It's weird it has no reviews yet. They waiting till the movie comes out I guess.....but I'm pass on this one.
The new Mummy might actually be a good movie ...
- Thread starter ViCiouS
- Start date
Embargo lifts tonight at 8p EST
wonder woman was probably the best of the three in all honesty. but none of them were great.
wonder woman is getting what i like to call "agenda points." its showing a woman being strong and directing her own destiny. there have been a few movies of late that also get "agenda points" that are imo not great movies but get great reviews.
wonder woman is not a bad movie per se. its just not great. it suffers the most from poor pacing and an awful villian. just like bat vs supes and suicide squad. and all three had CGI that was not up to par.
it definitely does not deserve that 93 at rotten tomatoes.
yeah i meant to post that..he said hello i'm dr jekyll
Not at all. Filmmaking wise....I'd say Wonder Woman was the best made film of the 3. IMO, all 3 could've been far better if shit was just taken out and if they were paced better. Suicide Squad had all the tools to be better than what it was if they just used them properly.
I don't think any of them were bad films. Most times when you get people to tell you what was bad about them they tell you some dumb ass shit about how the comic had this or that. These are standalone films. Not comics.
But out of all them Wonder Woman was the most boring shit. It too had the tools to be better but shit man everyone seems to like it. I think Justice League will be better than all 3.
I knew it was a bad sign when they went a couple of days this week before dropping any reviews.
This is a BAD idea simply because Universal Studios is trying to copy the formula that Marvel/Disney Studios and Legendary Studios have set in motion. 
And they are essentially gonna give us another:
combined with
Unfortunately, NEITHER film was particularly well received by the public audience nor with critics.
Also; this has already been done very recently, on cable TV with far better reception by the public, by the fans AND with the critics:
Finally.
It must also be noted that no matter how tough, or how menacing Universal Studios new "Dark Universe" is presenting itself, virtually ALL their monsters got their collective asses royally handed to them by these two guys...
And they are essentially gonna give us another:
Unfortunately, NEITHER film was particularly well received by the public audience nor with critics.
Also; this has already been done very recently, on cable TV with far better reception by the public, by the fans AND with the critics:
Finally.
It must also be noted that no matter how tough, or how menacing Universal Studios new "Dark Universe" is presenting itself, virtually ALL their monsters got their collective asses royally handed to them by these two guys...
Last edited:
This is a BAD idea simply because Universal Studios is trying to copy the formula that Marvel/Disney Studios and Legendary Studios have set in motion.
And they are essentially gonna give us another:
combined with
Unfortunately, NEITHER film was particularly well received by the public audience nor with critics.
Also; this has already been done very recently, on cable TV with far better reception by the public, by the fans AND with the critics:
Finally.
It must also be noted that no matter how tough, or how menacing Universal Studios new "Dark Universe" is presenting itself, virtually ALL their monsters got their collective asses royally handed to them by these two guys...
Suicide Squad 2 is still "in development"..
Theyll probably get Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill as the new Abbott and Costello
Man this movie is getting killed.... You might want to change the thread title...
The Mummy reboot slammed as 'worst Tom Cruise movie ever' by critics
Critical Mass: Universal’s first Dark Universe flick is dead on arrival
JOEY NOLFI@JOEYNOLFI
POSTED ON JUNE 7, 2017 AT 1:46PM EDT
Universal’s first foray into the depths of its Dark Universe probably would have benefitted from a brighter guiding light.
After spending over three decades dazzling audiences across large-scale action-adventures on the big screen, Tom Cruise’s latest genre spectacle, The Mummy, is set to unravel in theaters this Friday. Movie critics, however, got a peek under wraps this week, as movie reviews for the blockbuster project debuted online Wednesday morning. The consensus? According to a vast majority of them, perhaps thisromp should’ve remained buried.
EW’s Chis Nashawaty says “the story feels as stitched together as Frankenstein’s monster: a little bit of An American Werewolf in London here, a little Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade there, some Jekyll and Hyde as frosting,” adding that, while Cruise is the film’s “secret weapon,” the project ultimately “feels derivative and unnecessary and like it was written by committee (which a quick scan of its lengthy script credits confirms).”
The Mummy stars Cruise as Nick Morton, a globetrotting explorer who accidentally unleashes an unspeakable, ancient Egyptian evil into the world in the form of Sofia Boutella’s Princess Ahmanet, a four-pupiled, reawakened royal wreaking havoc on earth during her multi-millennia quest to find a mate.
