Inoffensive sequel provided a few laughs but isn't as good as the first. Still, fine as a quick viewing given it's only 80-minutes long. **3.25/5**

**An honorable sequel.**
This film is a sequel that came out the year after the release of its predecessor, making the best use of the box office success achieved. Although many may not even agree with me, I believe it managed to reasonably match the initial film, and helped to consolidate the nascent franchise and give it popularity, which TV later took advantage of.
The script continues the story told in the first film, with the newly graduated police officers taking on their first and thorny mission: to reinforce the weakened and demoralized contingent of a police station in a troubled neighborhood, headed by the brother of the Academy Commander. Of course, one of the bosses is keen to take his place, and will do whatever he can to get in the way. The script continues not to be particularly inspired, and to demonstrate several weaknesses, but it does the essential and reasonably sustains the film. It is not, however, as effective in this task as the first film. On a positive note: the nudity we saw in the initial film has all been stripped away here, making this film reasonably more suited to the family context.
The cast is almost entirely inherited from the previous film and the more familiar and solid faces will be the ones that will sustain the bulk of the action here. Once again, Steve Guttenberg once again stands out and has an unmistakable role. Still, Art Metrano manages to steal our attention every time he appears on the scene, and he's really funny and good at what he does. David Graf, Bubba Smith, Lance Kinsey and especially Bob Goldthwait are actors who deserve praise for a job really well done. I really liked Goldthwait and the way he gave his character a touch of unpredictable madness. Marion Ramsey is in a more low-key position here, but she does what she can with what little she's been given. The film has good sets and costumes, and the cinematography is regular, but it works well. The soundtrack brings back the main theme we already know, but it doesn't present anything that is really interesting anymore. The film has a very good pace and is not tiring.

**Superior to the first movie**
This movie has so many great moments. All of the original gang return - except Harris and Callahan. Lt. Mauser ( Art Metrano) is the new slimy adversary here along with his braindead sidekick, Proctor.
Highlights include the hilarious Kirkland family and their _bouts_ of affection, an overly sticky black sock, a gang of moronic street thugs led by the cretinous Zed (Bob Goldthwait) and a hilarious scene in a sushi bar.
The last of the truly funny Academy movies.

**mixed bag.**
We've seen many movies with the same premise: man seeking revenge for his loved one/child.
This could've been an rare exception sticking out of the plot repetition, but it fails in other aspects.
The good bits:
* We get to actually care for the victims. They are more than just plot triggers, they are persons, and there is an emotional attachment.
* The protagonist isn't as over the top as in most revenge flicks. He's an realistic cop who, caused by tragedy, is losing his grip.
* In addition to the evil main antagonist, there is a deuteragonist; and I like this type of character very much: independent, but not good. Lots of potential in such a figure.
* The violence is naturalistic.
The bad bits:
* Whether as early as in script (several authors), or as late as in post-production cuts - this looks like important bits were simply omitted.
* The pacing is OK and follows the story, but at times, it feels a bit slow.
* some resolution is too clichéd.
This is an remake of an BBC series, which I haven't seen; my wild guess is: the original is much better.
I don't think this is a spoiler; just give you an idea of the calibre of plot-holes in this: Two criminals are arrested by half a dozen cops, with physical evidence to get them behind bars for years. The TV reports about this incident, so no way this gets hushed up. Yet, two scenes later, we see the same two bad guys strutting and driving around as if police would neither recognise nor bother them. Explanation? None.
Part of this is an unusual variation of the revenge-flick, with a tinge of supernatural; but another, large, part is a failed script or implementation.
4 for the movie as such; +1 for the emotional part, +1 for the deuteragonist, which really improves the potential (though not all of the outcome). I'm giving it a 6 out of 10.

