneously. I found myself rewatching this scene in particular to help me remember a certain period in my life where I realized that what I thought was my destiny was, in fact, just one of those life passions that leave us with unforgettable memories.
I was able to deal with that moment pretty well, but many people lose themselves once they figure out that what they thought they were meant to do/be isn't really what the future holds for them. They become lost souls, and only a spark of life can revitalize them. Soul explores this matter in such an authentic, genuine, creative way that I couldn't help but cry as I do in every Pixar film. Watching Soul will make you appreciate life a lot more, especially those tiny, little moments that we forget to remember. Living, with all its horrible phases, is the best life experience anyone can have. After a year of isolation and separation from the people we love, this movie arrives at the perfect time.
Technically, the animation style and score didn't convince me in the first few minutes, but by the end, they're part of the key aspects that made me cry like a baby. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross are starting to become two of my favorite composers (The Social Network, Gone Girl, Mank). Pete Docter proves that his undeniable talent behind the screen remains intact, and this time, he introduces Hollywood to the debutants Kemp Powers and Mike Jones. Jamie Foxx and Tina Fey (22) deliver some terrific voice work, so expect them to receive dozens of nominations. Finally, congratulations to every single artist that worked on this film's animation. These gifted people are the real stars of Pixar.
All in all, Soul is everything I expected it to be. A classic Pixar feature, with the trademark emotionally powerful third act; a heartwarming, sweet, tear-inducing score; and a relatable, profound, well-explored story about our own soul and the meaning of life. Pete Docter delivers another award-worthy flick with the help of Kemp Powers and Mike Jones, and with the outstanding voices of Jamie Foxx and Tina Fey. It may start slow and follow a predictable path, but it's only a matter of time until every viewer connects with the main characters. Soul surpasses the barriers of cinema, becoming a healing media from which people can take away so, so much. It works seamlessly as a reflection on life, and as a motivation to truly live every single moment of it. It's the ideal movie to watch on the morning of Christmas Day with the entire family cozy and warm in the living room. I promise you: it will make you enjoy this festive season a lot more. Undoubtedly, one of the best films of the year.
Rating: A

_One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest_ tells the story of a criminal, Randle Patrick McMurphy (Jack Nicholson), who pleads insanity in the attempt to get a more lenient sentence. Sent to a mental hospital, he livens up the otherwise monotonous lives of the patients, much to the ire of the strict head nurse, Mildred Ratched (Louise Fletcher).
_One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest_ clean swept the Oscars in 1976, taking home the five biggest prizes as only the second film to do so since It Happened One Night.
In reality, it is an extremely frustrating film. Pitched as a "man against the system", McMurphy is clearly written to be chaotic and bring some colour to the otherwise black and white world of the hospital. Meanwhile, Ratched is the oppressive villain sticking regimentally to routine despite the suffering of the patients.
In actuality, the opposite appears true. While McMurphy is disruptive, he often comes across as a bully, coercing the patients against their will. Even as he gains some of their trust, he continues to manipulate until he has a majority behind him. Ratched on the other hand is the voice of reason. While the medical practices are undeniably oppressive by modern standards, she remains cool, calm and collected at all times when dealing with her patients.
That being said, Nicholson does give a career defining performance, fully deserving of his Academy Award. It is often his body language or subtle facial expressions that betray the mischief of McMurphy, and these human qualities cannot be expressed in a script. He switches from the chaos and disorder of a profanity-ridden baseball commentary to the benign friendship of some of his fellow interns with consummate professionalism.
He leads an all-star cast including both Danny DeVito and Christopher Lloyd, but the other standout is debutant Brad Dourif as the stuttering and immature Billy Bibbit. And, whenever the film veers towards bedlam, it is Louise Fletcher - who reportedly took on the role while other bigger names in Hollywood declined it for fear of being cast as the villain - who brings it back to earth with strong and capable acting.
Overall, a mixed bag. Fortunately, the weak characters are more than carried by the superb story and acting.