Cruise boards the franchise at the top of what Universal hopes to mold into a successful worldwide cinematic universe, with subsequent entries planned to feature the Invisible Man (Johnny Depp) and Frankenstein’s Monster (Javier Bardem). It was previously brought to life by the studio throughout the 1930s and 1950s, with actors from Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney, Jr. lending their acting talents to the series; it was later popularized for contemporary audiences by the likes of Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, and more in a three-film revival released between 1999 and 2008.
While the current Mummy release charts familiar territory for its A-list star, IndieWire‘s David Ehrlich calls the film “the worst Tom Cruise movie ever.”
“It stands out like a flat note on a grand piano. It’s not that Cruise hasn’t had misfires before (and between Rock of Ages, Oblivion, and [Jack Reacher], they’re happening at a faster rate), but The Mummy is the first of his films that doesn’t feel like a Tom Cruise movie,” he continues. “It’s not that it’s bad, it’s that it never could have been good. It’s an irredeemable disaster from start to finish, an adventure that entertains only via glimpses of the adventure it should have been. It’s the kind of movie that Tom Cruise became a household name by avoiding at all costs.”
Similarly, Variety‘s Owen Gleiberman criticizes director Alex Kurtzman’s treatment of the material, which he indicates played better as “empty-calorie creature-feature” fare in the previous Fraser flicks.
“It will grab ideas, motifs, and effects from almost any genre and jam them together, palming off its grab-bag quality as ‘originality.’ Scene for scene, The Mummy has been competently staged by director Alex Kurtzman, who has one previous feature to his credit (the minor 2012 Chris Pine heart-tugger People Like Us) and has never made a special-effects film before,” Gleiberman writes. “Yet competence isn’t the same thing as style or vision. The Mummy is a literal-minded, bumptious monster mash of a movie. It keeps throwing things at you, and the more you learn about the ersatz intricacy of its ‘universe,’ the less compelling it becomes.”
Whereas other critics have championed Cruise as the sole bright spot in the production, The Hollywood Reporter‘s John DeFore actually calls Cruise “weirdly out of place” as he plays a character who’s “a stiff” in a “limp, thrill-free debut” for the Dark Universe.
The Verge‘s Tasha Robinson, despite writing a more positive review than her peers, perhaps best sums up the critical consensus, explaining: “The Mummy is a relatively functional creature-feature movie, packed with oversized action sequences. But it reminds viewers at every turning point that it isn’t a story so much as a prologue, a brand-deposit setup meant to whet their appetites for more Dark Universe. The approach may pay off in the long run, but in the short term, it feels like sitting down for a movie, and getting a feature-length trailer instead.”
The Mummy opens in theaters this Friday, June 9. Read on to find out what these and more critics are saying about the film.
Chris Nashawaty (EW)
“He may not be totally comfortable selling some of the film’s jokier moments, but at 54, he’s a seasoned pro at selling narrative silliness with a straight face, a clenched jaw, and an inhuman sense of commitment. I’m not sure that this aimless, lukewarm take on The Mummy is how the studio dreamed that its Dark Universe would begin. But it’s just good enough to keep you curious about what comes next.”
David Ehrlich (IndieWire)
“The Mummy, much like the enduringly delightful 1999 version, tries to juggle a number of different tones, often alternating between action, horror, and comedy within the span of a single scene. That would be a difficult feat for a dexterous master like Bong Joon Ho, but for Alex Kurtzman — whose only previous directing credit is for a limp 2012 Chris Pine weepy called People Like Us — the challenge is clearly beyond his talents. The laughs are few and far between, as neither Johnson nor Cruise has ever been forced to parrot such weak banter, and the jump scares are haphazardly peppered into random scenes, as though that might be enough to indicate a sense of impending doom. It’s even worse when Kurtzman tries to meld those two modes into one, this tonally scattershot movie paying a half-assed homage to An American Werewolf in London before abandoning the idea in favor of generic genre sludge.”