A Classic Forever
This is a very intense and scary horror film one that I remember from when I was a child that scared me to death. Now, watching it all these years later, it still has the same impact as it originally did. There are some very nailbiting moments, and some exceptional acting

A century after a ship sank losing all hands, an eery fog makes it's way along the coast towards the small town of Antonio Bay in California. The residents think nothing of this until a series of para-normal incidents start to occur and folks start to disappear. Could the mysterious fog have anything to do with these mishaps? A bit of investigation into the history of the town discovers that it was founded after an heinous crime committed by their predecessors on a passing ship, wrecked deliberately, that was carrying lepers - and gold. Could the fog be part of the retribution? Well it's soon down to Jamie Lee Curtis ("Solley"); Adrianne Barbeau ("Stevie") and Janet Leigh ("Kathy") to try to get to the bottom of things before the looming mist deposits it's own menacing cargo. The instantly recognisable opening tones from John Houseman's "Dr. Machen" set the scene well here for what is a gently accumulating horror film that leaves much of the sense of peril to our own nervousness, imagination and also offers the largely female cast an opportunity not just to run about screaming and wailing in the face of danger for a change. Darkness, fogginess, eeriness - lights flickering, cars not starting - the sense of isolation and loneliness. All of these fears are well capitalised upon by John Carpenter - not just with his use of the lighting and the camera, but also with his creation of a score that is also effective at heightening the tension. The acting is really only adequate, it has to be said - with Adrienne Barbeau struggling a bit, I felt - but unlike with many other Carpenter films, he stays focussed on the simplicity of the peril - the characters are given enough to say and do and the pace doesn't hang about for just shy of ninety minutes. It's not a jump moment movie, the effects are gradual and I found them to be pretty effective too.

00:00: 21st April, 1980.
The Fog is directed by John Carpenter who also co-writes the screenplay with Debra Hill. It stars Adrienne Barbeau, Tom Atkins, Janet Leigh, Hal Holbrook, Jamie Lee Curtis and Nancy Loomis. Carpenter also scores the music and cinematography is by Dean Cundey.
The Californian fishing town of Antonio Bay is preparing to celebrate its 100 year anniversary. As the clock ticks past midnight strange events start to occur around the town, it seems that the town has a secret and that secret is back to make a point...
Not as praised as Halloween and The Thing from John Carpenter's early horror output, The Fog sees the director tackle the ghost story premise. For many who lapped it up back when the 80s began, it still enthrals and holds in its eerie vice like grip, for others in this desensitised age of gore and cgi overkill, it proves to be a film unable to justify the love poured on it by the fans. Which is a shame.
Being able to appreciate the craft of John Carpenter back in 1980 certainly helps to avert some harsh criticisms thrown its way, because Carpenter has achieved, pound for pound, a better ghost story on a fraction of the budget afforded big Hollywood genre productions that have been made since. That's not to say it's perfect, for it's not, Carpenter himself has never been wholly satisfied with the final film, this even after re-shooting a third of the film after originally making a picture reliant on suggestion over presence, but with some smoke machines, a synthesiser, a game cast and a spooky revenge story on the page, he's made a sub-genre classic.
Carpenter has somehow managed to blend old fashioned ghostly goings on within a modern setting, that of a fishing town that proves perfect once the sun goes down and the town tries to sleep. You can practically smell the salt in the sea, such is the knack of the director for setting the mood. Then with minimalistic panache, the director marries up fog with synth beats to create maximum dread, and then he teases, perfectly, by only letting us glimpse his ghosts as dark figurines, making us fill in the blanks as to what they look like, where armed with our imagination they prove to be more scary than some CGI enhanced entity created in the blockbuster age. The killings that follow carry a high gruesome factor, and we don't need (or get) buckets of blood for them to impact, and the suspense is jacked up so much in the final quarter it proves to be edge of the seat stuff as the spring finally uncoils.
Filmed in widescreen to give off a higher end production value, which works, Carpenter surrounds himself with familiar folk and inserts in jokes and homages that also keep the film grounded and a mile away from Hollywood excess. From character names to Hitchcock stars and references (Bodega Bay anyone?), the pic feels exactly what it is, a film made with love; Carpenter even cameos at the start of the film and it is a world away from the smugness of a Shyamalan. Yes there are problems, Curtis and Atkins are strangers who meet and in the blink of an eye they are in bed together, which looks to be a bad edit, while the gathering of principal characters in one place for the finale is a bit of a contrivance. Yet these are minor irritants, because The Fog is a film that once loved will always stay loved. In 78 Carpenter plotted the course for the slasher formula to follow, in 1980 he helped realign (see also Peter Medak's The Changeling) the good ship ghost story that was on rocky waters. Low budget creepy excellence. 9/10

While the overall movie seems to be on the B-movie side, there are some aspects that make it really interesting. Especially on the script side. The expected unexpected is only the start.
Yes, the plane is hijacked; but that is only the premise, not a spoiler... and I'm not giving any spoilers here. Do some suspension of disbelief, and take the ride.
I, for one, enjoyed it. :)
NB: The child actor is surprisingly good (though not perfect).

