Oh dear, poor Russel Crowe. He's a more than decent actor, so its a shame to see him in a film this uninspiring.
Washed up alcoholic actor with PTSD (as a result of church based child abuse) takes on the lead role of priest in an Exorcist horror film, only to become the subject of his own demonic horror.
Its not a great premise to start with not helped at all by its grim back drop of a struggling actor father, with a long suffering daughter, who is forced to adopt a parental role. Its more depressing and sad, than terrifying, adding to the generally leaden vibe, this flick gives off.
The limited upsides include above average acting and production values, including special effects.
In summary, if you have seen The Omen or The Exorcist, you have effectively already seen what is on offer here, just done a whole lot better.

Clearly the Pope wasn't so impressed with Russell's last outing as his exorcist so abandoned the project to some new producers who have decided he might do better as an dissolute actor ("Anthony") cast to play a priest who is an exorcist. Unbeknown to him, though, we know that the studio set is home to a malevolent spirit - who saw off his predecessor (or perhaps he just volunteered) - and is now determined to cause more mischief. Luckily, director "Peter" (Adam Goldberg) has engaged the services of a real priest (David Hyde Pierce) to authenticate the clerical aspects of the film as "Anthony" and co-star "Joe" (Sam Worthington) find their efforts constantly disrupted by his increasingly vivid dreams, lots of bursting light bulbs and the tiniest bit of Satanic body-bopping. There's really nothing at all to recommend this to anyone. It's not original, nor is it funny. The acting is wooden and it appears to have been written by someone who extensively studied the Janet & John book of dog-collar horror and thought it would make an entertaining film. Neither big name here do themselves any favours, and it ends, weakly, not a moment too soon. Perhaps an October/Halloween release might have served it better, but otherwise this is just a derivatively poor exercise on how the mighty have fallen.

It was quite decent movie. Had some flaws with weird music that didn't fit the movie and not very realistic scenes few times, but overall I enjoyed watching it.

"Gunner" has a lot of flaws, including questionable music choices, iffy CGI effects, and reliance on typical action film tropes. However, it still delivers an old-school black ops thriller. Luke Hemsworth shines as the action hero. That being said, only watch if you have 90 min of your time to waste ...

Humane is positively dripping with populist woke agenda's, as touted by mainstream politics and the mainstream media.
Diversity, climate alarmism, married up to clumsy attempts to discredit those who ask awkward, legitimate questions, is absolutely front and centre. How dare anyone suggest Asia is responsible for a decent portion of climate change, such as it is (actually coal powered energy plants, just one example, in places like China, are prolific). That's racism!!! (no its a reasoned argument but feel free to rant on). You get the idea.
Anyway, once the work whinge feast blows over, this torrid affair quickly descends into a "kill or be killed", basic horror survival "experience" that's driven predominantly by empty exposition.
Attempts at black humour fall flat too but then so much else is awful, that's to be expected.
In summary, agenda ridden nonsense that vaguely resembles a horror flick. The only saving grace being decent acting but that's nowhere near enough to fix whats wrong here.

Anthony Robles is a wrestler with ambitions to reach the top of the American collegiate championships. That's going to be more of a challenge for him than most as he only has one leg, but this is not a man who is going to shy away from that challenge. It's a competent Jharrel Jerome who plays him for the dramatic elements of the story whilst it's the man himself doing the far more energetic wrestling aspects and the unremarkalble Jennifer Lopez simply fails to shine at all as his mother, caught up in a torrid relationship. When this drama focusses on the sheer passion of this man and his determination to succeed, it works well enough, but it spends far too much time on the familial discord aspects of their lives. Sure, these are contributory factors to the remarkable nature of his achievements, but they drag the pace down and soak us in a melodrama that rather takes from the potency of a story that's well worth the telling. Michael Peña delivers better as his no-nonsense but ultimately motivational coach and the action photography really does give us a sense of the effort and hard work required by Robles to prove to his peers and himself that he had what it takes to reach the top in a very competitive sport where he would be given no quarter. Personally, I'd have preferred a documentary to this drama as Robles himself is the star and the others really just clutter up the story with their over-scripted dialogue and sentimentality. I did quite like the intimate nature of the photography during the action scenes. A bit juddery at times, but it made the action on the mat all the more visceral for a character who lived and breathed his sport. It just goes to show what can be achieved when the attitude is positive and the support structure is there to facilitate that.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://movieswetextedabout.com/inheritance-review-phoebe-dynevor-shines-amid-the-challenges-of-guerrilla-filmmaking/
"Inheritance shines through its impromptu filming style and the strength of its lead performances but falls short narratively. Neil Burger pushes the boundaries of traditional filmmaking, proving that creativity and technical skill can overcome any financial limitations.
Phoebe Dynevor once again demonstrates her immense talent with a performance that is, above all, confident and assured. For those who value the art of cinema and the risk of experimentation, I recommend giving it a watch."
Rating: B-