Owen Gleiberman (Variety)
“It’s here that you begin to divine the film’s basic strategy: It will grab ideas, motifs, and effects from almost any genre and jam them together, palming off its grab-bag quality as ‘originality.’ Scene for scene, The Mummy has been competently staged by director Alex Kurtzman, who has one previous feature to his credit (the minor 2012 Chris Pine heart-tugger People Like Us) and has never made a special-effects film before. He knows how to visualize a spectacular plane crash, or how to play up the Dagger of Set — a mystical weapon of death that needs a giant ruby to complete it — so that it doesn’t seem as chintzy as something out of a National Treasure movie (which is basically what it is). Yet competence isn’t the same thing as style or vision. The Mummy is a literal-minded, bumptious monster mash of a movie. It keeps throwing things at you, and the more you learn about the ersatz intricacy of its ‘universe,’ the less compelling it becomes.”
John DeFore (The Hollywood Reporter)
“It’s no surprise that the action to come has vastly more in common with the CGI bombast of the Brendan Fraser-starring Mummy films than the quiet, slow-creeping horror of the version Karl Freund directed in 1932. What is surprising is that this film’s action makes one slightly nostalgic for the 1999 incarnation, or at least prompts one to ask if it wasn’t maybe more fun than we gave it credit for. So much of the action takes place in monotonous half-light; so little of it displays even the ambition to show audiences something new — unless we count the Mummy’s eyes, which have two irises each, for no apparent reason other than somebody thought that would look cool on a movie poster. The most involving scene by far shows Morton swimming through underwater crypts, trying to save Halsey from Ahmanet before he either drowns or is destroyed by the zombie warriors swimming behind him. But that sequence lasts just a minute or two, and is immediately followed by a Morton/Mummy standoff in which Cruise fails, rather spectacularly, to wring a laugh out of a kiss-off line one hopes neither Koepp, nor McQuarrie, nor Kussman would admit to having written. It’s the kickoff of a climax that requires more heroic self-sacrifice from Morton than we have any reason to believe he’s capable of. Unless, that is, we have a financial interest in the sequel set up by Jekyll’s longer-than-necessary final voiceover.”
Tasha Robinson (The Verge)
“The Mummy is a relatively functional creature-feature movie, packed with oversized action sequences. But it reminds viewers at every turning point that it isn’t a story so much as a prologue, a brand-deposit setup meant to whet their appetites for more Dark Universe. The approach may pay off in the long run, but in the short term, it feels like sitting down for a movie, and getting a feature-length trailer instead.”
Stephen Witty (New York Daily News)
“This Mummy just has Tom Cruise doing a Tom Cruise impression (don’t walk when you can run, don’t fall when you can tumble). And silly plot gimmicks that feels stolen from an “Avengers” script, from a magic rock everyone wants to an open ending that basically says ‘Stay tuned!’ Don’t. Sofia Boutella — the Algerian dancer who brought some mystery to Kingsman and Star Trek Beyond — is certainly eye-catching as the ancient enchantress. And for the geekiest fanboys, searching the scenes for in-jokes, the movie offers lots of trivial gifts. But The Mummy movie itself? This is one present you don’t want to unwrap.”
Chris Hunneysett (The Daily Mirror)
“This big budget action adventure lumbers into cinemas and begs to be put out of its torment. Long before it ended, so did I. Though the world is threatened when an ancient terror is unleashed, a directorial dead hand can’t muster a sense of fun, danger, mystery or suspense… This stumbling mess is intended to be a franchise starter for Universal Studio’s Dark Universe. It’s a series of connected films rebooting classic movie monsters such as the Wolfman… Next year we’ll have a new version of The Bride of Frankenstein and Johnny Depp has been announced as the Invisible Man. After this dull horror show, that’s a truly terrifying prospect.”
Peter Bradshaw (The Guardian)
“The Cruisemeister himself is left high and dry by plot lurches which leave him doing his boggle-eyed WTF expression. In one scene he is nude so we can see what undeniably great shape he’s in. The flabby, shapeless film itself doesn’t have his muscle-tone… In the end, having encouraged us to cheer for Tom Cruise as an all-around hero, the film tries to have it both ways and confer upon him some of the sepulchral glamour of evil, and he almost has something Lestat-ish or vampiric about him. Yet the film really won’t make up its mind. It’s a ragbag of action scenes which needed to be bandaged more tightly.”
http://ew.com/movies/2017/06/07/tom-cruise-the-mummy-movie-reviews/
The Mummy reboot slammed as 'worst Tom Cruise movie ever' by critics
Critical Mass: Universal’s first Dark Universe flick is dead on arrival
JOEY NOLFI@JOEYNOLFI
POSTED ON JUNE 7, 2017 AT 1:46PM EDT
Universal’s first foray into the depths of its Dark Universe probably would have benefitted from a brighter guiding light.