Has maybe not aged flawlessly, but it's very silly and very involved in a good kind of way. Kind of feels like a spoof but I'm honestly not sure what of, so I think that it's maybe just a light toned take on some pretty dark subject matter. It's been about 20 years since I last watched The Frighteners and I think I could probably go about that long before I watch it again, but I still do think it's worthwhile.
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

When a man's jawbone drops off it's time to reassess the situation.
Peter Jackson's The Frighteners is an odd blend of outright comedy and supernatural thriller, if able to get onside with that then there's a whole lot to enjoy. Plot essential has Michael J. Fox as a psychic who really can see dead people, so much so in fact that he has befriended three ghosts and makes a living out of setting up hauntings and charging people to exorcise the spirits. However, things turn decidedly deadly when he encounters a grim reaper like spirit that is killing people and putting a number on their foreheads. It seems there is a serial killing spirit on the loose.
Frank Bannister (Fox) is grieving from the death of his wife and he has become a conman, this is an interesting characterisation for Fox to play and he does so with relish. Initially the pic is all about the comedy, with Bannister's interactions with the three ghosts devilishly funny. Ok, the effects work now look a bit crude, but there's a vibrancy on offer both visually and orally.
Come the second third the pic shifts into a serial killer investigation and the narrative gets dark. Oh there's still fun in the mix, but Jackson and his team are toying with the very real facet of a celebrity serial killer (ebulliently played by Jake Busey). Trini Alvarado (what happened to her?) is playing what ends up as Bannister's side-kick and love interest and the pair of them are thrust into a frantic final third of a life and death battle with Busey's psychotic spirit Johnny Bartlett. Bartlett in turn is aided by mentally ill Patricia Bradley (horror icon Dee Wallace Stone), while an outrageously over the top Jeffrey Combs is in the mix as a damaged FBI agent intent on destroying bannister and all he stands for.
When you strip it down it's a live action horror comedy cartoon, which when you look in context to Jackson's early work is not surprising. It's also not surprising that The Frighteners has become a cult movie of some standing. The bonkers plot, the close to the knuckle humour and choice narrative threads make it a fascinating viewing experience. 7.5/10

I know something is happening, because I can hear sounds... But I can't see anything but shadows, so I'm gonna have to give this whatever it is a pass. Ass.

It was made in the wrong decade. It's very much a toned down esthetic heavy middle 90s science-fiction romp with an Oliver Stone ensemble cast. It's very retro-distopian-science-fiction with a low budget that relies on the look to make the film.
That being said, it's not bad. In all honesty, it's actually pretty entertaining if you walk into it expecting only what it promises to be, a quasi-indie film that's made to entertain and nothing more.
The premise is fun. There is talent in the cast (and more notable celebrities than there should be). It looks cool. The action is a ride. The dialogue is hip. And the characters are developed only just enough to advance you through the film.
And, in the end, you walk away satisfied and entertained, so, really, it delivers exactly what it promises to.