***The spirit of freedom vs. the spirit of legal-ism***
Set in the early 60s, the story involves R.P. McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) and his arrival at a mental institution in Salem, Oregon (where the film was shot). He plays the "mental illness" card to get out of prison time, thinking it'll be a piece of cake, but he's wrong, very wrong. Everything appears well at the hospital and Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher) seems to be a benevolent overseer of McMurphy's ward, but there are sinister things going on beneath the surface.
"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" (1975) is a film you'll appreciate more as you mature. I saw it when I was younger and, while I thought it was good, I didn't 'get' a lot of the insights the film conveys.
The movie criticizes the way institutions deal with mental illnesses. Their "therapy" is futile and only makes the patients dependent on the institution itself, thereby creating its need for existence (often at the taxpayer's expense). McMurphy is a threat to the establishment and therefore must be "dealt with."
A lot of people criticize the film by suggesting that Nurse Ratched "isn't that bad" or that "she was only trying to do her job", etc. I had the same reaction the first couple of times I saw it. This reveals an aspect of the film's brilliance: Ratched's malevolence is so subtle that the filmmakers allow the possibility for complete misinterpretation. Yes, from an administrative point of view, she seemingly does a good job, she's authoritarian without being sadistic, and she cares for the residents as long as they follow the rules (more on this below). Yet she is demonic as a robotized arm of a dehumanizing system. She maintains the residents in a state of oblivion and marginalization; they are deprived of their dignity because the system sees them as subhuman.
The filmmakers and Fletcher (not to mention the author of the book, Ken Kesey) make Nurse Ratched a more effective antagonist by showing restraint. Compare her to, say, Faye Dunaway's portrayal of Joan Crawford in "Mommie Dearest," which pretty much turned her into a cartoon villain. Ratched isn't such an obvious sadist, yet she uses the rules to tyrannize the men and reduce them to an almost infantile state of dependency and subservience. Her crowning achievement is Billy Bibbit (Brad Dourif).
McMurphy, despite his obvious flaws, is the protagonist of the story. Although he's impulsive and has a weakness for the female gender, which got him into prison in the first place, he has a spirit of freedom and life. His problem is that he needs to learn a bit of wisdom; then he can walk in his freedom without causing unnecessary harm to himself and others.
Nurse Ratched, on the other hand, represents legal-ism, which is an authoritarian spirit obsessed with laws or rules. This is clearly seen in the World Series sequence: Even though McMurphy gets the final vote he needs for his ward to watch the Series Ratched refuses to allow it on a technicality. When McMurphy then PRETENDS to watch the game and works the guys up into a state of euphoria, Ratched reacts with sourpuss disapproval. That's because legalism is the opposite of the spirit of freedom, life and joy. Legalism is all about putting on appearances and enforcing the LETTER of the law (rule). The problem with this is that "appearances" are not about inward reality and, worse, "the letter kills."
Despite his folly and mistakes, McMurphy does more good for the guys in his ward than Ratched and the institution could do in a lifetime. How so? Not only because he has a spirit of freedom and life, but because he loves deeply, but only those who deserve it – the humble – not arrogant abusers. When you cast restraint to the wind and love with all your heart you'll reap love in return, as long as the person is worthy. A certain person hugs McMurphy at the end because he loves him. McMurphy set him free from the shackles of mental illness and, worse, the institution that refuses to actually heal because it needs mentally ill people to exist; it only goes through the motions of caring and healing (not that there aren't any good people in such institutions, of course).
No review of this film is complete without mentioning the notable character of “Chief” Bromden, played effectively by Will Sampson.
The film runs 2 hours and 13 minutes.
GRADE: A

**Subject to the silliest of internet theories**
There are a lot of movie theories but the silliest of all is this nonsense that is all over the internet claiming that _the Chief killed the unresponsive McMurphy because he thought McMurphy was ignoring him._
These idiots claim the Chief did not notice the scars on McMurphy's head and simply thought the unresponsive McMurphy was ignoring him - so the Chief kills him in a fit of rage. Ridiculous.
The Chief killed McMurphy as an act of _kindness_. Chief was releasing McMurphy - a once spirited man now reduced to a vegetable thanks to the control freak, _Nurse Wretched._
This classic movie still holds up after all these years and is a compelling story of blossoming friendships in a lunatic asylum. Nicholson shines in his best performance and is ably supported by Christopher Lloyd, Brad Dourif and Danny DeVito.

Two years before Zodiac, Capote depicted Truman Capote making a fuss about possibly not having an ending for his seminal true crime novel In Cold Blood. Robert Graysmith, on whose non-fiction books Zodiac is based, had no such qualms, nor did director David Fincher. The comparison may be unfair; Graysmith is no Capote (but then, who is?), and In Cold Blood isn’t a whodunit – though technically neither is Zodiac, since after more than two hours we don’t learn who [has] done it so much as who-a-very-small-group-of-people-think-done-it. In a nutshell, this is a movie about a hunch.
The film would work better (and that’s not to say it doesn’t work at all) if it were, like Capote, about a man obsessed with a crime and those who have committed it – especially considering that the Zodiac killings constitute arguably the most famous unsolved murder case in American history; unfortunately, Fincher is what James Randi would have called a true believer, and Zodiac leaves little doubt that the director is as persuaded that Arthur Leigh Allen (John Carroll Lynch) was the Zodiac as he is that Herman Mankiewicz singlehandedly wrote the script for Citizen Kane.
Zodiac is a better movie than Mank, however, because Fincher was more in possession of his faculties in 2007 than in 2020; accordingly, the former film makes a more coherent and convincing case for its thesis than does the latter (and even this we can attribute to the credibility of a very deep roster of skilled supporting players in addition to the rock-solid core of leading men-cum-character actors in the most prominent roles), although it still boils down to a ‘what if?’ scenario. So flimsy in fact is the entire house of cards that the story ends – or rather comes to a halt (lacking, as noted above, a logical conclusion) – on a fallacious note: “Just because you can't prove it, doesn't mean it's not true.” It’d be a lot more reassuring if you could, though.

A great character driven crime-drama with wonderful performances from Gyllenhaal, Ruffalo and Downey Jr. Been a few years since I last saw this one but decided to give it a re-watch (seen it I think five times now including the rated version in theaters and then DVD). Even though it's 2.75 hours, never gets dull and is engrossing through and through, even if the conclusion might not be accurate. **4.5/5**