After spending over three decades dazzling audiences across large-scale action-adventures on the big screen, Tom Cruise’s latest genre spectacle, The Mummy, is set to unravel in theaters this Friday. Movie critics, however, got a peek under wraps this week, as movie reviews for the blockbuster project debuted online Wednesday morning. The consensus? According to a vast majority of them, perhaps thisromp should’ve remained buried.
EW’s Chis Nashawaty says “the story feels as stitched together as Frankenstein’s monster: a little bit of An American Werewolf in London here, a little Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade there, some Jekyll and Hyde as frosting,” adding that, while Cruise is the film’s “secret weapon,” the project ultimately “feels derivative and unnecessary and like it was written by committee (which a quick scan of its lengthy script credits confirms).”
The Mummy stars Cruise as Nick Morton, a globetrotting explorer who accidentally unleashes an unspeakable, ancient Egyptian evil into the world in the form of Sofia Boutella’s Princess Ahmanet, a four-pupiled, reawakened royal wreaking havoc on earth during her multi-millennia quest to find a mate.
Cruise boards the franchise at the top of what Universal hopes to mold into a successful worldwide cinematic universe, with subsequent entries planned to feature the Invisible Man (Johnny Depp) and Frankenstein’s Monster (Javier Bardem). It was previously brought to life by the studio throughout the 1930s and 1950s, with actors from Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney, Jr. lending their acting talents to the series; it was later popularized for contemporary audiences by the likes of Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, and more in a three-film revival released between 1999 and 2008.
While the current Mummy release charts familiar territory for its A-list star, IndieWire‘s David Ehrlich calls the film “the worst Tom Cruise movie ever.”
“It stands out like a flat note on a grand piano. It’s not that Cruise hasn’t had misfires before (and between Rock of Ages, Oblivion, and [Jack Reacher], they’re happening at a faster rate), but The Mummy is the first of his films that doesn’t feel like a Tom Cruise movie,” he continues. “It’s not that it’s bad, it’s that it never could have been good. It’s an irredeemable disaster from start to finish, an adventure that entertains only via glimpses of the adventure it should have been. It’s the kind of movie that Tom Cruise became a household name by avoiding at all costs.”
Similarly, Variety‘s Owen Gleiberman criticizes director Alex Kurtzman’s treatment of the material, which he indicates played better as “empty-calorie creature-feature” fare in the previous Fraser flicks.
“It will grab ideas, motifs, and effects from almost any genre and jam them together, palming off its grab-bag quality as ‘originality.’ Scene for scene, The Mummy has been competently staged by director Alex Kurtzman, who has one previous feature to his credit (the minor 2012 Chris Pine heart-tugger People Like Us) and has never made a special-effects film before,” Gleiberman writes. “Yet competence isn’t the same thing as style or vision. The Mummy is a literal-minded, bumptious monster mash of a movie. It keeps throwing things at you, and the more you learn about the ersatz intricacy of its ‘universe,’ the less compelling it becomes.”
Whereas other critics have championed Cruise as the sole bright spot in the production, The Hollywood Reporter‘s John DeFore actually calls Cruise “weirdly out of place” as he plays a character who’s “a stiff” in a “limp, thrill-free debut” for the Dark Universe.
The Verge‘s Tasha Robinson, despite writing a more positive review than her peers, perhaps best sums up the critical consensus, explaining: “The Mummy is a relatively functional creature-feature movie, packed with oversized action sequences. But it reminds viewers at every turning point that it isn’t a story so much as a prologue, a brand-deposit setup meant to whet their appetites for more Dark Universe. The approach may pay off in the long run, but in the short term, it feels like sitting down for a movie, and getting a feature-length trailer instead.”
The Mummy opens in theaters this Friday, June 9. Read on to find out what these and more critics are saying about the film.
Chris Nashawaty (EW)
“He may not be totally comfortable selling some of the film’s jokier moments, but at 54, he’s a seasoned pro at selling narrative silliness with a straight face, a clenched jaw, and an inhuman sense of commitment. I’m not sure that this aimless, lukewarm take on The Mummy is how the studio dreamed that its Dark Universe would begin. But it’s just good enough to keep you curious about what comes next.”
