Rate the last movie you saw

Mission Impossible: Final Reckoning



First, I will start with the title change. At first, it was going to be Dead Reckoning Part II, but they changed it to final reckoning, for some unknown reason. Dead reckoning is actually a form of navigation, and given the submarine plot of Dead Reckoning, it was a nice little pun. Final Reckoning makes no sense.

Secondly, you know it's a bad script when the first 10 minutes is exposition explaining the plot.

This was probably the worst of the franchise. The villain (Esai Morales) was terrible. Tom Cruise kind of phoned it in, acting wise. The plot was overly convoluted and contained way too many retcons that didn't make any sense. The stunts were absolutely amazing, and the film looked great. Sadly, it was like watching a Fast and Furious movie with better stunts and less CGI.

The best part of the movie is the captain of the submarine who is only in it for about 10 minutes.

Apparently, the way they wrote the movie is they had about 5-6 locations they wanted to film and a few stunts in mind, and just stitched together a plot from that. That isn't how it's done.
 
Kevinicus said:
Not a bad book series, which is of course better than the film. Wouldn't have minded if they made movies for the whole series.
Click to expand...
I think they did a tv series. Not sure if it was any good or how many seasons it was.
 
Weapons - 6.5/10

A few good scares. Surprisingly some good laughs that weren’t totally dumb.

Was a great date night choice.
 


Don't bother. I thought with some of the names it might be ok. Nah



Lower budget. Has so many issues....but for whatever reason I kind of like it. I like how it ended without a typical hollywood style ending.



I liked the first one.
The Skulls 2 was meh
Liked the Skulls 3

I think the second and third one were straight to video.



A Classic. Plus they have a bunch of B straight to video sequels
Considering the budget and other issues...most of the following ones were better than you would expect. However I have not watched the last one yet.
 


I was late to the party on watching Better Call Saul, which I really enjoyed. A little while ago I decided to give Nobody a chance, since it's also got Bob Odenkirk.

I'd probably give this a 7 or 8. Odenkirk is surprisingly believable, the action is good overall, the tone helps to differentiate it from its peers (e.g. John Wick). Main gripe I have is that the movie stalls out a little bit in the second act, if I recall correctly. The final battle is really solid, and one of the action sequences was good enough to deserve a rewind. Haven't seen the sequel yet.
 
Weapons. 8/10

Awesome movie that doesn't rely on jump-scares, and is genuinely creepy. It has some funny moments as well.
 
Finally got to watch Weapons.
I was so hyped up for it that it was never going to be as good as I hoped but I did enjoy it.

I need to go back and watch it again. I was so tired and sleepy when I watched it that I am sure I missed a bit here and there.
 


Better than the third one.
Not as good as the first two.
 
Saw Superman and Thunderbolts in last few days. Late to the party. But both supposedly launch the new era for these giant comic franchise movies. Marvel wins. Thunderbolts was a great watch. Black Widow's sis is a much better character than hottie Scarlett Johanssen. If you're going to kill off your main character, this is the way to do it, and have someone even more compelling to watch ready to take over. Superman was highly disappointing. Almost seemed more for kids, which maybe it is. I really like James Gunn's crazy stuff life Peacemaker and Suicide Squad, but I almost felt like this was the wrong project for him. It wore on me after a while but I won't lie, I almost turned it off after the first 20 minutes and was wondering why they replaced Henry Cavill and Zack Snyder with this stuff.
 
CyberB0b said:
Mission Impossible: Final Reckoning



First, I will start with the title change. At first, it was going to be Dead Reckoning Part II, but they changed it to final reckoning, for some unknown reason. Dead reckoning is actually a form of navigation, and given the submarine plot of Dead Reckoning, it was a nice little pun. Final Reckoning makes no sense.

Secondly, you know it's a bad script when the first 10 minutes is exposition explaining the plot.

This was probably the worst of the franchise. The villain (Esai Morales) was terrible. Tom Cruise kind of phoned it in, acting wise. The plot was overly convoluted and contained way too many retcons that didn't make any sense. The stunts were absolutely amazing, and the film looked great. Sadly, it was like watching a Fast and Furious movie with better stunts and less CGI.

