Search
Search results
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated When Will I Be Loved (2004) in Movies
Jul 4, 2021 (Updated Jul 4, 2021)
"๐ ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ณ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐ต๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐บ'๐ด ๐จ๐ช๐ณ๐ญ, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ง๐ถ๐ค๐ฌ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ? ๐๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ท๐ฐ๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ช๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ด!"
A deeply, *deeply* misogynistic, artsy-fartsy disaster of stratospheric proportions where every slimebag man has some idiotic 'philosophical' defense as to why they need to manipulate this woman into letting them fuck her - made by a known serial sexual predator. I felt complicit for even entertaining the idea to watch such dogshit, like I needed a military-grade chemical shower after seeing it. Or to at least bleach my eyes. Might be the worst movie I've ever seen, if not then certainly somewhere down in the bottom 5 or 10. Written, edited, and shot like a bad high school student project with this unbearable non-story which rips off - of all movies - ๐๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ข๐ญ (by name, in fact)? Neve Campbell has sex with another women (without showing any skin of course) behind a transparent mesh curtain scored to a shitty Bach cover - imagine if that episode from "South Park" where the people smelled their own farts was real and you'd get this depth-free piece of shit. As cynical, uninvolved, and up-its-own-ass as ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด is, at least that one actually went through with its promise of provocation. ๐๐ช๐ง๐ต๐บ ๐๐ฉ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐บ is unironically more provocative than this. Effectively just a series of bullshit conversations that go nowhere and shit-tier sex scenes more poorly thrown together than that one from Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part I. And then it also features horrible ass songs on the soundtrack because of course it does. One of the rare movies to bag Roger Ebert's highest rating... which was also 'earned' by fellow turds ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ข๐ด๐ด and ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ณ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ (which - awful as they are - are masterpieces compared to this) so it shows how much that distinction is worth lmao. Shoot me now.
A deeply, *deeply* misogynistic, artsy-fartsy disaster of stratospheric proportions where every slimebag man has some idiotic 'philosophical' defense as to why they need to manipulate this woman into letting them fuck her - made by a known serial sexual predator. I felt complicit for even entertaining the idea to watch such dogshit, like I needed a military-grade chemical shower after seeing it. Or to at least bleach my eyes. Might be the worst movie I've ever seen, if not then certainly somewhere down in the bottom 5 or 10. Written, edited, and shot like a bad high school student project with this unbearable non-story which rips off - of all movies - ๐๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ข๐ญ (by name, in fact)? Neve Campbell has sex with another women (without showing any skin of course) behind a transparent mesh curtain scored to a shitty Bach cover - imagine if that episode from "South Park" where the people smelled their own farts was real and you'd get this depth-free piece of shit. As cynical, uninvolved, and up-its-own-ass as ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด is, at least that one actually went through with its promise of provocation. ๐๐ช๐ง๐ต๐บ ๐๐ฉ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐บ is unironically more provocative than this. Effectively just a series of bullshit conversations that go nowhere and shit-tier sex scenes more poorly thrown together than that one from Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part I. And then it also features horrible ass songs on the soundtrack because of course it does. One of the rare movies to bag Roger Ebert's highest rating... which was also 'earned' by fellow turds ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ข๐ด๐ด and ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ณ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ (which - awful as they are - are masterpieces compared to this) so it shows how much that distinction is worth lmao. Shoot me now.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Under Siege (1992) in Movies
Jan 25, 2021
Cheesy But Leaves An Impact
A short order cook on a navy ship has to fight off terrorists that have taken control.
Acting: 6
When I think acting chops, please believe Iโm not referring to Steven Seagal. Itโs rough watching him spit out lines. The majority of the other actors arenโt really any better save for an underrated performance by Tommy Lee Jones. If youโre looking for quality thespians, look elsewhere.
Beginning: 6
Characters: 7
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
There are some quality shots here, although things are a bit jumbled at times. I do have to give credit to Andrew Davis as Iโm sure it was a challenge doing a movie solely below deck of a ship. I definitely wouldnโt want that challenge. Not much to be desired, I appreciated he did the best he could with the little he was given.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 7
Cheesy, but definitely leaves enough of an impact where I would watch it again. Itโs a great movie to check out while folding clothes or doing any other mindless task. Steven Seagal definitely leaves behind some fun action moments that make the movie worthwhile.
Pace: 7
Plot: 7
Cheesy? Sure. Original? Absolutely. It sounds ridiculous but I have to give the story credit for trying to branch out and try something new, especially during the early 90โs when martial arts movies were all the rage. Itโs not winning any Oscars, but Iโve seen worse stories from movies that have tried harder.