Well there's never going to be a better version of this than Charles Laughton's 1944 iteration, but this is still actually quite a watchable adaptation of Oscar Wilde's short story. It centres around an American family who relocate to creaky and spooky old "Canterville Chase" - a stately pile that is reputedly haunted by a menacing spectre. The "Otis" family have three children and after the odd eerie visitation, they become distinctly unafraid of their haunting buddy - indeed they are soon trying to find some way of helping "Sir Simon" to lift the curse that has trapped him in limbo for some three hundred years and also to reunite him with his long lost love before the Grim Reaper wins the day. The animation is adequate and there are plenty of whimsical goings on - it's just that the story is over-stretched, there's way too much dialogue and I actually find this works better with real people/scenarios. Animation offers too few limitations on the creative ghostliness and so at times this looks a little too much like an episode of "Scooby Do". Maybe daft to write, but it isn't quite real enough for me! Still, it's good that this story is still doing the rounds - it's a fun tale of true love that's stood the test of time well.

**"Blink Twice" and You’ll Miss a Stunning Directorial Debut from Zoë Kravitz**
Zoë Kravitz has officially entered the world of directors with Blink Twice, and her debut is nothing short of brilliant. She reimagines the Final Girl trope in a fresh, bold way, giving us an excellent blend of suspense and smooth storytelling. Kravitz's mastery of narrative pacing and visual tension makes it clear she’s not just dabbling in directing—she’s making waves. This debut film is the perfect example of a director with vision, confidence, and originality.
And then there’s Channing Tatum. WOW! His performance is absolutely jaw dropping, showcasing a range we haven’t often seen from him. Tatum seamlessly moves between charm, vulnerability, and intensity, pulling the audience into every scene. It’s one of his most transformative roles yet, proving he’s more than capable of delivering deeply emotional, dynamic performances.
**The Big Idea: Forgetting vs. Happiness **
Zoë also takes us deeper with her thought-provoking theme of "Forgetting to Move On." Rather than promoting the idea that forgetting brings happiness, she questions whether holding onto memories, even painful ones, can make us stronger. It echoes the often misattributed quote: “Happiness is good health and a short memory.” Kravitz challenges that idea, making us think twice about how we process the past.
**KUDOS to Naomi Ackie **
Naomi Ackie delivers a grounded, powerful performance that perfectly complements the film’s intensity. She adds emotional depth to every scene she’s in, capturing the complexities of her character without overplaying it. Ackie’s natural talent shines, and her performance is definitely one to watch.
Don’t miss out on this unforgettable cinematic experience—Blink Twice will leave you reflecting long after the credits roll.

Blink Twice is Zoe Kravitz’s dazzling directorial debut, a gripping, twisted thriller that confronts post #MeToo gender politics head-on. The film expertly combines razor-sharp genre storytelling with biting social commentary, all against a brutal, tension-filled backdrop. It’s as wildly entertaining as it is thought-provoking, making it a must-watch and one of the year’s standout films.