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
If you've been following me closely for the past week, I'm currently (re)watching five of David Fincher's films in preparation for his next movie, Mank, which premieres on Netflix in a couple of weeks. I've already revisited Se7en and Fight Club, two iconic films that not only profoundly impacted filmmaking but also our culture. However, Zodiac isn't one of Fincher's most popular movies, and maybe that's one of the reasons why I'm watching it for the very first time. Based on a real story, Fincher's first non-fiction adaptation is also one of the longest films of his career. I didn't know anything about the true events before watching this movie, which leads me to the biggest compliment I can offer to this type of film.
There are hundreds of characteristics that a viewer can observe, analyze, and through them, ultimately form an overall opinion about a movie. Nevertheless, when it comes to cinematic adaptations of a true story, there's always one aspect that I value tremendously, which is how much the film convinces me to research about its story after I finish watching it. Truth is, midway through Zodiac, I started to acknowledge its lengthy duration. Don't be mistaken. It's not what people call a "slow movie", much on the contrary. It's long, yes, but it's packed with non-stop, rapid-fire dialogues that Fincher himself asked the actors to speed up so that the runtime wouldn't stretch even more.
Throughout the entire film, I feel the exact same manner as the main characters. For the first hour or so, the case is ramping up, the murders increase in quantity, new developments emerge, just like new suspects, letters, ciphers, and everything that comes with dealing with this serial killer. During this period, I feel extremely captivated, but then comes a phase where the characters themselves start to give up due to the lack of concrete evidence to finally convict a suspect. I feel the frustration, depression, and even the infuriating absence of a clear path to the killer. However, Robert Graysmith's (Jake Gyllenhaal) obsession with the case starts becoming my own, and the last thirty minutes are incredibly stressful, frightful, and enthusiastic.
Zodiac possesses 157 minutes, mostly consisting of talking and only a couple of stylish, slow-motion murder scenes, so obviously, this is a dialogue-driven narrative. James Vanderbilt's screenplay is packed with detailed characterization, extensive conversations, and from what I could gather, an impressive historical accuracy. Fincher and Vanderbilt prove their unbelievable commitment with the mind-blowing preparation for this flick, which basically included an entirely unique investigation on the real case (interviewing the people who give life to the movie's protagonists, family members, police departments, witnesses, etc.). Yet another evidence that supports the importance of the pre-production phase in filmmaking.
So, in case I forget to answer my own question, Zodiac achieved its primary mission. As soon as the film ended, I found myself googling everything about the real case, trying to find out new information, obsessed with the intriguing story. It doesn't even matter if the viewer loves the movie or not, its impact is undeniable since most people will feel the same urgency to understand more about the real case. Two other attributes deeply contribute to this result: the cast and the editing. The latter is performed by Angus Wall, and his work is some of the best film editing I've ever witnessed. It's the main reason why the huge runtime feels adequate and why the narrative moves so well. No wonder almost every job of his got so many award nominations.
Finally, the actors are all extraordinary. Mark Ruffalo (Dave Toschi), Anthony Edwards (Bill Armstrong), Robert Downey Jr. (Paul Avery), and Jake Gyllenhaal portray distinct, well-developed characters who deal with the case in their own way. Obsession is definitely the fundamental social theme present in the movie, depicted differently with each character. Armstrong completely moves on and never looks back. Toschi tries to forget, but he can't accept that he failed to do his job. Avery develops a mental condition and/or addiction due to its inability to deal with the pressure, stress, and frustration of reporting the case. Graysmith lets his total obsession over Zodiac impact his personal life, affecting his family in the process.
Fincher is able to represent each and every one of these behaviors in an astonishingly realistic fashion. The use of long uninterrupted takes helps the conversations flow better, and the simple, non-distracting camera work from Harry Savides lets the viewer focus on who they're listening to. It's one of those films which I can't really point out direct flaws. There's that period during the second act where I start to feel tired and worn out, and despite the irreprehensible dedication to providing every single bit of knowledge about the actual events, it's still an enormous amount of information to process, which made me feel a bit lost occasionally. Fortunately, the movie ends strongly, culminating in a simple yet powerful exchange of looks.
All in all, Zodiac gains the most generous praise that a film based on a true story can ever receive from me. James Vanderbilt's screenplay convinced me to research everything about the real events as soon as the movie finished, which is undeniably an impactful effect of watching such a well-written, captivating narrative with well-developed, authentic characters. David Fincher's commitment to being as historically accurate as possible is visible on-screen, a remarkable result of a massive preparation that very few filmmakers would even think about performing. With some of the best editing work in the history of cinema, the lengthy runtime flows better than expected, but the amount of information to digest is overwhelming and tiresome, dropping the levels of entertainment, especially during a certain period of the second act. Nevertheless, a phenomenal third act, three outstanding performances from Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jr., and Jake Gyllenhaal, and an emotionally compelling, realistic approach to extreme obsession turn the entire film into one of the best of its genre. Another massive recommendation from this side.
Rating: A-

Peerless precision from Fincher.
I have seen it written that this film shows that Fincher had grown up, and whilst I understand that train of thought, it simply isn't true. What Fincher has done is give a true story his meticulous care and standard deft precision by leaving no stone unturned. We get simply one of the (if not thee) best films to deal with the investigating process of a high profile serial killer, a film that as a character study is actually essential viewing in the pantheon of genre productions.
The devilish greatness of this film is in the fact that it can't pay off with a pandering mainstream ending, the makers are telling a true story and any sort of research will lead viewers to the fact that there is no twist here, no joyous ticket selling round of applause at this ending, it is what it is, frustratingly brilliant. The case the film is about consumes all involved with it, and to see how it affects those involved is engrossing (yet sad) because if the viewer is so inclined to jump on board then it will consume you as well, the film and the actors within demand you see this for the affecting character piece it is.
The acting here gives me hope that classic acting is alive and well in this generation, I was once not enamoured with Mark Ruffalo in his early days as an actor, but here he puts such heartfelt verve into the role of David Toschi I felt I need to send him a written apology!. Robert Downey Junior is joyous as Paul Avery, all 60s chic and swagger without tipping over the edge of the mountain caricature (both men to become future Avengers of course). Yet surprisingly to me I found that it is Jake Gyllenhaal as Robert Graysmith who is the film's key axis, the central heartbeat, with a performance that demands undivided attention, a performance brought about by Fincher's quest for perfection from everything to do with film making. Gyllenhaal hated working on the film, he hated Fincher's work ethic, but in time he must now look back and see that here the director coaxed out a performance that has in time been seen as not only great, but also beneficial to his career (hello Nightcrawler).
This is not Se7en 2, and British film mags like Empire should have known better than to use that tag line to get the readers' attention, because fans of serial killer thrillers need not apply here, fans of outstanding cinema about the human psyche during the pursuit of a serial killer - Well get in line folks, for this is one of the best movies of the decade. 10/10

