Reviews written by registered user

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

Page 1 of 181:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
1805 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Mesmerizing and such an important film, 22 September 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This was my TIFF experience this year so I got to experience the World Premier along with the cast in Toronto. The film is breath taking and not from an entertainment standpoint though in a way it is that too. This film tells an incredible true story about a terrifying experience and disease and it is told well with little dramatic flare I think. Some professional reviews from the premier were very harsh and I personally don't understand it.

I have always been a fan of Chloe Grace Moretz and her performance isn't perfect because there are times where she struggles to really pull off the realism but she is really good at demonstrating how great Suzanna's life was and how quickly it deteriorated and how much she struggled. She does her very best work showing Suzanna at her most extreme low point. She is believable and heart wrenching. I actually think with what I've seen this year, she deserves her first Oscar nomination for her performance. Tyler Perry was actually amazing as her boss. It's not a big role but honestly it was best supporting material in my opinion and I'm not a Tyler Perry fan. There was something genuinely moving about his performance. Her parents played by Richard Armitage (who apparently has a huge fan base?) and Carrie-Ann Moss do a solid job. Carrie Ann-Moss feels a bit out of place and Armitage really plays up the outbursts of emotion from a father where it is almost borderline campy unfortunately. Neither one of them are big home runs in my book but they do a good job and Moretz saves them both. Jenny Slate was really good in a small role as her best friend and Thomas Mann was also very good as her love interest Stephen. I also think Mann might have been miscast and yet he does a good job.

I get why some critics might be harsh against this. I don't think they picked the likely cast or the ones who were maybe shoe-ins but the cast they did pick do great. The director Gerard Barrett has done a great job here. He doesn't have a lot of experience but I think he did this film with great respect and thought behind it and truly wanted to not dramatize the film and tell the story and make people aware of the medical issues behind this. I though it was a moving and strong film with a great message, good performances, and an absolute must see! 8.5/10

A definitively quirky indie film made exponentially better by Hanks, 30 August 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have a lot of favourite actors. Tom Hanks has always been one of them. But if someone held a gun to my head and asked me who the greatest actor of this generation is...I could caught saying Tom Hanks. I won't get into why but as he gets older and more involved in producing we don't get as much from him lately. This is definitely outside his comfort zone as a quirky very dark comedy with not a lot of purpose and you will sort of be confused as to what this is saying and what it is and I'm not sure there is an answer for that. It's a mid-life crisis set in the middle east mixed with a man finding himself and just sort of a story about a man discovering more to his life than just sales and family. It has romance and chuckles and some really great perspective into Saudi Arabian culture. The bizarre twist of a romance more than mid-way through the film is sort of welcomed and done in a very unique and realistic way. Indie lovers will likely be charmed by it but the truth of the matter is Tom Hanks makes this movie watchable.

Hanks gives a solid performance and some serious depth to this man caught up in his career and his distant family and he finds himself leaving again when he has a health scare and falling in love with a woman different than anyone he has ever met. Hanks looks fantastic and he just gives a very subtle and real performance like he does best. Sarita Choudhury plays his doctor and love interest and she is very good. She has a certain mysterious quality to her and her and Hanks have very good chemistry. Supporting cast includes Alexander Black in a wonderfully comedic sidekick role (I could have watched a whole film with Black and Hanks together), Tracey Fairaway, David Menkin and Christy Meyer although they really don't get much screen time and their characters are strictly there for Hanks' development.

Co-writer and director Tom Tykwer is a desired taste. He co-directed the bizarre Cloud Atlas, Perfume and others I hadn't seen. This is a little more down to earth for him and it's a good story but it rests on the back of Hanks and Tykwer should be grateful for that. Without him the story is weak and slow and muddled but because you get to watch Tom Hanks play this role it makes it that much better. So worth seeing but definitely an acquired taste and only for the indie lovers. 7/10

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Not at all the disaster you might expect!, 3 August 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I very often don't listen to critics or audiences and find out things for myself. However, I'm not exactly a "Tarzan" fan and I didn't expect that 2016 was ripe for a remake of an old story like this. I just wasn't very interested. But I am nothing if not a movie fanatic and decided to try it anyways after reading a woman's comedic review that was hilarious. Now I wish I had ignored everything and saw this first thing. This would have been a great summer adventure in the theatre maybe even in 3D. The Legend of Tarzan is fun, intense, thorough and original when you consider how they approach the Tarzan story with Tarzan returning to his jungle to save it. It almost tries too hard with a complex political story but it makes sense overall. Flashbacks to Tarzan's origin story feel very empty and hollow unfortunately but it is a good way to tell a new story while still doing the origins. The effects in the film are...good...ish? Sometimes I felt like the CGI was horrible and then other times it added to the style and quality of the film to see the lush greenery and CGI animals. This is a very different side of Tarzan with some strong performances and good action.