Resolution: 10
Great ending that brings the movie to a nice close. I like that it fits perfectly in line with the rest of the cheesiness of the movie. Great way to wrap things up.
Overall: 73
For what itโs worth, Under Siege doesnโt do anything exceptionally well, but it doesnโt do anything terribly bad either. Itโs a fun movie if you have time to kill. Definitely one of my favorite Tommy Lee Jones roles.
Acting: 6
When I think acting chops, please believe Iโm not referring to Steven Seagal. Itโs rough watching him spit out lines. The majority of the other actors arenโt really any better save for an underrated performance by Tommy Lee Jones. If youโre looking for quality thespians, look elsewhere.
Beginning: 6
Characters: 7
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
There are some quality shots here, although things are a bit jumbled at times. I do have to give credit to Andrew Davis as Iโm sure it was a challenge doing a movie solely below deck of a ship. I definitely wouldnโt want that challenge. Not much to be desired, I appreciated he did the best he could with the little he was given.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 7
Cheesy, but definitely leaves enough of an impact where I would watch it again. Itโs a great movie to check out while folding clothes or doing any other mindless task. Steven Seagal definitely leaves behind some fun action moments that make the movie worthwhile.
Pace: 7
Plot: 7
Cheesy? Sure. Original? Absolutely. It sounds ridiculous but I have to give the story credit for trying to branch out and try something new, especially during the early 90โs when martial arts movies were all the rage. Itโs not winning any Oscars, but Iโve seen worse stories from movies that have tried harder.
Resolution: 10
Great ending that brings the movie to a nice close. I like that it fits perfectly in line with the rest of the cheesiness of the movie. Great way to wrap things up.
Overall: 73
For what itโs worth, Under Siege doesnโt do anything exceptionally well, but it doesnโt do anything terribly bad either. Itโs a fun movie if you have time to kill. Definitely one of my favorite Tommy Lee Jones roles.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Monster Trucks (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Itโs safe to say that movies nowadays are either remakes of beloved classic movies, based off a book, or are a sequel. Original ideas and story lines are few and far between. When I first heard about this so-called movie Monster Trucks, I thought it was going to be about those hug trucks you see at Monster Jam shows driving over cars with their loud engines entertaining crowds. This film is far from anything of the sort. Itโs based off the idea from a 4 year old about monster trucks actually having monsters in the trucks.
Set in a small oil drilling town in North Dakota, Tripp (Lucas Till), a troubled high school student, befriends an extraterrestrial squid-like creature that takes up residence in the hood of Trippโs truck. After an accident occurs at a nearby drilling site displacing this creature, it doesnโt take long for the oil company to realize if they donโt locate this creature, they will have to cease drilling which affects their bottom line. With the help of his friend Meredith (Jane Levy), Tripp realizes he must take his new friend back to his home before the villainous oil company CEO ( Rob Lowe) catches them.
If you take the movie for what it is: trucks, monsters, friends, and good guy/bad guys-itโs an entertaining film with some great laugh out loud moments that also attempts to tug at the heartstrings from a pair of unlikely friends. Dig deeper and try to analyze every piece of the movie, youโll only see the outlandish, unrealistic, and far fetch concept with underdeveloped character relationships. All in all, I enjoyed the film. The friendship between Tripp and the creature he named Creech was similar to that of Elliott and E.T. with less drama. It brought me back to my childhood. It taught my son the meaning of friendship, sacrifice, and loyalty.
Set in a small oil drilling town in North Dakota, Tripp (Lucas Till), a troubled high school student, befriends an extraterrestrial squid-like creature that takes up residence in the hood of Trippโs truck. After an accident occurs at a nearby drilling site displacing this creature, it doesnโt take long for the oil company to realize if they donโt locate this creature, they will have to cease drilling which affects their bottom line. With the help of his friend Meredith (Jane Levy), Tripp realizes he must take his new friend back to his home before the villainous oil company CEO ( Rob Lowe) catches them.
If you take the movie for what it is: trucks, monsters, friends, and good guy/bad guys-itโs an entertaining film with some great laugh out loud moments that also attempts to tug at the heartstrings from a pair of unlikely friends. Dig deeper and try to analyze every piece of the movie, youโll only see the outlandish, unrealistic, and far fetch concept with underdeveloped character relationships. All in all, I enjoyed the film. The friendship between Tripp and the creature he named Creech was similar to that of Elliott and E.T. with less drama. It brought me back to my childhood. It taught my son the meaning of friendship, sacrifice, and loyalty.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Oct 10, 2019
My Favorite Movie of All Time
This is my favorite movie of all time. It is my number 1 movie of all time. I love this movie. Its my number 1 best movies of all time. Its number 1 of my top ten best movies of all time.