In a surprising turn of events, Channing Tatum takes on a new role in the horror genre in the upcoming thriller "Blink Twice". Directed by his girlfriend Zoe Kravitz, this film will have audiences on the edge of their seats, trying to decipher the mystery unfolding on a secluded island where women and a young man have been taken.
The luxurious setting, mouth-watering food, and extravagant hospitality all seem too good to be true, leading to a suspenseful tale that keeps viewers guessing until the very end. Without giving away any spoilers, it's safe to say that the plot is intricately woven, the direction is top-notch, and the climax is sure to leave you speechless with a jaw-dropping twist.
As the story delves into dark and unsettling territory, drawing parallels to real-life events like those surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's island, it becomes clear that "Blink Twice" is not just your average thriller. It sheds light on the horrors that can lurk beneath the surface of seemingly idyllic settings, making it a chilling reminder of the dangers that can exist in the shadows.
While the subject matter may be disturbing, the film itself is a well-crafted piece of cinema, skillfully executed and guaranteed to leave a lasting impact on its audience. So buckle up for a wild ride with Channing Tatum in a role you never saw coming, and prepare to have your perception of him as an actor forever changed.

Zoë Kravitz's BLINK TWICE is a startling thriller, but that’s just the sheep’s clothing around this dark moral exposé. The real wolf is the urgent assault story lying underneath. It’s a stinging and significant shock that rubs salt into an open wound (and slaps awake the ‘not ALL men!’ crowd).
So how does Blink Twice explore sexual assault? What does it have to say about money and power? And is THAT rumour about its original title ACTUALLY true? Read our full take on BLINK TWICE at good.film: **https://good.film/guide/welcome-to-pitch-black-paradise-heres-why-you-wont-forget-blink-twice**

Great movie!
'Blink Twice' manages to create high intrigue, an unsettling tone and is very stylishly put together, eventually showcasing some thoroughly enjoyable and visually pleasing violence towards the end. Naomi Ackie and Channing Tatum are both terrific, Ackie is particularly top notch. Nice to see Geena Davis involved too, not seen her since the days of 'Stuart Little'! The rest of the cast are all good value, especially Adria Arjona.
I'd admit that it isn't the most unique picture, there are remnants of other productions scattered in there - 'Don't Worry Darling' for one, bit of 'Glass Onion' as well as basically any Jordan Peele flick. Still, I had a real fun time watching it all unfold on the big screen so I truly can't leave any complaints. Interested to see what Zoë Kravitz does next in the hot seat.

Yikes but this is riddled with flaws. "Frida" (Naomi Ackie) and her pal "Jess" (Alia Shawkat) are working for the caterers at a grand party hosted by gazillionaire "Slater" (Channing Tatum). Mid way through the evening, they don their glad rags and join in the party. A little accident gets "Frida" introduced to their host and after a few glasses of Champagne, the two are thick as thieves. His chief of staff, "Vic" (Christian Slater) needs to go somewhere warm so he can have a drink with an umbrella in it, so they readily accept an invitation from their new-found friend to visit his paradise island where together with a group of his other friends, they will enjoy some sunshine, fine dining and drugs-galore. What's a bit unnerving on this otherwise Elysian estate, is the old woman (María Elena Olivares) who seems to spend her time gathering up some beautiful yellow snakes that roam the place freely but whose venom can be dangerous. It's only when "Jess" gets bitten that her friend begins to wonder just what is going on here. It's all just too idyllic, and when the old lady gives her a shot of something to drink that isn't from an hand-blown bottle - well, reality starts to kick in and things take on a much more sinister reality not just for her, but for all of the women going about their days in blissful, powder-induced, ignorance. It's got something of the Agatha Christie meets "Glass Onion" to it, this - and for maybe the first half hour is quite intriguing, but once the story gets into gear it just becomes too implausible. Sure, it plays to vanity and the readiness of folks to believe what clearly is too good to be true, but as the story builds to a denouement there is one whopping great Achilles' heel in the premiss that even the occasional presence of his perma-ditzy assistant "Stacy" (Geena Davis) can't rescue. It's a good looking drama, but the acting is as unremarkable as the dialogue and though I did quite like the irony of the final conclusion, the plot is just way too thin as we work our way there. This is typical summertime cinema fayre that tries to mix comedy with thriller but in the end just looks like a good excuse for Tatum, Slater et al to have some fun in the sun.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/blink-twice-review-zoe-kravitzs-directorial-debut-delivers-a-thought-provoking-exploration-of-power-and-trauma/
"Blink Twice marks a promising debut for Zoë Kravitz as a filmmaker, demonstrating that her personal creativity and vision aren't confined to the side of the camera she works on.
Despite some shortcomings in tone management, the compelling narrative, supported by memorable performances from Ackie, Tatum, and Arjona, and an immersive, unsettling atmosphere, make this psychological thriller an engaging, cathartic experience. Kravitz tackles relevant, complex contemporary themes, offering a thought-provoking reflection on power, trauma, forgiveness, and forgetting.
Above all, this debut will leave many viewers eager to see what Kravitz brings to the world of cinema in the near future."
Rating: B+