Alexander Skarsgård takes up the lead and unfortunately he doesn't quite have the strong screen presence necessary to carry the film. He plays the role well, looks the part, his physique is obviously mind blowing but the brooding and angry Tarzan is too underwhelming to feel heroic. Still he does decently. Hollywood's up and coming latest It Girl, Margot Robbie steals the show as Jane. She is very very good but her chemistry with Skarsgård is lacking definitely. Still the story focuses more on her and she plays the strong damsel in distress well. Christoph Waltz as your villain? OK well immediately that makes this watchable. The man is amazing and he is the perfect villain for any film. His chemistry opposite Robbie in their scenes are fantastic. He is also a scene stealer obviously. Samuel L another movie...and once again I can't say anything bad about him. He is just...Samuel L Jackson and he plays this role well and has a good part and he doesn't overshadow anyone and how are we not sick of this man yet? He is that good! Djimon Hounsou is an amazing character actor has an unfortunately small role in the film that I think they could have done more with but much like Waltz and Jackson, he ups the ante of any cast.

Maybe The Legend of Tarzan wasn't what people wanted or expected. I had no expectations or had low expectations but the film was a lot of fun and serious and well filmed. It had the feel of a superhero film but also a period piece, romance (although the romance was lacking), and I think it probably lived up to the Tarzan name. David Yates is a fantastic visual director. His Harry Potter films were some of the best and I think he really loves to tell an adventure. He shot this really well and the scenery is something to behold. The film is really entertaining for the first hour and a bit but then absolutely takes off when Tarzan returns to full...swing...ha! Let's be clear, the ape looks awful. A full on animated Ape like George of The Jungle would have looked more realistic and it sort of ruined certain scenes especially the kick butt battle between the two of them. If you can get past some of the disgustingly awful special effects then you see a lot of heart in the film. When it's all said and done, have fun with this, enjoy it! Give it the time! It's not Oscar worthy but it's thoroughly entertaining and that fills the need. 7.5/10

7 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Reviewing this as a film and nothing more, 3 August 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am a huge fan of the original Ghostbusters. I'm not a Ghost-head or anything but I have always been a fan and grew up with them. I think all the hate on this film just for being a remake/reboot and just for having a female cast is ridiculous. The utter hatred for a film just for being what it really sad. I was prepared to see this and judge it on it's own merits. The film has good points and bad. It doesn't really have anything spectacular and it doesn't live up to the original for a few reasons. The original Ghostbusters perfectly fit the comedy stylings of Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd especially. That cast just hit perfectly. Paul Feig attempts to do that again but squeezing the proper comedy of the four leads into the film and it struggles sometimes. One thing I will say is that they really did try and in fact I think they tried too hard. The ending of the film moves at breakneck speed and has so much going on that you almost lose track of things. The original film felt like the comedians lost themselves in their roles. Stanz, Venkman, Spengler and Zedemore were characters you loved. In this film you had McCarthy, Whiig, McKinnon and Jones are those women just doing the comedy they do best and it is lacklustre. That's not to say it deserves all the silly hate and it does pay a ton of homage to the original including cameos from all of the original main cast minus Moranis and the late great Harold Ramis.