The Marine's don't want robots - they want killers.
This is the journey undertaken by Private "Joker" J.T. Davis, from brutal training camp to Vietnam itself.
As most people know by now, Full Metal Jacket is divided very much into two different halves, halves that to me show the best and worst of the talented director, Stanley Kubrick. For the first part we are subjected to the training regime inflicted on wet behind the ears boys, boys soon to become Marines out in the harshness of the Vietnam War. This is real dehumanising stuff, frighteningly essayed by the brilliance of drill instructor R Lee Ermey's performance. We know, see and feel that the boys are primed to be killing machines, unemotional killing machines at that, with Kubrick astutely weaving the brutality of camp into the moral quandary that was the war itself. One particular recruit, Private Gomer (a heartfelt and unnervingly great Vincent D'Onofrio) is the film, and Gustav Hasford's (writer of the novel and co screenwriter here) point of reference in this incredible first half. It's with this strand that "Jacket" burns itself into the soul of the viewer, to hopefully set us up for what will be Private "Joker's" (Matthew Modine) preparation for the Vietnam conflict.
Then it's that second half...
Where do we go from here? We already know that "Joker" and his mentally brutalised colleagues have been stripped of their basic humanity. Soldiers primed to kill, it's harsh, but true. But Kubrick has already chilled our blood and bludgeoned us repeatedly courtesy of the "Boot Camp" set up. Modine's (who isn't strong enough to carry the picture) "Joker" is now the film's axis, a clever, most definitely articulate character, who is thrust into the murky and muddled battle of the Tet Offensive, yeah and so? All it amounts to is a prolonged series of rationale and philosophical musings on the false war. Kubrick even shifting to safe mode with a clumsy narration segment spouted by "Joker".
Full Metal Jacket is a truly fine film, but it's not the brilliant one it really should have been. If one can take the time to venture deeper with the second half, then it doesn't deliver on the already made point promise of the first part. Technically it's flawless, incredibly designed, with Douglas Milsome's cinematography stunningly effective. But I'll maintain to my final day that Full Metal Jacket finished up as being bloody and pretty instead of being a poignant and horrifying masterpiece. 7/10

Released in 1986, Full Metal Jacket is Stanley Kubrick's film about Vietnam, adapted from a novel by the reclusive and bitter Vietnam veteran Gustav Harford, and then further expanded by acclaimed Vietnam journalist Michael Herr.
The film breaks down neatly into two very different parts, though both are seen through the eyes of young United States marine J. T. "Joker" Davis (Matthew Modine). In the first act, Davis makes his way through Marine basic training with a motley group of other recruits under the hellish command of gunnery sergeant Hartmann (R. Lee Ermey). Joker watches as Hartmann bullies an overweight and dim-witted recruit cruelly nicknamed Gomer Pyle (Vincent D'Onofrio), until Pyle explodes into murderous revenge. In the second act, now set in Vietnam where Joker is doing a tour of duty as a military journalist, the protagonist and his fellow Marines find themselves on the front line during the Tet Offensive and Joker witnesses firsthand the savagery of war.
Few films consist of such drastically opposed parts that differ in setting and tone and don’t have any overlapping characters besides the protagonist (and one minor character from the boot camp scenes). Full Metal Jacket has often disappointed viewers because the first half is so thrilling that it proves a hard act to follow. That's all down to R. Lee Ermey, who actually was a drill instructor during Vietnam and initially served only as a technical consultant before Kubrick decided to let him play the role and improvise. Ermey acts with a white-hot intensity, realism, and brilliantly worded insults and obscenities that no screenwriter could ever have come up with.
As a young man, I too felt that the film was a letdown once it moved past the witty quips and goofy camaraderie of the boot camp scenes. With time, however, my appreciation for the film as a whole has only grown. The two-part structure now seems to be a strong yin-yang structure: the first act is a vision of order, while the second is all chaos. Furthermore, the second half is a moving statement of how war is often senseless. Joker and his squad, while on patrol for an enemy they cannot even identify and whose ideology or culture they know hardly anything of, begin to be targeted by a sniper. Several men perish before the sniper is found and neutralized, and all that death is pointless: it doesn't contribute in any way to victory for either side. The brutality of World War I trench warfare, where dozens of men could perish for merely a foot of conquered ground, is shown to have persisted through the American quagmire in Southeast Asia.
That said, the film does have its flaws. One is the unrealistic depiction of the Vietnamese landscape. Kubrick had a great fear or dislike of foreign travel, and he insisted on shooting the whole film in East London. Having merely a few palm trees shipped in is a poor replacement for a real Southeast Asian shooting location with its humidity and insects, and in the scene that is meant to show a lively Vietnamese town square Kubrick obviously had the same few cars driving around in circles. It's strange how a director who was generally so perfectionist, could be so careless about locales (this only got worse with his next and last film, Eyes Wide Shut, with its inauthentic stage set New York City). There are also some anachronisms that this director and his technical advisors should have noticed.
Still, even a flawed Kubrick film is classic cinema.