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://movieswetextedabout.com/the-thicket-review-strong-performances-but-lacks-narrative-and-character-depth/
"The Thicket is a Western that, despite offering an authentic atmosphere and strong performances from Peter Dinklage and Juliette Lewis, fails to fully explore its narrative and thematic potential.
The lack of character depth and unnecessary subplots detract from the emotional impact of the main story, and Elliott Lester doesn't deliver particularly memorable action set pieces.
Guillermo Garza's immersive cinematography retains some of the charm characteristic of classic Westerns, but it may not be enough to win over fans of the genre."
Rating: C+

Kathryn Hunter tuns in quite an entertaining performance here as the truly odious and manipulative "Solange" but the rest of this is pretty weak. It all starts with teacher "Belinda" (Brandy Norwood) and her lawyer husband "Norman" (Andrew Burnap) expecting a baby and struggling to make ends meet in their new home. His father dies, and at the funeral he learns that the terms of the will sort of require them to take in his stepmother for what's left of her life. She's tiny, walks with two big sticks, and looks like she's already in God's waiting room - but "Norman" loathes the woman. "Belinda", on the other hand, deicides that the cash on offer is too good to turn down and so... What now ensues is just a mess. The characterisation of "Belinda" has all the depth of an Ethiopian river in July and her drippy husband - who just reminded me of a grown up "Harry Potter" the whole time - struggle to make any impact on a story that just doesn't deliver. There's no menace, no sense of peril, some adult nappies and as script that came straight from the "Janet & John" book of elementary thriller writing. It's actually quite a tasteless and an annoyingly repetitive watch with shades of "Rosemary's Baby" to it - but very shady shades. It's fodder for Halloween season, and after a few beers late at night on the television might bear watching just for the efforts of Hunter, but otherwise this is completely forgettable stuff.

I recently watched the film "The Front Room," which stars Brandy Norwood in a role that marks her return to thriller and horror genres since "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer." The movie takes you on a wild ride with a deranged mother-in-law who claims her actions are in the name of Jesus Christ, but in reality, she is mentally unstable.
Despite its low budget and odd script, "The Front Room" is a captivating watch as you witness the disturbing antics of this non-biological mother-in-law towards the protagonist, especially after the birth of a baby. Her behavior, from her laugh to her speech, is so repulsive that you may find yourself wanting to intervene and have her arrested.
While the film may not be a masterpiece, it is also not without merit. It offers a twisted and entertaining experience, showcasing the extent of the mother-in-law's insanity.