**_Aesthetically pleasing, but the narrative is predictable and clichéd_**
> _There's an interesting thing that runs through the movie, which is that there's this...So what happens in_ Artemis _is that it's set mostly inside this secret hospital for criminals in Los Angeles in 2028, and it's about what happens when the wrong mix of people end up in that hospital, but all the while there is this backdrop of the biggest riot in LA history, the clear water riots, which are water based, drought based riots, water privatization riots in fact. I really wanted this thing where all the way through_ _the film, we are led to believe by the media in the movie and by the way some of the characters talk about it, that we're safe in here in the place that we pay for, and the trouble is this kind of faceless, multi ethnic mob on the outside, and that actually we always think the problem is on the outside, but really, the problem is on the inside. That's absolutely what the point of_ Artemis _is; we kind of demonise the outside world, but the real demons are our own._
- Drew Pearce; "_Hotel Artemis_ Director Drew Pearce on Making His Personal Genre Movie, His Influences, and More" (Jack Giroux); _Slash Film_ (June 7, 2018)
_Hotel Artemis_ is a film which doesn't do a great deal wrong. However, it is also a film which doesn't do a great deal right. It just kind of hangs in mid-air, with clichéd characters acting in clichéd ways and having clichéd conversations. And then it ends. It's not actually _about_ anything. It's also predictable, with precious little substance. It looks pretty though.
In 2028, riots are tearing Los Angeles apart. The film takes place primarily in the eponymous Hotel Artemis, a secret hospital for criminals in the heart of the city. The motley crew of characters, many of whom are known only by the name of the room in which they're staying, include Waikiki (Sterling K. Brown) and his brother Honolulu (Brian Tyree Henry), bank robbers who have been involved in a shootout with police; Nice (Sofia Boutella), an assassin who "_only kills important people_", and just so happens to be Waikiki's ex-girlfriend; and Acapulco (a spectacularly miscast Charlie Day), a weapons dealer and all round weasel. Also present are The Wolf King (Jeff Goldblum), Los Angeles's most feared gangster, who also finances the hospital, his incompetent son, Crosby (an underutilised Zachery Quinto), and Morgan (Jenny Slate), a cop injured in the riots. The hospital is run by "Nurse" (Jodie Foster), an agoraphobic alcoholic haunted by visions of her past, with porter duties handled by Everest (Dave Bautista). The hospital functions because all guests must adhere to a rigid set of rules (the first of which is "_don't kill the other patients_") and a strict no weapons policy.
Sounds pretty interesting doesn't it? It's not. The dialogue is awful, the narrative beats can be seen coming a mile away, and the characters are all archetypes, with only Nurse really fleshed out to any degree. There's the loud-mouth snivelling weapons dealer, the gorgeous but oh-so-deadly assassin, the criminal kingpin and his screw-up son who just wants to be like dad, the skilled bank robber who spends most of his time trying to get himself out of the trouble caused by his unreliable brother, and the tough-as-old-boots medical professional who just wants to help people when in actual fact, she's beyond help herself. The premise may be reasonably interesting, but, in his debut feature, writer/director Drew Pearce undermines it by populating the _milieu_ with cardboard cut-outs instead of characters. True, most of the actors give it their all (Bautista in particular gives a performance far superior to the material with which he has to work), but there's just no substance here, no depth. There are simply too many clichés at every level to be able to overlook them.
Yes, it's an original(ish) idea made with a small(ish) budget, which is exactly what we need more of these days, when every second film is a CGI-infested remake, comic book adaptation, or sequel (or a CGI-infested remake of a sequel to a comic book adaptation). However, an original idea is all very well and good, but it can only take you so far; the execution has to be there as well, and this is where _Hotel Artemis_ falls down. It's simply not an especially well-made film. Pearce does a reasonably good job with the directorial side of things, as aesthetically, the hotel is really intriguing, with a nice use of primary colours and a well-conceived juxtaposition of modern technology and 3D printers with retro décor and secret passages. In terms of plot, however, there's just nothing to latch onto or get your teeth into. None of the characters really do or say anything very interesting, and a half-hour into the film, as it became increasingly apparent that none of them were going to be developed to any great degree, I just stopped caring.