**The second half is better than the first half.**
A film of two halves.
The first half of the fiim focuses on the training of raw recruits and features shenanigans we have seen countless times before - think _Stripes_ and _Police Academy_.
The persecution of the fat guy - a scenario we had already witnessed in Stripes and Police Academy ( "_I could show a movie on your butt, fatso_!"- Lt Harris, Police Academy) is here played out to maximum effect. The fat guy who freezes atop a climbing frame is the central plot here with Matthew Modine's character playing second fiddle to all of the _Leslie Barbara_ stuff.
The second half of the movie at least gives us something we were not expecting when a sniper's identity is revealed.
- Ian Beale

I wasn't sure if I was excited to see this movie or not. I loved Hangover Part 1. But sometimes, sequels aren't that good. But we still watched this movie just cause.
It was funny although I think the first movie was funnier. The plot is exactly the same, just a different location. Missing friend, can't remember anything because they were drugged by Allen, guns, sex, the usual. Of course Bradley Cooper was a real eye candy. He should make movies like this more often coz he looks so hot!

Really good movie!
Some editing and musical (same-y tracks, exact same utilization each time) choices aside, 'Kong: Skull Island' is entertaining. Kong looks great, Skull Island is brought to life pretty neatly. The action sequences and visual effects are done to a positive standard. The near 2hr run time is paced well too.
Tom Hiddleston and Brie Larson are a strong match, with John C. Reilly the best of the rest. Samuel L. Jackson's character is a little underwhelming, though Jackson manages to make Preston Packard more memorable than most others actors would've. Elsewhere, John Goodman is his usually reliable self.
The second movie of the "Monsterverse". I watched 2014's 'Godzilla' many years ago without knowing it was part of a wider universe. I didn't actually like that film all that much, looking back at clips etc. to refresh my memory I can see why. Thankfully, this 2017 entry to the franchise is a lot more enjoyable.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
After a pleasant revisit to Godzilla (2014), now comes the time for Kong: Skull Island, the second installment in Warner Bros. and Legendary’s shared cinematic universe. I watched this film at its original release date and never saw it again. Not because I deeply disliked it or anything of that level, but I never felt a strong desire to rewatch it. I remember feeling indifferent towards the movie since it didn't really surprise me in any aspect. If there's one thing no one can complain about MonsterVerse, it's the jaw-dropping visuals that would evolve beyond the wildest expectations as years went by, but even these didn't blow me away completely in this film. Nevertheless, a small part of me had high hopes for this rewatch…
The screenplays of these first two movies are pretty similar concerning their narrative structure. Naturally, most of the runtime is spent with human characters who, in this case, wander around an uncharted land supposedly to perform geologic studies. This time, more monsters are displayed on-screen besides Kong and his main adversary, leading to more action sequences, most in broad daylight, which is a major plus. Basically, any viewer is able to follow every fight, even the ones that happen at night since they're beautifully shot by Larry Fong (DP), who uses fire as a lighting device to produce some wallpaper-worthy images. Kong looks incredible, and the monster fights are utterly riveting.
The monsters' visuals hold up strong for most of the runtime, except when humans get involved. Despite a fantastic scene between Kong and Samuel L. Jackson's character, some of the humans vs. monsters sequences are way too weird. Several feature too noticeable green screen, mixing humans and monsters in close proximity, which didn't work as seamlessly as intended. Still, viewers who complained about the lack of Godzilla in his own flick will be more satisfied not only with the increase of action sequences but also with the main monster's sightings. Kong is a visible, powerful presence throughout the film, and Jordan Vogt-Roberts used him right when the movie needed the big monkey the most.
However, the characters are so hollow, cliche, insignificant, and underdeveloped that the time spent with them is much heavier than in the previous film, which is by far, the biggest problem with this movie. It's true that Godzilla doesn't deliver a perfect balance between humans and monsters, but at least the former group feels like such. From clear motivations to well-defined personalities, the protagonists are quite compelling and captivating, making the third act reach greater levels of excitement and overall impact. The short period of monsters fighting each other is so efficient and feels so good that viewers left the theaters demanding more, but this feeling only arose due to the time spent with the human characters that offered bigger stakes to the last act.
Vogt-Roberts' film features a great cast, no doubt about it, but only John C. Reilly's character gets a decent arc. Therefore, despite spending more time with humans and seeing fewer monsters in Godzilla, Kong: Skull Island feels slower and lazier (so many unnecessary exposition dumps), ultimately transforming the higher amount of action less impactful. In addition to this, a couple of likable characters meet their end in an extremely underwhelming, embarrassingly illogical manner, which always leaves me a bit annoyed. I wish the screenwriters delved more into Kong's story through other methods besides generic exposition, but at least they keep the "balance of nature" overarching narrative from the cinematic universe.
Technically, I already applauded the visuals above, but I'll do it again. Kong truly is a beauty of a monster. Any wide shots of him standing up are outstanding, but the one with the sunset in the background is a gorgeous painting on the screen. Henry Jackman's score is definitely exciting, possessing a memorable Kong's theme music. Tom Hiddleston (Thor films, Avengers: Infinity War) and Brie Larson (Captain Marvel, Avengers: Endgame) make a good duo, but John C. Reilly (The Lobster, Tale of Tales) steals the spotlight. The editing (Richard Pearson) could be a lot better, but overall, it's a well-produced blockbuster, as expected.
Kong: Skull Island doesn't reach the level of the previous MonsterVerse's installment, but it's far from being a massive disappointment. Jordan Vogt-Roberts' sophomore movie follows a similar narrative structure to Godzilla, just with more action sequences (visible and in daylight), more monsters, and a visually stunning Kong. However, most of the runtime stills belong to the humans who, unfortunately, are nowhere near to being as compelling as in the previous film. Except for John C. Reilly's character, everyone else is incredibly hollow, annoyingly cliche, and significantly underdeveloped, making the time spent with them quite heavy. The excessive reliance on lazy exposition scenes also drags the movie, ultimately turning the monster battles less satisfying. Some narrative decisions concerning certain characters are questionable, to say the least, but overall, I believe it still offers what viewers are looking for. Huge praise to Larry Fong's beautiful cinematography and Henry Jackman's addictive score.
Rating: C+

