stermix501

Learning italian, I have tried to watch some italian movies in Netflix. They were mostly average level with no particular interest. Even the ones with good ranking were mostly boring and comedies unfunny.

Luckily I didn't check the ranking of this one.

From the 1st minute it is engaging, has fast rythm and it is a just 1h30m movie which is ideal for comedies.

I don't understand the negative reviews. Some prudish puritanists reviewers have been inexplicably offended by a couple of women in underwear, when in other successful shows there is full nudity and gratuitus sex all the time. One of them has rated No time to die and Edward Scissorhands with 1, so you can guess the kind of mentality and taste.

I have probably seen something similar in theater, but it works fine as a movie. I didn't like the 5min at the end, but other than that it was great.

Don't trust 1 star reviews. Not because they are not authentic, but because these people are out of their waters. Out of curiosity I have checked the profile of a random 1 star reviewer: he had put less than 3 stars on acclaimed successes like Gone Girl, Star Trek into darkness, Shutter Island and more than 8 to flops like Cloud Atlas and Ted. So he was definitely in to watch a movie he wouldn't like, or maybe he deeply likes but is ashamed to admit it or just likes to watch and criticise.

So what type of cinephile are you? I follow Jackie Chan since my childhood. Although he has shown that he can play polyvalent roles with deeper characters, his trade mark is this kind of action comedy. Those who say they like Jackie but didnt like this one, it's bizarre. I thought Jackie had started doing less active roles in his action movies, but in this one you can see the usual Jackie of his 40-50 years carreer. At 69y.o. He runs, kicks, jumps like being 20-30y.o.

Cena is not of my liking in general, but here he was a good partner of Jackie. Probably better than initially casted Stallone, although I would also like to see that partnership.

Plot is no big deal, none would expect Oscar material, but if there was an Oscar for actually enjoyable movies, this would be in the list. SO, if you see 5 stars ranking on an action comedy of Jackie you are probably in for too much fun. I really hope for a sequel!

Sell xters to Marvel to get rank/box office results is the only thing I could think of as a solution. And I am not talking about the movie's merits yet. It just seems so obvious: even for a rubbish Marvel movie the ranks and box office are upwards no matter what. Wandavision S01E01 already had around 8.5rank despite the fact that there was nothing inside there from what the Tv show wanted to present. I believe that there aretoo many of die hard Marvel fans, that if you make a 3h movie showing a wall with paints dry and someone said these paints come from the boots of Thor, Ironman and Spiderman, people would remain watch it and write high ranks comments.

To the movie in question now. Despite A. Muscetti's lack of experience, he managed a great requel prequel kind of thing that spaghettifies in a smart way the whole DCU to make an Easter egg equivalent to all Easter eggs of the 7th art history.

Michael Keaton was never the ideal Dark Knight for me (Batfleck was), but seeing him like that was such a return to my child years, the 1st loves, the 1st disappointments that it moved me a lot. Before jumping again to re-watch the 1989 classic for the 20th time, I stay here to say that the director did an excellent job depicting him eventually better than before. He caught the essence of T. Burton and J. Snyder and gave us a hell of a ride that felt much less than 2h making me wonder how the clock was so advanced at the end of the movie.

I never liked Ezra Miller, so seeing him twice should have been too much. However lets admit that he is not the only one with issues and despite, lets credit him that he did a really fine job here.

Indeed there are some CGI issues, but maybe Gunn has some good cards in his sleeves. I will definitely watch anything DC brings us. Can't even wait for more.