Amy Adams really does throw herself into this as mother to a young lad whom she looks after whilst her husband (Scoot McNairy) goes to work - frequently for many nights at a time. There's no suggestion of infidelity, but gradually she begins to feel the strains of this relentless young lad's activities. He rarely wants to sleep, is always full of beans and has a penchant for repeating the odd expletive at exactly the wrong time! It's when she starts to notice some unwanted bodily hair, then some seemingly enlarged incisors that she begins to worry if she isn't undergoing some sort of transformation. All of a sudden, dogs start to show a special interest in her and she and their youngster start to play doggy a great deal more... She also finds herself experiencing flash-backs of her own mother and of her erratic behaviour. Might it be something in the genes? It's Adams's performance that stands out here, otherwise it's a really disappointing attempt at an horror story that falls between a multitude of stools. The character - few actually have names - vacillates between adoring mother (and, occasionally, wife) and maniac entertainingly enough for a while but then it becomes repetitive to no end. Sure, she's exhausted with her childcare responsibilities but why is that different to any other parent (not necessarily a mother) when faced with a child keen to explore and prone to tantrums. The marital relationship is presented in an wholly skewed fashion as if poor old Scoot - who was missing large chunks of their son's development - was somehow in clover whist she sacrificed her life and career as the "home-maker". In the end, once the humour had subsided, I found this a rather dull rant of a movie that contrived to suggest that this was a woman unique amongst parents, and that motherhood was somehow more visceral than fatherhood. What horror elements there are are entirely undeveloped and by the end I was just a bit bored. I did like the exhibits in her gallery, though - ideal for the Christmas tree, and the young lad (I think there were twins) was the real star of the proceedings.

Motherhood – it’s one of those notions that, in the minds of many, is sacrosanct, inviolable and beyond reproach. Or is it? Indeed, isn’t it possible that some women who find themselves in this role aren’t cut out for it and innately regret having taken that step? “How dare they!” intolerant critics might exclaim. However, as this latest offering from writer-director Marielle Heller illustrates, there are those who feel motherhood is a calling they’re not cut out for and may, at best, feel highly ambivalent about. Such is the case of a former artist-turned-stay-at-home-mom (Amy Adams) who clearly loves her young son (Arleigh Patrick Snowden/Emmett James Snowden) but who also finds this role inherently limiting and creatively stifling, leaving her frustrated and unsure what to do. She also feels she doesn’t get the support and understanding that she needs from her husband (Scoot McNairy), prompting her to believe she’s trapped by her circumstances – like an animal. In fact, it’s a sensibility that gradually begins to manifest itself as more than just something out of her imagination, a surreal experience that reveals her “dog-ged” determination to find answers and solutions. Consequently, inexplicable changes in behavior arise that she desperately needs to understand, particularly if she wants to hold on to her sanity and remain a responsible and grounded parent. The protagonist thus launches into an odyssey of exploring the nature of motherhood, a multifaceted, occasionally contradictory exercise whose diverse realizations are often difficult to sort out – and one that’s simultaneously rife with an array of both frightening and inventively comedic possibilities. What’s most impressive about this film, though, is its uncompromising honesty in addressing its subject, an approach that yields a realistically revelatory view of the concept of motherhood, one that (as the protagonist so astutely observes) shows it as being about “more than just sunshine and baby powder.” While it’s true that the narrative sometimes tries to cover a little too much ground and doesn’t always link its assorted observations as effectively or cogently as it might have, it nevertheless uncovers the heartfelt beliefs that some women sincerely hold about being mothers, outlooks that the blinder-clad Pollyannas among us might consider inconceivable or even heretical despite their intrinsic truthfulness and viability. Credit the authenticity behind this the filmmaker and to Adams, who turns in yet another stellar portrayal, one that has already earned her an Independent Spirit Award nomination for best lead performance and could well lead to yet another Oscar nod. Kudos also go out to McNairy, as well as the two young brothers cast in the role of the son, all of whom provide superb support. To be sure, “Nightbitch” may not appeal to everyone, and some could even find it shocking in some regards. But at least the picture doesn’t try to pull any punches, and there’s much to be said for that given the prevailing naïve and unassailable qualities often associated with the idea of what it’s actually like to be a mom.