Alright. So i like action movies. I like King Kong. So when you have this idea of having the traditional king kong story made into a action movie about monsters in the skulk island, that sounds like a fcking great idea. The best part of King Kong was all this other monsters in the island. But this film is the first one to tell the story of kong completely from that perspective. What i also really liked was that it was still very human even though its a monster movie. I personally enjoyed it very much like with any other Kong film there is the love angle which is done with brie larson character which i thought was really sweet to put into a movie that concentrates on being a fun movie. And it achieves being a fun movie. I had a lot of fun watching this film. The plot is simple. The vfx is really done well. The action sequences where good. Is it forgettable? Kinda. You have that nice 70s nostalgia around it but it doesn't stay there because after all its all in the island of the world. It was a very fun experience and very satisfying. I didn't get bored with it. It had my attention. It was good. So overall, should you see it? Yes, if you have the time and you are in the mood for an action movie go watch it. It will entertain you for most of its run-time.

**A new dawn. The King has arrived.**
Seems I'm the only one who did not know it was not a sequel to the 2005 film. The Kong was over a 100 feet tall in this, compared to 25 feet from a decade ago. Being a big fan of that film and Peter Jackson, I hated this idea, especially for totally a fresh cast and crew. So I was not expecting it. Only while watching it, I came to know it was a new version. With a new cinematic, a new set of actors, timeline, completely a different kind of tone for a King Kong film that I have ever seen.
They wanted it to be a badass action film than a value added storyline. That does not mean I loved it. It was average. I only enjoyed the nice action-adventures. But the visuals were a more commercialised. I even confused whether did I watched a Hollywood film or an Rajamouli film. You know those terrible methods used for stunt sequences.
The most boring part of this film was the same old formula, which is a set of people enter in a dangerous enclosure and only a few come back alive. A couple of scientist escorted by a military to a mystery island hidden in the mists of the South Pacific to do some scientific research. Soon they come to realise they are in a dangerous place where giant monsters live. After losing some of the soldiers, now it becomes a survival game. But the general is obsessed with a revenge. How the rest of the story folds were told with a battle of the film.
Basically, this film was created to merge two franchises, the rebooted 'Godzilla' with this one. The post end-credit scene gave some important hint about the future of the franchise. But I thought it was too similar to the comedy flick, 'Journey 2: The Mysterious Island'. Usually spoof films were made out of greatest hit films. But it looks like here a reverse case. Though all the actors were good. Nice direction, visuals, music, particularly the sound effects. This film is simply enjoyable and forgettable.
There are many things I did not like. The Peter Jackson film was so artistic. Every frame was like a classic painting. In this, the Kong standing on his two feet, walking around like a man, totally turned me off. The giant ape did not behave like a real ape. Many sequences were also borrowed from many other films, only replaced with different creatures and recreated with a fresh setting. This is a perfect time pass film to have on a weekend. Particularly, if you are a graphile (graphic+phile), you would have a nice time.
_5.5/10_

Yeah. That was an unconventional encounter.
So here we have it, part two of the franchise reinvention of the beloved iconic creatures of cinema lore. After the 2014 redux of Godzilla was something of a tonal misstep, it's unsurprising to find this version of the King Kong legacy going all out blockbuster popcorner, and with that it succeeds - kinda.
Plot is wafer thin, bunch of humans from various professions rock up at the uncharted Skull Island, each with differing levels of interest as to what might be there. Of which they quickly find out is a whole heap of trouble - big trouble!
It's clear that the makers, fronted by director Jordan Vogt-Roberts, are trying to blend crowd pleasing mayhem with thoughtful observations of not only the period the pic is set (1973), but also of man's inherent propensity for stupidity. On the surface, the battles and creature feature carnage in general, are wholly entertaining, but it's sometimes just too ridiculous for its own good. Even worse is that it's shallow, with no real substance of note, particularly where the characters are concerned, rendering a very admirable cast as one note players in the monkey maze.
However, irritants aside, the pic is great fun, with enough excitement and quippy dialogue to make the time spent on Skull Island worthwhile. Be it man versus beasties and the alien terrain they traverse, a popcorn muncher it be. There's some sly humour within (Tricky Dicky Nixon going down), and the nods towards Coppola and Cameron et al are pleasing as punch. You may have to lower expectation levels to not let the problems it has drag you down, and for sure it's not hard to understand why a lot of folk hate it, but it's not a disaster, far from it.
One does hope, though, that the next instalment in this series goes up another couple of notches, for Kong, Zilla and the other monster gods deserve it. 7/10