Aaaah near-future Los Angeles, will you ever be portrayed as anything other than a crime-ridden, riotous hellscape? Probably not. And honestly, I'm pretty okay with that. Either way, despite that being the exact setting of _Hotel Artemis_, it has surprisingly little impact on the tale, which takes place almost entirely within the titular hotel. It's good, and everyone is good in it, plus you've got the #aesthetic to take into account, which all in all is more than enough for me.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

Los Angeles of 2028 is a riot laden area where Martial Law is the norm and brutality is a way of life. Amidst this setting, the Hotel Artemis is open for business.. The Artemis is not your typical hotel as it provides emergency medical services to members who engage in criminal activities.
The Nurse (Jodie Foster) runs the facility and with the help of her massive Orderly Everest (Dave Bautista), they ensure that only members get admitted and follow the rules as well as receive state of the art care while in the facility.
Guests at the facility are giving names based on the suite in which they are assigned which involve geographical locales and there are a very strict set of rules they must follow such as no guns, bombs, killing other guests, and so on.
The Hotel Artemis is not a simple stitch and bandage facility as they offer advanced medical services such as Nanites, replacement organ printing, robotic A.I. medical treatment and other services which in 2018 seem like Science Fiction.
Enter Waikiki (Sterling K. Brown), who has tried to leave his criminal past behind him yet was savvy enough to keep paying his membership fees at the Artemis all the while. He and his brother have been injured in a heist and with the city under a deadly riot, they make their way to the Artemis to get treatment and hide out from the chaos outside.
Thanks to their services, the hotel is rarely empty and an Arms Dealer named Acapulco (Charlie Day), and an assassin named Nice (Sofia Boutella), are also in residence. The fact that Nice and Waikiki have a past association makes things a bit interesting as guests are always mindful of those around them even though the strict rules of membership exist to ward off any threats or danger to the guests or staff.
Complications arise when the near capacity hotel is informed that the Wolf King of L.A. (Jeff Goldblum) is en- route. The Nurse opts to follow the rules of first come first served and in doing so enrages his son (Zachary Quinto), who decided to barricade the Hotel to make sure nobody gets in before his father, who incidentally owns the facility.
As if this was not enough of a complication, a police officer from troubled past of The Nurse arrives begging for help which sets a very dangerous chain of events into motion.
The film is a very fresh and entertaining story filled with interesting characters, strong performances, and just enough action to keep the film moving along but yet keeping the focus as a character based drama.
First time Director Drew Pearce gets the most of his cast and has used his script to create a very entertaining and unique film that is well worth a watch. It is so nice to see Jodie Foster showing us once again that she is one of the most gifted actresses of our time as the two-time Oscar winner goes all in to portray a very damaged and troubled character who for what she lacks in glamour; more than makes up for with a determined strength.
I hope this film is a success as I would love to see more stories from the Hotel as I really enjoyed the film from start to finish.
4 stars out of 5

"Krill" (Gary Busey) is the rather narked XO on the battleship USS Missouri who sees the captain's impending birthday party as an opportunity to team up with "Strannix" (Tommy Lee Jones), seize the ship and extort a fortune from the American government. The girl (the very annoying "Jordan" - Erika Eleniak) coming from the cake he expected, the fact that the ship's cook is a former SEAL he did not - especially when this knife-wielding sailor starts to make his presence felt and a battle royal hots up. The scenario is pretty far-fetched, but to be fair to Steven Seagal as the chef with attitude, this is a fair action adventure film with plenty of combat, kitchen devil action and pyrotechnics to compensate for the pretty woeful dialogue and acting - especially from Busey - that only really works when the enthusiastic TLJ is letting loose the dogs of war. There's no jeopardy to speak of, the ending is never really in doubt - but I still find this, periodically, an enjoyable bit of machismo escapism that passes the time ok.

The fun kind of dumb, _Under Siege_ is probably Segal's best work, and in my opinion the only reason people ever mention him in the same breath as the likes of Stallone, Schwarzenegger or Willis.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time_.

Classic story with good guy (well, good might be stretching it), in this case the father, trying to save chick from the bad guys. The bad guys are of course totally dislikeable murderous thugs with a distinctly below average intelligence.
Mel Gibson plays the role of ex-con, caring father and kick-ass protector of his daughter quite well. He pretty much makes this movie which is a roller-coaster action ride. As with most of this type of action flicks the story and script is fairly mediocre. His old and not very trustworthy friend for example was not really adding any value and his actions was soooo predictable.
The thugs, although certainly projecting the required amount of “despicable bad-guy-ness”, were really nothing more than that. Stupid, stupid and more stupid. How they even manage to track John and Lydia down all the time is really beyond me.
With that said it was a enjoyable movie. The one were you just relax in the sofa, watch the scenery and arses being kicked. The stuff that Mel Gibson is really good at.