The Dark Knight- to me is perfect, it is excellent, epic and tops batman begins. This to me is the best sqeuel of all time. It does so much within 2hrs and 45mins, that you have to watch it again because it was that great.
The Plot, the suspense, the darkness, the acting, the performaces, the lines, every last detail is great.
You have lines like:
"Ya wanna know how I got these scars?"
"Why so Serious?"
"Let's put a smile on that face!".
"Some men just want to watch the world burn."
"What doesn't kill you makes you stranger."
"Its simple, we kill the Batman."
"You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain".
So many great and memorable lines.
Two Words- Heath Ledger- he make his joker his own. He was so excellent and great as the joker. I even have a poster of his joker, thats how much i love this film. Heath Ledger will go down as to me the best joker of all time. He will be missed.
The Plot: With the help of allies Lt. Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) and DA Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), Batman (Christian Bale) has been able to keep a tight lid on crime in Gotham City. But when a vile young criminal calling himself the Joker (Heath Ledger) suddenly throws the town into chaos, the caped Crusader begins to tread a fine line between heroism and vigilantism.
I can go on and on, on how much i love this film. If you havent seen it, than go watch it. I highly reccordmend watching this movie.
The Dark Knight- to me is perfect, it is excellent, epic and tops batman begins. This to me is the best sqeuel of all time. It does so much within 2hrs and 45mins, that you have to watch it again because it was that great.
The Plot, the suspense, the darkness, the acting, the performaces, the lines, every last detail is great.
You have lines like:
"Ya wanna know how I got these scars?"
"Why so Serious?"
"Let's put a smile on that face!".
"Some men just want to watch the world burn."
"What doesn't kill you makes you stranger."
"Its simple, we kill the Batman."
"You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain".
So many great and memorable lines.
Two Words- Heath Ledger- he make his joker his own. He was so excellent and great as the joker. I even have a poster of his joker, thats how much i love this film. Heath Ledger will go down as to me the best joker of all time. He will be missed.
The Plot: With the help of allies Lt. Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) and DA Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), Batman (Christian Bale) has been able to keep a tight lid on crime in Gotham City. But when a vile young criminal calling himself the Joker (Heath Ledger) suddenly throws the town into chaos, the caped Crusader begins to tread a fine line between heroism and vigilantism.
I can go on and on, on how much i love this film. If you havent seen it, than go watch it. I highly reccordmend watching this movie.
David McK (3162 KP) rated Star Trek (2009) in Movies
Aug 23, 2020 (Updated Jan 22, 2023)
JJ Abrams prepares for Star Wars
"Space. The Final Frontier. These are the voyages ..."
2009 big screen reimagining of the iconic 60s TV series, and I use that as the touchpoint deliberately: we're back to a (recast) Kirk and co instead of the Next Generation crew, or even those from Voyager/Enterprise/Discovery.
In retrospect, it also somewhat comes across as director JJ Abrams pitch for making a Star Wars movie: this is also lens flare and slow motion, with the action ramped up considerably from the TV series or even most of the previous movies. it's also the first of the three Kelvin-verse Star Trek movies: I'm unsure whether we'll get any more in that timeline, what with the tragic death of some of the (young) key actors - I'm looking at you, Anton Yelchin (Chekov) - and with others of the cast moving on to other bigger (?) sci-fi things - yep, that's you Zoe Saldana (Uhura).
The plot, as alluded to above, involves time travel, with the events thus kicking off an entire new timeline, that here sees Chris Pine taking on the role of James T Kirk - initially introduced as a kid, driving his step fathers classic car off a cliff (talk about setting out your stall early!) - and Zachary Quinto (then more famous as the villain Sylar from TVs 'Heroes') talking on the role of a younger Spock.
Most of the cast, I felt, was pretty much spot on - the only one that really rubbed me up the wrong way was Simon Pegg as Scotty, although even he grew on me a bit (I'm also not entirely sold on the aesthetics of the USS Enterprise here - more like USS Chibiprise!). We also have the 'passing of the torch' (as it were) from one character to another, with the inclusion of a certain key half-human actor who will forever be associated with that role ...
2009 big screen reimagining of the iconic 60s TV series, and I use that as the touchpoint deliberately: we're back to a (recast) Kirk and co instead of the Next Generation crew, or even those from Voyager/Enterprise/Discovery.