I really wanted to give this movie a better score but I just could not bring myself to overlook the stupid and crappy story.
Okay, let’s start with the bad. The movie is about a group of explorers exploring this Skull Island. No surprise there. They are accompanied by a military detachment. Somewhat okay still, there is a half decent explanation for that. One of the main characters in the movie is Lieutenant Colonel Packard. At first, I quite liked him, especially when he told off the journalist informing her that they did not loose the war, it was abandoned by the politicians.
However, from then on it goes really bad. Warning, spoilers ahead!
Once on the island Kong is revealed rather quickly. Something that I felt was a bit of a shame. There was no suspense building up for the reveal of the mighty ape. Okay, I could live with that. What I cannot live with is that these total dumb-asses, having discovered a scientific find of unprecedented magnitude, goes straight on to shooting off their guns. What the fuck? Not only that, they just keep shooting and circling around him while he trashes them one by one. That scene, while sporting some impressive action and CGI, was just so fucked up that one wondered if the author deliberately wanted to insult the audience.
From then on I just cringed every time Colonel Packard was in the picture. He was clearly mentally unstable. He doggedly continued to want to kill Kong and used retrieving his men as a poor excuse. This is just the kind of shitty, overused and cliche’d Hollywood script that drives me nuts.
Now, with that over with, the movie was technically quite good. The actors are doing a decent enough job of their roles. The story, excluding the Vietnam references and general let’s make the military look bad old bullshit, was actually not to bad. It was a different take on the King Kong history for sure.
The CGI, the action and the various monsters were very cool. Not surprisingly King Kong was not the only threat on the Island. This time they did not just throw a few dinosaurs in but was rather creative bringing in creatures from all kind of animal (and insect) families as well as some home cooked ones, the skull crawlers.
The scenery is also very enjoyable. Apart from my gripes mentioned above I did enjoy a lot of the movie. However, the military clusterfuck that the script writer threw in there severely diminished my enjoyment of the movie and I cannot really bring me to give it more that a 3+ out of 5 score.

Thought that Peter Jackson's _King_ _Kong_ movie could have done without the entire first act? Though that the _Godzilla_ movie set in the same universe should have shown their big beastie a whole lot more? Well _Skull Island_ fixes those problems, and replaces them with a whole bunch of new ones!
I had a lot of fun though. So it passes into the realm of a positive review by the skin of its octopus-riddled teeth.
_Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go._

Don't let the title and promotional material fool you: Kong Skull Island is more military commentary and homage to Apocalypse Now than simply _another_ King Kong movie. In that sense it brings something new and fresh to the series, and is also very much a period piece--a period that all too recently seemed to be contemporary history, not the distant and unfamiliar past in which the film takes place.
After a prologue set during WWII, the current setting of the film opens in the waning days of the Vietnam War. While plenty of films have explored the war in Vietnam, Kong eschewed using combat or anti-war demonstrations on the homefront as the focal point. The Draft, flag burnings, use of the term "Charlie," etc are all absent from the film. Instead, it takes the unique perspective of war from an elite group of soldiers contemplating going home--back to "The World." While some characters look forward to reuniting with friends and family, the contempt for the army and the war that is seen in other Vietnam movies is also absent. These guys are soldiers and they are proud of that; it means something. Their commander is portrayed as an old war horse who is contemplating a future with no war to fight.
In the midst of all this, two scientists named Bill Randa (John Goodman) and Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins), lobby to have a military escort assist them in exploring an uncharted island. Randa and Brooks assemble their team which consists of tracker James Conrad (Tom Hiddelston) photographer Mason Weaver (Brie Larson) a geologist San (Jin Tian) and a few other scientists not fleshed out enough to even remember.
They meet up with Lt. Col. Packard (Samuel L. Jackson) and the the soldiers we met earlier in the film. With all these convenient characters in place, the movie really begins.
The film shifts gears from being a period piece that goes out of its way--sometimes with distracting effect--to showcase outdated technology (a scene in which the camera pans to a table of rotary phones and then lingers for a few seconds comes to mind), to a Tarantino-esque homage to Vietnam War movies. The cinematography is excellent. Jordan Vogt-Roberts makes good use of the physical environment (coincidentally, Vietnam) and made me realize just how in need we were of a beautiful Vietnam War movie in the age of 4K and Real 3D.
Complete with Credence Clearwater Revival and Jefferson Airplane songs, equipment-laden soldiers marching through swamps, dogtags clinking together, their helmets advertising what they decided to scribble on them, the jolly Green Giant presses on through the jungle--the director's love of Vietnam War movie visuals on full display, the movie moves along with great fun.
However, when the titular character first shows up, the action-packed visuals begin to detract very quickly from the mood Jordan Vogt-Roberts established in the first third of the movie. In the excessive age of more is better, the movie stumbles a bit, threatening to collapse under the weight of its title monster.
Thankfully Kong is reigned in and the human characters are able to command some attention. At this point, the camp is divided in two: Military vs. Civilian. While the Army soldiers are on a rescue mission to bring back one of their own, the civilian folks meet up with the island's native population--including a downed WWII pilot (John C. Reilly) who's been on the island for 30 years. Through him we learn that Kong is a protector of the island. That he is, in fact, not the monster at all.
Packard is not having any of this, of course, because Kong killed some of his men. This is where the movie makes its statement. Kong is the combatant that fights to protect the natives--much the way Packard and his men are portrayed. Packard mentions that soldiers do the dirty work so our friends and family back home don't have to be afraid. In this, Kong and Packard have a kinship--common ground shared by all soldiers: They do the dirty work so you don't have to. Unable or unwilling to see this, Packard decides to wage a personal war against Kong.
This is unwise as Kong protects the island from "Skullcrawlers"--massive lizard-like creatures who would eat any living thing on the island if not for Kong's presence.
The civilians begin to see Kong as not only necessary, but as compassionate and humane. He saves a trapped water buffalo, marvels at the sight of the aurora borealis, and has a brief but tender moment with Conrad and Weaver. He is the soldier whom, during a lull in the battle, is shown as a well-rounded individual, a reminder that being a soldier is something one does; not something one is. This is also true of other soldiers in the film, such as Cole and Mills. Packard, however, has gone off the deep end. A showdown between he and Kong is inevitable, and with Kong out of commission, the Skullcrawlers are able to run amok and create problems for our heroes.
At this point Kong is miraculously resurrected to save the day because the scrip said so. And he does. And the film ends on the sappiest, corniest, and most contrived of happy Hollywood endings.
Where the film works, it works well. Its commentaries on soldiers and soldiering are interesting without being heavy handed. Despite the Vietnam backdrop, Jordan Vogt-Roberts avoids making a commentary about the Vietnam War specifically, avoiding political controversy in the process. The actors make good use of what material they have to turn in decent performances. In a movie with Brie Larson, Tom Hiddelston and Samuel L. Jackson, it's John C. Reilly, Jason Mitchell and Shea Whigham who steal the show. Also, Kong looked terrific. The CGI work is better than what the Peter Jackson remake gave us--though the Skullcrawlers looked laughably cartoonish.
But, the movie has its faults as well. Its parallels to Apocalypse Now can be distracting at times. As is common with ensemble pieces, there are too many characters on the screen for any one of them to get enough screen time to become memorable. Hiddleston in particular had the least material to work with. His character--such as it was--had no depth or personality. He was simply action movie trope. The interactions between Larson and Kong only work because we know that King Kong has always been a Beauty and the Beast tale. It's forced. Giant ape and pretty blonde get along, because it's a Kong movie. For the uninitiated, it could just feel jarring and uneven.
All in all, the film succeeds as a blockbuster to eat popcorn to. Yet it tries, with varying degrees of success, to reach beyond that. While Kong deserves an A for effort, a B- is all it achieves in its execution. Also, the interesting and unique aspect of combining Vietnam War movies with the Kong mythos is highly rewarding for the audience.
Better than average, but still far from perfect.