**An ex-con back on his feet for his daughter!**
I did not find this French film any special. This is an English language film, because they have targeted the American market. Many similar Hollywood flicks were already made, so it is just a different actors and the locations. But the actings were good and some of the scenes were nicely composed. This is a book based film about an ex- con, when he comes to know his daughter is in a real trouble, he does everything he can to protect her. So it is like a running and chasing kind of theme, but how they come out it is the remaining film.
Mel Gibson was great. I felt like I haven't seen him for ages, I mean this kind of performance gives the impression that he's back. Though the film was not that great, for an entertainment it will do okay. It is a short film than usual action-thrillers. So you won't have trouble in pace, no proper developments, like the characters or the story, it only moves forward so quickly. I think the end was good, only if they are not planning for a sequel. But that part was not clear, so there's no surprise if they make another film. I say watch it for Gibson and for entertainment.
_6/10_

_Blood Father_ doesn't bring anything particularly original to the table, but in spite of this, the oft maligned Mel Gibson shines in this small grindhouse throwback that I honestly had a really good time with.
But _Blood Father_ is an awful title.
_Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go._

**A good film, full of detail and historical verisimilitude, but painfully long without needing to be.**
I've already seen two of Akira Kurosawa's most renowned films and, quite frankly, I still can't understand why this Japanese director is so commonly considered a cinematic genius. His films are quite good, they're meticulous, there's a lot of attention to detail, but they're not particularly unforgettable… that's what I think.
This film is an adaptation of the plot of “King Lear”, by Shakespeare: a warlord, in the middle of the Japanese feudal era, decides to withdraw and divide his lands, power and castles among his three sons. Only one of them disagrees and warns him that it is highly unlikely that they will stay together as brothers, which provokes the old father's wrath. However, the future proves true for the younger son's words when the two older brothers despise their father and conflicts begin. Driven mad and accompanied only by a fool, the old man ends up mad while the brothers fight each other.
I won't talk about the cast because I don't know these actors. I can only say that they worked well, within the context and the type of film we are talking about. There is an excessive stylization, both in terms of interpretation and in terms of dialogues, which sounds theatrical, forced, but I don't know if that was on purpose. On a technical level, the film has a lot of points in its favor, starting with an excellent cinematography, very colorful and with good lighting. The sets are superb, in particular the castles, recreated to the smallest detail, and the costumes are also good, beautiful and historically credible. I don't think I'll be being unfair if I say that this film probably has some of the best war scenes in period films set in Japan. There is no CGI, special effects have been used judiciously, and the war has been recreated to be as authentic as possible, with hundreds of extras dressed to the nines and a lot of effort on the part of the production. For a historian, you can't ask for more.
The big problem with this movie is that it wasn't made to entertain but to make you think, and it's full of scenes and sequences designed to make the viewer think about what they're watching. It's something that would work, if it weren't sometimes overly cryptic. The audience needs to understand what the director wants to convey, and that often doesn't happen. Furthermore, it is a film that does not spare the audience: it starts very well, it ends very well, but everything in between is unbearably prolonged and distended. What could be said or done in two minutes is done in five minutes, and there are a lot of dialogues and scenes that don't seem to have any function other than to make the film take longer.

'National Lampoon’s Vacation' is a little underwhelming, I thought it was going to be more amusing than it is, though I think there's enough to it that's worth watching. The fun ending with John Candy is what probably nudges this into the rating that I've given.
Chevy Chase is at the forefront of the humour, as anticipated. I would've liked him to a bit more of a bumbling mess than he is, a more dumbed down deadpan delivery would've been more funny. He is shown as an idiot, but not as much as one as the character actually is.
Beverly D'Angelo is good alongside Chase. The kid actors, which notably includes Anthony Michael Hall, are fairly solid in this movie too. The earlier mentioned Candy is alright, he has obviously done far better, and there is also an appearance from Eugene Levy, albeit a fairly tiny one.