In retrospect, it also somewhat comes across as director JJ Abrams pitch for making a Star Wars movie: this is also lens flare and slow motion, with the action ramped up considerably from the TV series or even most of the previous movies. it's also the first of the three Kelvin-verse Star Trek movies: I'm unsure whether we'll get any more in that timeline, what with the tragic death of some of the (young) key actors - I'm looking at you, Anton Yelchin (Chekov) - and with others of the cast moving on to other bigger (?) sci-fi things - yep, that's you Zoe Saldana (Uhura).
The plot, as alluded to above, involves time travel, with the events thus kicking off an entire new timeline, that here sees Chris Pine taking on the role of James T Kirk - initially introduced as a kid, driving his step fathers classic car off a cliff (talk about setting out your stall early!) - and Zachary Quinto (then more famous as the villain Sylar from TVs 'Heroes') talking on the role of a younger Spock.
Most of the cast, I felt, was pretty much spot on - the only one that really rubbed me up the wrong way was Simon Pegg as Scotty, although even he grew on me a bit (I'm also not entirely sold on the aesthetics of the USS Enterprise here - more like USS Chibiprise!). We also have the 'passing of the torch' (as it were) from one character to another, with the inclusion of a certain key half-human actor who will forever be associated with that role ...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Jan 16, 2022
Creepy telephone calls, a will-they-won't-they romance between Gale Weathers and Deputy Dewey, a killer that falls over a lot, on-the-nose meta dialogue, and copious amounts of stabbing and blood, can only mean one thing - Scream is back and dammit, it feels good.
The key to the quality of the franchises 5th entry is balance. For a start, it tickles that nostalgia button just the right amount. It's certainly a chronological sequel to all of the 4 movies that came before, but it mainly serves as a love letter to the first. Saying too much could be considered as spoilers, so all I'll say is, the obvious call backs to the original don't feel forced, and make sense in a narrative manner. It doesn't feel like a cash grab. It feels like a film made by fans, for the fans.
Another noticeable balance is found in the characters. With a new Ghostface comes a new set of doomed teenagers. They're just about tolerable enough, but are well written, and aren't over reliant on the legacy characters to get by. Seeing Sidney Prescott, Gale, and Dewey all back together again is, of course, a delight, like a warm embrace from an old friend, but they're utilised in a precise manner. They don't stifle the new cast but their presence is unmistakably notable throughout.
The horror is well realised. Scream is a whole bag of fun, but is also suitably tense. The violence on display is quite brutal and unflinching. Ghostface once again feels menacing and threatening, and the mystery of their identity ticks along until the final moments. Like all of these movies, the reveal is a "I knew it!" moment before realising that you could have said that about anyone. Everybody is a suspect after all.
Radio Silence have done a cracking job of bringing a beloved horror series back to the big screen. I've seen plenty of people saying that Wes Craven would be proud, and I completely agree. Long live Scream.
The key to the quality of the franchises 5th entry is balance. For a start, it tickles that nostalgia button just the right amount. It's certainly a chronological sequel to all of the 4 movies that came before, but it mainly serves as a love letter to the first. Saying too much could be considered as spoilers, so all I'll say is, the obvious call backs to the original don't feel forced, and make sense in a narrative manner. It doesn't feel like a cash grab. It feels like a film made by fans, for the fans.
Another noticeable balance is found in the characters. With a new Ghostface comes a new set of doomed teenagers. They're just about tolerable enough, but are well written, and aren't over reliant on the legacy characters to get by. Seeing Sidney Prescott, Gale, and Dewey all back together again is, of course, a delight, like a warm embrace from an old friend, but they're utilised in a precise manner. They don't stifle the new cast but their presence is unmistakably notable throughout.
The horror is well realised. Scream is a whole bag of fun, but is also suitably tense. The violence on display is quite brutal and unflinching. Ghostface once again feels menacing and threatening, and the mystery of their identity ticks along until the final moments. Like all of these movies, the reveal is a "I knew it!" moment before realising that you could have said that about anyone. Everybody is a suspect after all.
Radio Silence have done a cracking job of bringing a beloved horror series back to the big screen. I've seen plenty of people saying that Wes Craven would be proud, and I completely agree. Long live Scream.
Kim Pook (101 KP) rated Fear Street Part Three: 1666 (2021) in Movies
May 31, 2022
We get a recap of what has happened so far, much like in the previous film.
Deena has woken up in 1666,only her name is now Sarah and she is not the only person to be in this century. Every character from the past 2 movies are here too but all with different names, apart from Tommy who is now Thomas. It's all very confusing.
Anyway after a night of passion with the pastors daughter, strange things start to happen such as food going mouldy, a pig eating their young and Sarah's dog throws itself in the well. This leads to Sarah believing this is all her fault, and that she's being punished by the devil for her sins, and after a rather disturbing scene both hannah and Sarah are accused of being witches, and a witch hut begins to rid them from the earth.