David Ehrlich (IndieWire)
“The Mummy, much like the enduringly delightful 1999 version, tries to juggle a number of different tones, often alternating between action, horror, and comedy within the span of a single scene. That would be a difficult feat for a dexterous master like Bong Joon Ho, but for Alex Kurtzman — whose only previous directing credit is for a limp 2012 Chris Pine weepy called People Like Us — the challenge is clearly beyond his talents. The laughs are few and far between, as neither Johnson nor Cruise has ever been forced to parrot such weak banter, and the jump scares are haphazardly peppered into random scenes, as though that might be enough to indicate a sense of impending doom. It’s even worse when Kurtzman tries to meld those two modes into one, this tonally scattershot movie paying a half-assed homage to An American Werewolf in London before abandoning the idea in favor of generic genre sludge.”
Owen Gleiberman (Variety)
“It’s here that you begin to divine the film’s basic strategy: It will grab ideas, motifs, and effects from almost any genre and jam them together, palming off its grab-bag quality as ‘originality.’ Scene for scene, The Mummy has been competently staged by director Alex Kurtzman, who has one previous feature to his credit (the minor 2012 Chris Pine heart-tugger People Like Us) and has never made a special-effects film before. He knows how to visualize a spectacular plane crash, or how to play up the Dagger of Set — a mystical weapon of death that needs a giant ruby to complete it — so that it doesn’t seem as chintzy as something out of a National Treasure movie (which is basically what it is). Yet competence isn’t the same thing as style or vision. The Mummy is a literal-minded, bumptious monster mash of a movie. It keeps throwing things at you, and the more you learn about the ersatz intricacy of its ‘universe,’ the less compelling it becomes.”
John DeFore (The Hollywood Reporter)
“It’s no surprise that the action to come has vastly more in common with the CGI bombast of the Brendan Fraser-starring Mummy films than the quiet, slow-creeping horror of the version Karl Freund directed in 1932. What is surprising is that this film’s action makes one slightly nostalgic for the 1999 incarnation, or at least prompts one to ask if it wasn’t maybe more fun than we gave it credit for. So much of the action takes place in monotonous half-light; so little of it displays even the ambition to show audiences something new — unless we count the Mummy’s eyes, which have two irises each, for no apparent reason other than somebody thought that would look cool on a movie poster. The most involving scene by far shows Morton swimming through underwater crypts, trying to save Halsey from Ahmanet before he either drowns or is destroyed by the zombie warriors swimming behind him. But that sequence lasts just a minute or two, and is immediately followed by a Morton/Mummy standoff in which Cruise fails, rather spectacularly, to wring a laugh out of a kiss-off line one hopes neither Koepp, nor McQuarrie, nor Kussman would admit to having written. It’s the kickoff of a climax that requires more heroic self-sacrifice from Morton than we have any reason to believe he’s capable of. Unless, that is, we have a financial interest in the sequel set up by Jekyll’s longer-than-necessary final voiceover.”
Tasha Robinson (The Verge)
“The Mummy is a relatively functional creature-feature movie, packed with oversized action sequences. But it reminds viewers at every turning point that it isn’t a story so much as a prologue, a brand-deposit setup meant to whet their appetites for more Dark Universe. The approach may pay off in the long run, but in the short term, it feels like sitting down for a movie, and getting a feature-length trailer instead.”
Stephen Witty (New York Daily News)
“This Mummy just has Tom Cruise doing a Tom Cruise impression (don’t walk when you can run, don’t fall when you can tumble). And silly plot gimmicks that feels stolen from an “Avengers” script, from a magic rock everyone wants to an open ending that basically says ‘Stay tuned!’ Don’t. Sofia Boutella — the Algerian dancer who brought some mystery to Kingsman and Star Trek Beyond — is certainly eye-catching as the ancient enchantress. And for the geekiest fanboys, searching the scenes for in-jokes, the movie offers lots of trivial gifts. But The Mummy movie itself? This is one present you don’t want to unwrap.”
Chris Hunneysett (The Daily Mirror)
“This big budget action adventure lumbers into cinemas and begs to be put out of its torment. Long before it ended, so did I. Though the world is threatened when an ancient terror is unleashed, a directorial dead hand can’t muster a sense of fun, danger, mystery or suspense… This stumbling mess is intended to be a franchise starter for Universal Studio’s Dark Universe. It’s a series of connected films rebooting classic movie monsters such as the Wolfman… Next year we’ll have a new version of The Bride of Frankenstein and Johnny Depp has been announced as the Invisible Man. After this dull horror show, that’s a truly terrifying prospect.”