I found this to be quite a compelling watch. Dev Patel and Anupam Kher offer perfectly plausible portrayals of innocent local folks caught up in this most hideous and random of terrorist attacks upon their Taj Hotel workplace in Mumbai - and yet still determine to risk their lives to help a collection of spoilt, rich, over-indulged Westerners survive the would-be slaughter. Much of the script apparently derives from transcripts of real mobile phone conversations adding a unique slice of authenticity and Maras' direction offers a taut and well crafted framework for the story to enfold in the capable - and quite adaptable - hands of Patel. Well worth watching.

A harrowing film about the incredibly sad true story. Considering there was already a documentary though, maybe we didn't need to live through this again? But maybe this brought knowledge to more people? We'll probably never know, because the world is complex, and so you can form your own opinions.

_Hotel Mumbai_.
Hard as I try. Can't figure out why ...You got made?
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

I think they want to overstate something but failed

It's one thing offering us Henry Golding as a pretty chap you'd want to take home to meet your mother, it's quite another telling him to abstain from shaving for a few days and hope that turns him into a convincing, highly trained ninja! That's what is in store for us here as this latest GI Joe spin off presents our hero as the rescuer of the heir of an ancient Japanese clan - "Tommy" (Andrew Koji). Once he is thoroughly ingratiated with this noble family, it transpires that old "Snake Eyes" has an agenda all of his own - and it's not exactly honourable! The rest of the film follows a well trodden path of suspicion, betrayal, reconciliation and - of course - loads of epic looking sword fighting and gravity-defying action scenes. As with so many films in this genre, way too much emphasis has been placed on the look of the thing - the characters are instantly forgettable, the plot thinner than any rice paper could ever hope to be and the ending dragged this, quite unnecessarily, over the two hour mark. It needs a big screen to do the photography and visuals justice, but maybe just pay daytime rates?

I actually liked the two first G.I. Joe movies, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and G.I. Joe: Retaliation. This one… not so much.
It could have been a really good movie but it ended up as a huge disappointment. The story should have been a cool revenge story but it ended up being a convoluted mess making Snake Eyes one of the bad guys for most of the movie. It is also hugely predictable after the first 20 minutes of the movie. Did the writers really think that the “twists” would come as a surprise for anyone? They probably did since Hollywod writers usually reside on the low end of the intelligence scale nowadays. Putting three of those hacks together to write a movie doesn’t help of course.
I could have accepted all of that if the rest would have been cool with lots of fights and special effects. Sadly the movie is mediocre, at best, in these areas as well.
Snake Eyes is not only a bad guy but he is rather stupid as well as devoid of any charisma. His acting is quite poor which can be said for most of the actors actually. Apart from the mediocre acting there’s really no one in the movie that you feel like rooting for. No one stands out, everyone just excels in mediocrity. The only person in the entire movie that has any coolness factor worth talking about is Scarlett but she is not in the movie for more than a few scenes.
There are a few scenes with some special effects, cars flipping over, huge snakes etc. but not really that much for this kind of movie. That could have been fine since this movie should be a lot about martial arts. Amazingly enough, not even here does it deliver. Most of the martial arts scenes involve a lot of flipping around with arms and swords but they mostly look like they have been written for a PG rated TV show for teens and pre-teens. They are simply poor. Tommy looks like he needs to take a dump before every fight with that ridiculous pose of his.
This is not a 1-star movie as some rate it. That’s just ridiculous. It has some entertainment value. However, it could have been so much better. Unfortunately I suspect this movie has done the G.I. Joe franchise a disservice for some time to come.

Bland and forgettable martial-arts thriller that delves deeper into the character but outside of Henry Goulding who was good in the role, there's not much else to the film. The rest of the cast wasn't terribly charismatic and Samara Weaving talents is completely wasted in a small supporting role (shows up basically for the third act). I don't know, while the first two GI Joe films weren't very good, there were a few entertaining moments, this one I found pretty boring for the most part, worse yet, the fight scenes suffered from bad editing and poor lighting. **2.5/5**

If you are looking for the G.I. Joe style storytelling and action this may disappoint. It's a very different style and kind of predictable in many ways.