The Boys on Prime Video is a dark, thrilling take on superheroes that I can’t get enough of. It’s intense, funny, and filled with unexpected twists that keep you hooked. Soldier Boy is my favorite character—his complex, no-nonsense attitude adds a unique edge to the show. And, of course, Butcher’s relentless, gritty personality is second to none. With powerful performances, sharp social commentary, and unforgettable action, The Boys is an addictive ride through a world where heroes aren’t always what they seem.

The Boys started off well enough but any potential it might have had as entertainment, backed by legitimate social commentary, has been quickly astro-turfed by the agenda pedlars.
This series positively oozes woke. If there's a politically loaded pitch to be made, in my opinion, there's a good chance you'll find it here. What I personally found even more odious, in the current season (4) is the belittling of those who question the mainstream. Yes, to question the established narrative is to be a rube, a fool, a bumpkin, a nobody, who waves a flag and blows an air horn.
Of course, ironically the mainstream, especially the mainstream media, have never been more doubted. Small wonder they have taken to dosing peoples entertainment in a clumsily transparent attempt, to lure the "sheep' back into the pen.
Suffice to say, lots of wasted potential here. Decent acting, some excellent idea's, all buried beneath thick cheesy layers of mainstream conformism. Ironically, the complete antithesis of the so called reactionary individualism, allegedly inherent, in the series key characters.
In summary, when ersatz counter culture is a counter for legitimate counter culture. This series started out well but now its subverting nothing. Its just another pitch, for mainstream woke conformism. The fact they need to sell "this hard", for me at least, offers a degree of insight into how many people are actually buying in....

At least it has Simon Pegg in it, who Hugh was based on. And I kind of can't picture the show without his involvement.
It's not as Garth Ennis as I think it should be, it's not as vulgar and offensive and fun as he usually is, and certainly as The Boys was in print... but it comes really close to making that mark, and that is a breath of fresh air given the way that both comic books, and the movies they are based on are going.
Ultimately, it's still vulgar, offensive, bloody and funny, even if it could have been more.
And it's only 8 episodes, which seems a lot like they aren't trying to drag the story out just to add more, and that is also refreshing.
Ultimately, it's a cure for modern comics in a very late 90s British Invasion kind of way

The series had the potential to follow in the footsteps of Watchmen, but woke took over and squelched any objective socio-political commentary that the original comic may have had. Any and all characters in any sort of power position - unless it's the bad guy - is female. It's so obvious and boring a trope that it distracts from the already heavy burden of suspension of disbelief put onto the viewer from being a superhero movie. All characters are equally unlikable scumbags, which may be a part of the original design, but the viewer doesn't know who to root for as the story goes on and more detestable superficiality of the once sympathetic character gets frittered away. Gore and sex are always fun, but in this case the series tries so hard and goes so overboard that anyone who dares to watch the series through might as well have a barf bag on hand.
So much hateful political rhetoric, so much woke, so much racist agenda, so much sexism, that I'm not looking forward to going any further than season 3. Enjoy at your own risk, and even that only if you're on a certain side of the very extremist political spectrum.

For me the whole series is a total and effective satire that lets us see what would become of the world if fiction becomes reality: heroes lose interest in saving the world (or take advantage of its status), are forced to do things that are not right, to follow the company's own interests and do not go out to end the crime if they are not followed by a camera that captures each of their movements, even though they are always transmitting that image of exemplary citizen when in fact they are greedy and treat their fans badly.
It's also chilling to know that people in power act as judges and executioners to decide what crimes are profitable and what millions of dollars they rent their superheroes to other cities so they can be safe. The precision in the denunciation of The Boys is one of its strongest points since satire towards these characters is not new, but combining it with the theme of corporate America and wild capitalism gives it a clear differential touch.
The series is a total hit and is perfectly developed, to the point of making it impossible to miss because chapter by chapter the anguish increases. So if you have free time, I strongly recommend you to watch this satirical series.