The best part of the movie is the captain of the submarine who is only in it for about 10 minutes.

Apparently, the way they wrote the movie is they had about 5-6 locations they wanted to film and a few stunts in mind, and just stitched together a plot from that. That isn't how it's done.
Click to expand...

100% agree-I kept watching and thinking that makes no sense. Impossible may be one thing but it has to at least be within the realm of possibility. I was never a Mission Impossible fan but watched this one with my grandson. I also agree that the action scenes were great. Maybe each one went about 10 minutes too long but the visuals were incredible.
 
VaqueroTD said:
Saw Superman and Thunderbolts in last few days. Late to the party. But both supposedly launch the new era for these giant comic franchise movies. Marvel wins. Thunderbolts was a great watch. Black Widow's sis is a much better character than hottie Scarlett Johanssen. If you're going to kill off your main character, this is the way to do it, and have someone even more compelling to watch ready to take over. Superman was highly disappointing. Almost seemed more for kids, which maybe it is. I really like James Gunn's crazy stuff life Peacemaker and Suicide Squad, but I almost felt like this was the wrong project for him. It wore on me after a while but I won't lie, I almost turned it off after the first 20 minutes and was wondering why they replaced Henry Cavill and Zack Snyder with this stuff.
Click to expand...
I must be in the vast minority as i just thought thunderbolts was meh at best.

However meh at best was still much better than Superman. I could not get past the first 30 minutes of it.
 
VaqueroTD said:
Superman was highly disappointing. Almost seemed more for kids, which maybe it is. I really like James Gunn's crazy stuff life Peacemaker and Suicide Squad, but I almost felt like this was the wrong project for him. It wore on me after a while but I won't lie, I almost turned it off after the first 20 minutes and was wondering why they replaced Henry Cavill and Zack Snyder with this stuff.
Click to expand...
It is easy saying I enjoyed Gunn's Superman far more than you, lol. I think he got off to a firm start with this new DCU.

You are right, though. Gunn and Snyder's versions are clearly different. For what it is worth, Gunn's adaptation is more comic book accurate. Even so, I remain a solid Man of Steel fan.

The main beef was MoS's dark storyline and presentation for a significant portion of its audience. Cavill's Superman did not meet their expectations. For some fans of the character, acts like saving a squirrel during a heated battle and saving every single individual from becoming collateral damage in a battle (despite whomever or whatever his opponent might be) are both welcomed and anticipated.

Snyder and Warner Bros Discovery's leadership tried to address this audience turnoff in Batman v Superman by transplanting the climatic showdown from Metropolis to an abandon area of Gotham. Can't have bystanders as collateral damage if there are no bystanders, haha. Trivial time: the adjustment was not comic book accurate because that specific battle happened in the center of Metropolis.

Superman is more lighthearted than Man of Steel. So far, this third remake of the original Superman: The Movie (if counting Superman Returns as a remake, although it could be described as a loose continuation of Superman II) has pulled in 92% of Man of Steel's worldwide take ($614 million [link] versus $670 million [link] respectively). MoS has its share of detractors, but negative backlash has not created separation between it and its successor as far as appeal in terms of the overall audience's wallet.
 
Weapons: 7/10

OK on the surface, but if you start to think about any of the plot seriously, then it doesn't make sense. I don't want to spoil anything, but my major gripes other than the plot were the fact that they spent way too much time on throwaway characters and their backstory. Like the cop and his wife, who cares? They added nothing to the story. Once you figure out what is going on, then the rest of it becomes pretty bland and predictable. The actors were all good, though. Great premise, not so great execution, IMO.
 


Lower budget. Could have been so much better.
Not one I would watch again.



If you are really in the mood for a western...otherwise meh.



Not meant to be funny....but it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 102 more.
Total: 5,731 (members: 202, guests: 5,529)
Robots: 1,886

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
475,300
Messages
14,597,880
Members
24,217
Latest member
Cowboysforlyfe47
Back
Top