I've heard a few differing opinions on Kate McKinnon so I'll start with her. Some say this is a breakout role for her and some say she is overused and ridiculous. I'll go somewhere up the middle. I never cared for her much on Saturday Night Live but this is a good move for her. Her character is wild and crazy and fun and I could actually watch more of her. She actually has the most depth as far as the actress losing herself in the role. Kristen Wiig really struggles as the lead in this film. She's almost too bland and I feel like her comedy doesn't work here. She sticks out and this just wasn't her best role by any means. Melissa McCarthy is what her fans will expect. She does a decent job but usually she is best when she's being outrageous and this is pretty safe for her. Her and Wiig have terrible chemistry and they're supposed to have the best. I thought for sure Leslie Jones would be the blight on this cast. I assumed they would overuse her and she'd be in your face and obnoxious and she was not! Actually she was pretty good and had some funny moments though I heard some reviewers say she was "hilarious" one in this film was THAT funny. The four of them together so. This is where it falls flat because the original cast were absolutely amazing together. All three surviving Ghostbusters show up in cameos that are actually really good as well as Sigorney Weaver as well. Ed Begley Jr., Karan Soni, and Neil Casey round out the rest of the cast and they're good. Soni is actually quite funny in a very small role and could have easily been the "Rick Moranis" of the film if they had let him. Casey is some sort of villain to the movie but that angle never really works either. Chris Hemsworth might be the best part of this movie as the dumb as nails secretary Kevin. He gets some hilariously awful lines and has better character arc than half the cast and this was a nice change for him.

The best thing that Paul Feig did with Ghostbusters is that it still feels like the Ghostbusters. It has the same style, it has the Ecto-1, Slimer, ghosts, proton packs, sound effects, fans should actually be happy that this absolutely feels like it's in the same universe. The problem is not that they remade it or changed the cast to females...who cares about that! The problem is the cast and the characters (except for Kate McKinnon) are literally average at best, feel empty and awkward and their chemistry together is practically nil. This just doesn't work for this type of picture. So it's fun and outrageous with some good scenes and familiar territory but doesn't touch the original and on it's own is average and forgettable quite honestly. All that hoopla and disgusting behaviour from a fan base for a film that was averagely made anyways and did nothing to blight the memory of the original. At least now we have a Ghostbusters slightly worse than Ghostbusters 2 6.5/10

Marauders (2016)
2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Far from amazing but it wasn't so bad, 8 July 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'm still consistently being suckered into Bruce Willis films having been a fan of his for eons and now he does this straight to VOD stuff where it's barely a cameo. So I knew to expect this. This isn't his worst tiny little role but he definitely isn't in the forefront of the picture. One professional review I read said that the saving grace for this movie was Christopher Meloni and that is so incredibly true. He is easily the best thing about this. In fact, ironically, this is one of his best performances! He really gives it his all and turns in an A+ role in a C- minus and that's being generous. It does have some comparisons to a poor man's Heat and has plenty of great action and a decent story that isn't written terribly well but the concept is there. This is one of those movies that actually has a lot of potential but due to a lack of good writing and directing, it falls apart and loses it's ground. Still it's entertaining enough and I wouldn't have kicked myself if I had paid to see it in the theater. It's forgettable but decent for what it is.

So as I already mentioned Christopher Meloni nails this role. He's tough as nails and reminds me of a young Bruce Willis when Bruce Willis gave a crap. He is believable and tough and perfect in this part. Bruce Willis has a total of probably 15 mins and certainly the best scenes are between he and Meloni. This makes Meloni look like an A-Lister and comparable to like Pacino and DeNiro coming face to face in Heat only not nearly the power. Dave Bautista likely could have been good but is so excruciatingly underused that he's barely supporting. I'm not sure why they didn't develop him even a little bit. Adrian Grenier had the best opportunity to have a really great character and you see glimpses of it but he looks bored and the character is written like garbage. Honestly there is a 10/10 movie buried here somewhere that someone on the production team screwed up major. The dynamic between Meloni and Grenier should be near perfect and it's barely tolerable. The rest of the supporting cast are barely there. So the only person who gets any decent character development is Meloni and that might actually be more because he gives it his all.

Steven Miller makes sense being attached to this. His list of films is terrible and that's being generous. The best on his low budget horror flick list was the remake of Silent Night which was decent campy but his other films were rotten that I saw (Under the Bed, Aggression Scale) I don't even know how he's directing but they don't give him much of a budget that's for sure and I imagine Marauder's was the big time for him. There is definitely more worthwhile films and it's unfortunate Meloni lost out on potential for a very poorly written and directed film. Mr. Willis...stop please. Just go back to doing something you know. If you don't give a crap anymore, retire. Your fans ache! 6/10