I didn't think it was possible to make Hellboy boring but as has often been the case with cinema in recent years, I was wrong, very wrong.
Whilst this film starts off well, with typical Hellboy style action involving a train and a giant spider, it doesn't take long before it devolve's into a languid affair.
The atmosphere and handling is reminiscent of Tim Burton's work but that's where the similarities end. The script lacks pace, momentum and the frenetic, supernatural action, which has come to characterise the Hellboy franchise. Even the climax to this film felt inconsequential.
In summary, decent cinematic's, combined with sound acting can't fix the marked absence of the horror action elements viewers have come to expect from the Hellboy franchise.

This film has an unique place in my cinema viewing history. It's the only series I've ever seen on a big screen where I've been the only person in the auditorium for each one. This latest episode sees the eponymous devil (Jack Kesy) escorting a lethal spider on a train with aspiring para-psychologist "Bobbie Joe" (Adeline Rudolph) when an accident sees them deposited into the middle of the Appalachian forest. Here they encounter long-since abandoned coal mines and an equally out-of-touch community that smacks a great deal of "The Deliverance" (1972). With little sign of their spider, they encounter the returning local lad "Tom" (Jefferson White) and are quickly helping him repatriate his dad to the cemetery and keep his ex-girlfriend/local witch "Effie" (Leah McNamara) out of the hands of the real devil. It's dark and misty settings do go some way to creating a slight sense of mystical peril, but the rest of this is badly acted and written with zero originality and few opportunities for action or humour. Kesy seems content to take his fee for wandering around wagging his pointy red tail and smoking whilst the director Brian Taylor uses plenty of tried and tested cinematic techniques to try and breathe some life (or death) into this derivative drudge of a film. I kept thinking he's got a pair of goggles on his head - but them's what used to be his horns. Like his horns, whatever made this work first time round has long gone and I can't say I'd even bother with this on a streaming service on a wet Wednesday in February. No more, please.

'You’re Cordially Invited': bad movie! It's as unfunny as it is unlikeable, there isn't one character that I wanted to see appear in front of my eyes; and they attempt to redeem them all at the end, which falls flat. Also, Will Ferrell and Reese Witherspoon aren't the best match.
The end credit singalong with Ferrell and Witherspoon is the only part of this that I'd list under (mini) positives. There are a couple of decent bits scattered in, though none of which stick in the memory as they are paired with rubbish. The near two hour run time doesn't helped either.

⭐️⭐️⭐️ - LA DOLCE VILLA
"Scott Foley, romantic chemistry, small-town Italian charm, DIY porn, just enough family drama, & a goat named Maltese will give you that comfort watch you were seeking when you clicked it."
Full review: bit.ly/4hWFTOB

Anyone else think that if Justin Timberlake and Brendan Fraser had conceived a love child, it’d be Jace Norman? Well that’s all that really preoccupied me as this otherwise unremarkable and messy teen drama took us on its own version of colourful time travel. That’s because the hero manages to lose his powers to his malevolent sister (Ella Anderson) thanks to the enthusiastic interference of new fan “Missy” (Glee Dango) and to his fed up cohort “Jasper” (Sean Ryan Fox) who is weary of doing all the work whilst his handsome buddy takes all the glory. Well in this alternative world, it’s “Jasper” who kicks ass and it means that “Henry” is going to have to eat loads of humble pie if he is to convince his “new” friends to help him go back to the old days! Personally, I think I’d have told him to take an hike but this is Nickelodeon remember so even the nasties are fairly nice as all that is missing is a custard pie fight. Indeed, it only narrowly avoids becoming an human version of a “Ninja Turtles” movie. I’m not the demographic, so I’m not really the man to say - but I suspect this is only for die-hard fans of the television series and/or the all-American Norman.

Whate a cringefest.... really boring no comedy. This will barely entertain 5 year olds at best.