Meanwhile, Sarah plans to save them both by making a deal with the devil revealing the truth about Sarah Friers curse.
I was surprised to find that only the first half of the movie was in 1666, as we are thrown back to 1994 as Deena comes out of her vision and realises what needs to be done to save shady side.
As I'm not really a fan of old time movies, I went into this expecting to hate it, but I actually ended up liking it. I liked that every moment throughout the series is answered and nothing is left hanging in the air. I thought the accents in 1666 were strange though, I couldn't tell what the accent was meant to be, Irish maybe!?!
I did enjoy the second half of the movie more than the first, it has a few light hearted funny moments which wasn't present in 1666, did they not have a sense of humour back then??
I liked that at the end of the movie it made way for another possible movie which would be interesting to see.
Deena has woken up in 1666,only her name is now Sarah and she is not the only person to be in this century. Every character from the past 2 movies are here too but all with different names, apart from Tommy who is now Thomas. It's all very confusing.
Anyway after a night of passion with the pastors daughter, strange things start to happen such as food going mouldy, a pig eating their young and Sarah's dog throws itself in the well. This leads to Sarah believing this is all her fault, and that she's being punished by the devil for her sins, and after a rather disturbing scene both hannah and Sarah are accused of being witches, and a witch hut begins to rid them from the earth.
Meanwhile, Sarah plans to save them both by making a deal with the devil revealing the truth about Sarah Friers curse.
I was surprised to find that only the first half of the movie was in 1666, as we are thrown back to 1994 as Deena comes out of her vision and realises what needs to be done to save shady side.
As I'm not really a fan of old time movies, I went into this expecting to hate it, but I actually ended up liking it. I liked that every moment throughout the series is answered and nothing is left hanging in the air. I thought the accents in 1666 were strange though, I couldn't tell what the accent was meant to be, Irish maybe!?!
I did enjoy the second half of the movie more than the first, it has a few light hearted funny moments which wasn't present in 1666, did they not have a sense of humour back then??
I liked that at the end of the movie it made way for another possible movie which would be interesting to see.
Kaysee Hood (83 KP) rated Survive the Night in Books
Oct 17, 2017
More like a 5.5
I had expected something more from Vega since I've read two of her other books. I knew her writing style and knew what to expect, yet somewhere 2/3 through it went downhill. It felt like when you rent a movie from Red Box and you can tell this movie was something someone made in a month. You're all into it. The gore is amazing, the plot is actually kind of decent for a low budget fill, and you started to cheer for the main characters to live despite the fact you were okay with them all being slaughtered at the beginning because that's what horror movies are for. Then it's like whoever created it ran out of money so the end was glued together in an attempt to have something and hope it was good enough, but you're back wishing everyone got slashed.
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated The Big Sick (2017) in Movies
Nov 21, 2017
Sweet, but too similar to previous movies of this nature
As someone from a similar background as the lead actor, these films have become all too familiar. Culture clashes, torn between a family and a western lifestyle has been seen in films such as Bride and Prejudice, Bend it Like Beckham, and even East is East. So it doesn't seem particularly novel to me.
What I liked was the serious side of it - no over the top music sequences, just an honest portrayal of Kumail Nanjiani's intense courtship and subsequent challenges while meeting his real wife Emily Gordon. The truth is that much of this image has changed, so it can become tedious when the same generic story is peddled to the masses. I'm hoping that we can move away from these types of plots in the future. Overall, just an average film, but great acting from Holly Hunter and Anupam Kher as per usual.
What I liked was the serious side of it - no over the top music sequences, just an honest portrayal of Kumail Nanjiani's intense courtship and subsequent challenges while meeting his real wife Emily Gordon. The truth is that much of this image has changed, so it can become tedious when the same generic story is peddled to the masses. I'm hoping that we can move away from these types of plots in the future. Overall, just an average film, but great acting from Holly Hunter and Anupam Kher as per usual.
Jess Bicknell (0 KP) rated Deadpool (2016) in Movies
Dec 8, 2017
The merc with a mouth!
Deadpool AKA Wade Wilson is one of the best-written antiheroes there is. He is not only comedic, harsh, crude, and suffers from a case of should I do the right thing, but he is also one of those characters you cannot help to love in a dysfunctional manner. The storyline follows pretty close with his original story from the comics. There are plenty of fight scenes, love scenes, and plenty of scenes of Deadpool being his crass, foul mouth self.
Overall the film is great for anyone looking to find a superhero film that is not like any other out there.
Overall the film is great for anyone looking to find a superhero film that is not like any other out there.