Rocky V (1990)
A fitting film for #1800 reviews and Sly's special Day, 7 July 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is 1800 reviews for me and I usually try to pick something important to me for these milestone reviews. There isn't much more important to me than the films of Sly Stallone for a number of reasons, some more personal than others. I just went through the Rocky Series again for the umpteenth time loving them as much as I ever have but I had yet to review Rocky V so here I am. And the irony is that this is considered the worst of the series and rightfully so. It is definitely a departure from the franchise. There are some good things about it but the problem is that it doesn't feel like Rocky. It doesn't have the same heart or style and the fact that it ends in this street fight just feels so un-Rocky like. However, it does definitively show a huge arc in the character we all know and love. Truly thank goodness, Rocky Balboa came out 16 years later to do justice to the franchise and not leave it on this note. The positive thing is that this is still about rising above. It's watching Rocky struggle as he loses everything and has to start from the beginning. It also sets him up basically for the rest of his life as we find out in Rocky Balboa and later Creed.

I'm sure I've said this before but anyone who claims Sylvester Stallone can't act or is untalented needs to look again. He is an incredible Oscar-winning writer who created this indelible character who has lasted forty years successfully. Even in Rocky V which is disliked greatly, he is still the hero he always was and the character that is perfectly crafted by Stallone. He literally turns into Rocky and you're mesmerized. The scene with him watching Gunn fight and his brain issues is disturbing almost bringing tears to my eyes. Stallone is a powerhouse even if this is his worst script for writing. Happy 70th Birthday Mr. Stallone, my hero, my larger than life idol. The entire cast returns, Taila Shire gives her final Adrian performance and definitely has some great scenes and still has incredible chemistry opposite Stallone. Burt Young almost plays a bit of an accidental "bad guy" as he is the cause of Rocky losing everything. This is a toned down performance for him but he is still an integral part of the series. Sage Stallone is actually the scene stealer in this film. Sage is fantastic as the young Rocky Jr. The best part of this film is the dynamic between Sage and his real life father Sly. This film revolves around father and son and does that one aspect of it well. More or less his only film credit, real life Heavyweight Boxer (briefly) Tommy Morrison plays Rocky's protégé turned nemesis Tommy Gunn. Morrison doesn't hold a candle to any of other Rocky's nemesis in the films and certainly not to the first 4. He doesn't even seem to be in the same boat. Morrison and Michael Anthony Cane who plays a blatant attempt at Don King are both very cheesy and B-Movie quality which drags down the film significantly.

Besides Rocky being the underdog and a force of nature the thing fans love about this series are training montages and the final fight. Rocky V has neither of this. And not only do you not get an epic final boxing bout in a the King of Boxing epics but it's reduced to a street fight that is okay at best. I am actually floored that this was directed by John G. Avildsen who directed the original Rocky. But maybe he got lucky with that one? If you look at all his other films over 4 decades, nothing else stands out as being impressive or a work of art. He certainly knows how to give Rocky and his Philadelphia world that grit and poor look but this is a weak script with very little to be impressed by or remember in this series. Still as a huge fan, I watch it every time I go through the franchise because it belongs and it has it's plus' (the Stallones' for one thing) and it's important for Rocky's story because this was his real life down and out before he came thundering back 16 years later with the incredible Rocky Balboa. 6.5/10

Keanu (2016)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
It is what it is, 2 July 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I don't know Key and Peele extremely well, I've seen them show up in a few cameos and such but I do have gist of what their comedy is like. Am I surprised this got theatrical release? Yes. It feels like a long sketch. However, as silly as it is, it has a dark overtone, it's shocking and ridiculous and appropriately satirical and I would imagine that their fans will love this. It seems to be showing up on a lot of under- rated film lists and I get it. It does grow on you and some of the ridiculousness definitely wins you over. It might be stupid toilet humour but secretly brilliant I don't know? It is definitely over the top and definitely pokes fun at certain taboo limits (like the N- word for instance) and Black culture but I think this is a thing with their comedy? The plot is undeniably weak, I mean, the cat barely makes sense in the film and yet they force it in there to build a comedy routine around. I can respect their comedy though. I love good satire and while this is's dumb I can wrap my head around. I see the idea and as I said I think Key and Peele fans will enjoy it.