Decent sets and quality special effects, not to mention a capable actress, in the form of Michelle Yeoh, can't make up for the glaring shortcomings in this latest Trek offering.
The core script of "Section 31" has been done a thousand times before, which is not, in and of of itself, unforgivable. Regrettably, though, on this occasion, the story lacks direction, a semblance of credibility and simple logic.
Yes, sci fi is fantasy, you can go wild but the premise still needs to be believable, if the audience is to invest in it. In this instance, I found little to compel me to invest in the tale being told and the characterisations. The latter felt shallow, forcing the actors to over act, in an attempt to compensate, which only made matters worse.
A dash of the usual woke nonsense, did nothing to further enamour me, to this already uninspiring production.
More than that though, the dark, cynical overtones of "Section 31" didn't feel like Roddenberry's vision of "Star Trek". A vision of a technologically but also humanistic-ally enlightened future, filled with scientific and academic discovery, that overcomes all adversity
In summary, I wont beat about the bush, "Section 31" is, in my estimation, "awful". It's not just the uninspiring story, populated by anaemic characterisations. No, more than that, it simply doesn't feel like "Star Trek". Enough said.

As a lifelong diehard “Star Trek” fan, I find it almost unfathomable to think that I would end up writing something negative about a franchise with which I have long been so deeply enamored – until now. The Paramount+ network’s first effort at creating a standalone “Trek” feature film is, to be honest, dreadful. “Section 31” is a picture with so many problems that it’s hard to know where to begin. For starters, the narrative is so convoluted that it’s difficult to follow without taking notes or constantly hitting the rewind button. In large part, that’s probably because the creators of this mess don’t appear to know what story – or what kind of story – they want to tell. There are allusions to so many different contributing influences that it’s hard to keep track of them all. The film is peppered with references to such properties as “Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Mission: Impossible” and “The Fifth Element,” among others, with precious little actually having to do with “Star Trek” (unless, of course, you count the rampant, utterly annoying silliness of the Lower Decks animated series), almost as if the finished product were designed by committee. Perhaps the most egregious sin here, however, is the picture’s drastic change in the nature of what the Section 31 storyline is all about. As introduced in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and reintroduced in Star Trek: Discovery, Section 31 has traditionally been portrayed as an enigmatic, exceedingly dark, eminently sinister presence in the world of this franchise, far different from the significantly more visible, almost goofy depiction presented here. This is such a radical departure that, realistically speaking, it can hardly carry the “Section 31” moniker (or, some might even say, the “Star Trek” label itself). That’s regrettable, given that this storyline is one that, if it had been handled differently, could have been developed into a more fully fleshed out vehicle than it has been up to this point in its legacy (including as a series of its own). As it stands now, though, if this production is any indication of where it might be headed (if anywhere), it would seem that its creators are determined to take Section 31 in an entirely different direction from where it began (and not in a good way at that). To its credit, director Olatunde Osunsanmi’s fourth feature film incorporates some fine work yet again from its protagonist, smarmy, uber-sarcastic camp queen Michelle Yeoh, as well as some genuinely impressive, visually dazzling special effects. But, as a vehicle capable of maintaining viewer interest and giving Section 31 a viable future, I don’t see it. In all truthfulness, I’m not one of those nitpicking Trekkers who mercilessly criticizes every little detail that supposedly deviates from the mythology’s elusive canon (how annoying), but this offering represents such a marked divergence from where Section 31 originated that I can barely recognize it. If Section 31 is to have any kind of life going forward, it truly needs to get back to where it came from and forget that this monstrosity was ever created.

I was so excited because this movie is based on two rich sources of Star Trek lore, Emperor Philippa Georgiou, and Section 31. What a let down. This movie is an insult to Star Trek fans everywhere. It fails at every level.

"Sniper: The Last Stand" starts off well enough but then seems to forget what its mission is.
This film starts off sensibly with a decent amount of B grade entertaining military action antics but then slows things right down, becoming a cheesy military soap opera. Exaggerated story telling and corny grand standing, abound. Thankfully, this film picks up somewhat in the latter half but by then, you might well have stopped watching. I almost did.
In summary, a military action flick on a limited budget really needs to stick to its guns. "Sniper: The Last Stand" (why are these kind of films always called "the Last Stand?) should have leaned more heavily into the action aspect of the film and dropped the military soap opera, nonsense. A basic watch, at best.