Peter Bradshaw (The Guardian)
“The Cruisemeister himself is left high and dry by plot lurches which leave him doing his boggle-eyed WTF expression. In one scene he is nude so we can see what undeniably great shape he’s in. The flabby, shapeless film itself doesn’t have his muscle-tone… In the end, having encouraged us to cheer for Tom Cruise as an all-around hero, the film tries to have it both ways and confer upon him some of the sepulchral glamour of evil, and he almost has something Lestat-ish or vampiric about him. Yet the film really won’t make up its mind. It’s a ragbag of action scenes which needed to be bandaged more tightly.”
http://ew.com/movies/2017/06/07/tom-cruise-the-mummy-movie-reviews/
So reboot the reboot of the reboot...
I do find it hilarious that Universial fucked up rebooting a franchise that they already successfully rebooted back in the 90s. Why not follow the same formula? It's the same question I ask D.C. with Justice league.... why fuck up your own blueprint.
greed - rushing to catch Disney
but conveniently ignoring that Disney had a few slow years up to 2012 - during which they locked in all of Pixar's talent pool, resurrecting Disney animation by talent sharing with Pixar, making other VIPs happy, acquiring Lucas developing Marvel's slate - Avengers was built - it didn't just happen...
Now Disney's boxoffice will easily out earn every studio by far for everyone of the next 5 to 7 years
Of course this guy disagrees with them all.. and he getting clowned for it as always
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/77986
This is a BAD idea simply because Universal Studios is trying to copy the formula that Marvel/Disney Studios and Legendary Studios have set in motion.
And they are essentially gonna give us another:
combined with
Unfortunately, NEITHER film was particularly well received by the public audience nor with critics.
Also; this has already been done very recently, on cable TV with far better reception by the public, by the fans AND with the critics:
Finally.
It must also be noted that no matter how tough, or how menacing Universal Studios new "Dark Universe" is presenting itself, virtually ALL their monsters got their collective asses royally handed to them by these two guys...
How is Universal copying Marvel when Universal was the first studio to do the shared universe,hell Marvel wasn't even the second studio to do the shared universe.
All Marvel did was take Universal's concept and made it very popular.
I don't understand,why people are shocked about the movie being bad.You can tell that shit was horrible from the first teaser trailer they released last year.
Peace,
People loved Wonder Woman because they wanted to love it. Overall, it was just decent and the ending was ridiculous.
People loved Wonder Woman because they wanted to love it. Overall, it was just decent and the ending was ridiculous.
I lost all respect for Harry and that site years ago. I think it was when the first Wolverine came out. He pissed off and crying about how the studio refused to allow him to attend a free press screening or something like that. The way rant read it was like he was going to shit on the movie as some sort of revenge because he felt the studios shitted on him. If it was Wolverine, then he would have been correct in shitting on the movie anyways. But the rant came off as if to say, even if Wolverine had been as well received as the last movie, Logan, he was going to hate on it off of general principle. Fuck him and his website.Of course this guy disagrees with them all.. and he getting clowned for it as always
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/77986
Yeah I don't dont disagree. I'll never probably watch this again lol.
Good point.
Peace,
Right! That's how I judge it. There's not a chance in hell that I would watch that flick again.
Right! That's how I judge it. There's not a chance in hell that I would watch that flick again.
Yeah I've seen Civil War numerous times already. If I can't watch it more than once then naw I can't fuck with it. I liked the Wonder Woman character though.
Peace,
She was good. The chemistry between her and the male actor was good. The overall film though? Meh.
She was good. The chemistry between her and the male actor was good. The overall film though? Meh.
Yeah Chris Pine was too. That's the only good part for me. The villains were embarsssing. Never posed a threat at all. We could've made this so much better but people like it so shit I guess they know what they doing.
Peace,
They sold it on the 'I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar' aspect. Catered to women and girls who wanted to root for a female hero. Which is cool. But I'm reading reviews like, "The best superhero movie since the Dark Knight" and I'm like, "What the fuck?? Didn't Deadpool come out last year?"
They sold it on the 'I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar' aspect. Catered to women and girls who wanted to root for a female hero. Which is cool. But I'm reading reviews like, "The best superhero movie since the Dark Knight" and I'm like, "What the fuck?? Didn't Deadpool come out last year?"
Similar threads