Jordan Peele is the nervous, depressed, moody one of the two and his comedy comes from being more like Eeyore from Winnie The Pooh. He's okay but I feel like he gets buried amongst the louder more influential characters. Keegan-Michael Key steals the show as the loud, over-the-top husband who is on a wild adventure when his wife is out of town. Considering Key and Peele are a comedy duo, this film does nothing to showcase their chemistry together. Much of the film they spend apart and their characters are so different that they don't jive. Ironically, the supporting cast are all almost forgettable and yet one of the high points of the film are the cameos. Anna Farris, Keanu Reeves (obviously) and Luis Guzmán and George Michael (sort of) all have great little cameos. Method Man and Tiffany Haddish are okay in their respective roles but certainly aren't mean to have any great development.

Again, maybe I need to invest in some Key and Peele skits but I just don't get the film. I mean, it's so dark and twisted and yet goes for the silly comedy angle too. I'm just genuinely surprised this got a theatrical release. Director Peter Atencio has a history in sketch type comedy but not a lot of background in a feature length film and same could be said for stars Key and Peele and maybe that's why this feels a little weaker than it should. Still it has it's moments, its not a total write off but far from this summer's best comedy (or I hope anyways) It passes time but is mostly forgettable. 6/10

The Darkness (2016/I)
2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Insidious the remake but without being Insidious the remake, 14 June 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Literally if The Darkness had been announced as an Insidious remake I would have believed it. There are so many things that are identical between the two films. The good news for them is that Insidious is freaking amazing so watching a similar story done nearly as well is worthy and was entertaining. It wasn't nearly as creepy and it did feel very cliché but it was still solidly entertaining. The cast was very good and the story was well written. Essentially if you liked Insidious or even the plethora of similar "Amityville Family gets haunted" style PG-13 horror like Sinister, The Conjuring, Possession and so on then you will really enjoy The Darkness. Literally the only thing stopping this from at least being a huge 9 is the fact that it is cliché and recycled in a lot of ways. Even the name itself "The Darkness" seems almost too stereotypical. It also lacks a truly great scary scene. There were certain moments in any good horror film that just get under your skin and The Darkness is lacking that "moment."

The cast is very solid as I mentioned. Kevin Bacon fills the father role very nicely. Perhaps the script doesn't give him as much to work with as he could have but certainly his chemistry on screen and star power is enough to drive the film. Not to mention the fact how damn good this guy looks at FIFTY-EIGHT years old. he is actually believable as a middle-aged-ish guy with younger kids. He's also believable with Radha Mitchell who plays his wife and 15 years his junior. I've always liked Mitchell, especially in Silent Hill. I think she has a certain look that fits the tough scream queen image. She is a little underused in this film but she still plays the Mom role nicely. Much like Bacon though she is underdeveloped as a character. David Mazouz who was excellent on Fox's Touch plays a similar character here as an autistic boy haunted by ghosts. He obviously plays it well and it's a subtle role but very good for the type of character he is. Lucy Fry is also very good as the daughter of the family.

Director Greg Mclean was behind the brilliant horror film and it's even more brilliant sequel, Wolf Creek so I know he has the eye for horror. He certainly sets a tone here and the film is very dark and creepy and commanding. I think it just lacks polish in some areas and it struggles to differentiate itself as we mentioned. It feels like the script was left over bits from stronger stories. Nonetheless, I'm not bashing the film. I liked it a lot. It definitely has it's moments and well worth the time. It just won't be as memorable as the other aforementioned titles. 8/10

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Not the quality of this genre you would expect but decent, 13 June 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As far as the "chick flick" goes, I love Garry Marshall. The man is a master of story telling, fun adventures and romance. He has done some of the most influential and classic films of the last couple of decades. His last batch have all been this "holiday" based ensemble cast romances (which my wife loves) and so far they have been pretty darn good. Mother's Day felt like a step down. It isn't a bad film but considering some of the cast and the potential and seeing as this genre of film has been well played out before, this feels rushed and forced without a lot of depth to the characters. The dialog is dry and the pacing a little slow and most of all the film is lacking chemistry between the characters. I would even go so far as to say it's almost non-existent. You're watching this movie strictly to see the stars doing a little cameo in different scenes. Mother's Day is completely forgettable and that's not right for a Marshall film let alone being in this series of multi-stories- interconnected films he's done.

There are a few familiar A minus Hollywood stars in the film. Certainly recognizable faces and we've seen them in decent comedies before but they are completely under utilized. I can't even say I really "liked" a certain story or character because there is just no depth. Still if you're avid fans of any of the stars you may at last enjoy their blase moments. I don't necessarily blame them as actors but rather the rushed story and probably lacklustre effort on their part. Jennifer Aniston tries at times but the script gives her very little to work on. Timothy Olyphant is completely underused as her ex-husband. Julia Roberts probably gives Garry Marshall a performance as a favour and she adds not much more than the star-face. Jason Sudeikis has an okay role but again underused especially when he and Aniston have chemistry and have been in a good comedy before. Hector Elizondo and Larry Miller make their obligatory Marshall cameos. The kids in the film including Caleb Brown and Brandon Spink are decent as well. But this is the issue with Mother's Day. Everyone is decent and present but it is so excruciatingly average in every way that you'll forget about it as soon as the credits wrap.

Garry Marshall is a living legend not unlike the late great John Hughes who made mainstream films with incredible characters and story that were so memorable. So what happened here? Well you have an insane amount of co-writers (7 people who had hands in the pot of the story) You revolve it around Mother's Day and yet has no real connection to mother's day. You use some very tired and overused story lines and it's so vapid and emotionless that it's almost hard to watch. Literally the film rests entirely on it's star power and makes it watchable based on that. A few relatively funny lines and overall it's not even a great date movie but I guess it has to be watched considering the cast and director. I can absolutely agree with the critics on this one. Avoidable at best! 5.5/10

1 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Marvel continues what they've done and have done well, but for how long?, 7 June 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Captain America: Civil War was hotly anticipated. I was looking forward to it as well and the film definitely met those expectations. However, I'm feeling the age in the Marvel Universe franchises. The films all seem alike and we already know the cast is great but how many times can you watch any group of actors do the same thing again and again. The shtick for Civil War of course is the heroes fighting each other and the story is solid and the addition of Spiderman is...well forced in there but still fun mostly. The best thing to come of Civil War is that some of the lesser known heroes get their time in the sun. Scarlet Witch becomes a much bigger part of the story, Black Panther (which everyone is raving about) and even Black Widow (give her her own movie already!) The story is good, the pacing is a little slow but the action scenes are as good as they have ever been. Marvel films don't get worse but they set the bar so high that eventually you're going to feel like this is very familiar ground and it is that. It certainly sets up the Universe for the next phase and moving into Avengers. I'm just afraid that this entire genre of films has worn out the superhero world.

How much more can you say about this cast? Marvel/Disney casting is and always has been very much dead on. Robert Downey Jr is the master of the Universe as Iron Man and actually has given the role a lot of depth and emotion especially since Iron Man 3. Chris Evans completely embodies Captain America and this film especially gives him a little more edge than usual and seeing him and Iron Man at odds is a nice turn. Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Don Cheadle...these actors absolutely ace their roles but they always have. Not has changed there. Chadwick Boseman who completely enamoured me back in the film 42 (one of the most powerful films I've ever seen) now takes on the role that will likely skyrocket him to Hollywood heavyweight. Black Panther is a fantastic character that will probably be a great stand alone movie and the introduction for him was perfectly fit into this film. Elizabeth Olsen really gets to stand out in this film with a much bigger story arc than previous and she really does well with it. Paul Rudd shows up randomly too as Ant-Man, my least favourite Marvel hero and he completely ruins the scenes he's in. He changes the entire feel of the film and doesn't fit. Tom Holland makes his appearance as Spiderman and I think he'll do a great job however the way they introduced him and threw him into the mix felt very forced. Still he did a good job in the role. Everyone on the cast is at least decent!

Captain America: Civil War probably would have made more sense as an Avengers film. It isn't quite focused entirely on Captain America though I see how its his story-line that drives it. The film felt like it was purposely missing Hulk and Thor even though they briefly explain in their absence in a ridiculous forced way. The fact remains if you like the Marvel Universe and you like the films, this is one of the good ones. They've all been good...even the less than great ones and I have high hopes that Civil War will bring this genre into it's golden years. Eventually it has to wind down. It will be interesting to see the Russo brothers who have a long history in Television take on the Avengers films but they also did very well with directing this film as well. 8/10

Page 1 of 181:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]