Change Your Image
![](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTcxMDQ5NDY0Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNTE2MjEyNzE@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
rushmoras
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Supergirl (2015)
Season Five continues to roll off the train-tracks
Well, it's not surprising (looking at the ratings). This season has been all over the place without any rhyme nor reason. And, I know, it had started to dwindle ever since it went on to CW yaddy yaddy yadda, but, come on, did they even try to write at least somewhat decent script this season? It seemed to me that they were running on a deadline and worked last minute as students do. There were two main problems this season: first the VR arc was, how do I say this, a bubble (which never reached its intended size) that exploded. Look, you had an opportunity to actually gradually portray people hooking-up to VR world, loosing focus, loosing sight, becoming addicts etc. throughout the whole season, but you did not do it. You chose to portray these things in the most skimpiest (regarding length) of ways only to conclude this whole VR world is bad, 'mkay, trope in the final two episodes. Second large problem - too many god damn villains this season that all wanted to be the big bads of the season, but didn't. What, we had Lena (wasn't), what we had Acrata (wasn't), what we had Leviathan with all of its goonies (sort of was), but they were all randomly trumpeted by the presence of Lex. You could have dealt with Leviathan this season, and give Lex Season 6, but noooo... you lost sight of the big picture by giving him all of the shadowy puppet master trope this season. Sorry... and some people keep wondering why season after season the show looses viewers...
Justice League (2017)
It's not that bad as everyone says it is, but compared to Marvel's Avangers, it does lack something
It is not that bad as many comic-book lovers out there say it is bad, but compared to Marvel's Avengers it does seem that this movie falls short. The main things that I did not like:
1. The main villain. After the visions that Bruce Waine had in Batman versus Superman, I really thought that the main villain for this movie will be Darkseid. However, this was not the case. Because I never read any comic book in my life and only know main protagonists/antagonists from the animated series that I've watched as a kid those many years ago, I honestly did not know who or what Stephenwolf is. Sure, the way he was portrayed it looked like he was capable of doing damage (and he did for most of the movie), but in the end his capabilities fell short.
2. The ressurection of Superman. Now, the whole premise of Justice League was that Batman and Wonder Woman wanted to build a team to fight even bigger foes than Doomsday, because Superman is dead. That's why they were looking for meta-humans for their crusade. Stephenwolf did not much care for those heroes in any way, to him, they were just nuisance. The only one who could go toe-to-toe with stephenwolf was Diana, and that was because as Stephenwolf said she had blood of the old gods flowing through her veins (and it took an army of humans, aliens and gods to defeat Stephenwolf thousands of years ago). And even then Diana had trouble containing him. Enter Superman. One two - and Stephenwolf's out of the game (well, because his scythe was destroyed, so he lost his influence over his minions and they exacted their revenge against him). Thus why I said in first paragraph, that the villain's capabilities felt short, due to Superman.
3. The premise. As I've mentioned in the second paragraph, Batman and Wonder Woman gathered a team, because Superman was nowhere to be found. And yet, since they resurrected him (and Superman had the time to save civilians prior to engaging in a fist fight against Stephenwolf), they don't really need Justice League anymore, because Superman is essentially Justice League - a one man army. All of the other would be future heroes and current heroes are ants compared to him (even Diana). Let's face it, there should be no Justice League. I mean, if Batman and Co. prior to Superman's arrival had trouble with Stephenwolf and his demons, what are they going to do against Darkseid, which is essentially Stephenwolf's boss? Throw shoes at him? Ofcourse, Superman is going to do most of the job there as well.
4. The introduction of characters. This in essence I think were DCU had gone wrong. The only characters that they've established was Superman (in Man of Steel) and Wonder Woman (well, in Wonder Woman). All of the other characters, yes, even the newly portrayed Affleck's Batman, was never established with a separate prior movie. They are doing things backwards. First, they introduce a team of heroes, and then they are making movies about their origins/heroic deeds. That can't possibly wok for the major audience, because I bet that the average movie goer only knows Batman and Superman. He does not know who Aquaman is, or who the Flash is (if they do not watch Arrowerse's Flash), so they can't relate to a character at all. Nope, firstly, DC should establish independent lore of their characters and then group them in to a team like Marvel has done. This way, the build-up seems to be more earned.
While I only mentioned the negatives (because they are easier to write), but I liked this movie. It was not that bad as many portrayed it to be. But, it really lacks something. And the only major highlight of this movie was when Superman fought the JL members, because they interrupted his rest in peace slumber (which again, just proves my point, you don't need any JL, because Sups in Snyder's reality is JL).
6.5/10 (7/10).
Stargate Origins (2018)
If you are looking for a at times absurd comedic relief, this is SG for you
I'll be short and on to the point. This is a comedic relief StarGate. It is not serious in any way. The whole premise is silly and belongs with the rest of B-list sitcoms out there. Is it interesting? Well, sort of, but just because I watched original movie, TV series and three other movies, so I was compelled to watch this to the end as well, but if I was for the first time being acquainted with SG universe, I would have probably quit after the second episode. While at times CGI is good, but most of the times it does look amateurish (see for example episode two and onwards where on the alien planet the pioneers are looking through a window in a temple. The outdoors are like a decal from a theatre play). In general, it's really a 'meh' series. It's not that bad as many portray it to be, because in the end the story does tell the viewer why in the original SG Catherine told Daniel that she never used the Gates (probably the viewers who rated it a 1 and based their decision on this aspect only watched episode 1), but all together it's not good either. Somewhere between a five and a six.
War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)
What should have been an awesom culimanation became an average conclusion
If by reading the title "War for the Planet of the Apes" you think that this movie will be about war for survival of Ceasar's clan, you would be right only 20 percent. The whole war aspect in the movie maybe half an hour long (the beginning and towards the end). Rest of the movie viewers watch how advanced species of apes thoughtfully look at each other, use sign language, save a kid, travel a lot, get captured, work in a quasi-concentration camp, get rescued from the quasi-concentration camp and then go to war against the nasty humans (who, according to Woody Harllson's character, just want to survive the new strain of the virus, which infected the humans in 1st and 2nd movies by... I don't know, enslaving and/or killing the apes, because the humans think that... um... the less the apes are there, the better chance for the virus not to spread? I don't know exactly, because I did not understand the motivation (maybe that's my problem)). Personally, the movie did not catch my interest in the slightest, while the previous chapters were engaging. This movie, not so much. It has a very slow pacing, and in my opinion, it should have been a sci-fi drama (that would be a correct genre for it). While it's not an awful movie, but it certainly lacks something, which would make it good. Or maybe I watched it not in the right mood, maybe, if I would rewatch it after some time, I would change my mind, but for now, I rate it 6/10 (just a movie out of bunch out there).
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)
Could have been more entertaining than the second one, if not for
A couple of things, which bothered me:
1) The Dragon Emperor's CGI. Would have been really impossible for the film-makers to just simply constantly make him look like a decaying mummy, instead of being encased in a bronze statue? Because the former was just bad CGI, and the latter would have been a question for a good make-up artist;
2) The ability of the Dragon Emperor to shape-shift. Sorry, but those scenes were just quirky. I understand that the film-makers wanted to show the audience "lo, and behold the might of this villain", but keep the dragons and stuff to the fairy-tale movies. Not Indiana Jones esque movies;
2.1) The same could be said about the Yetis in the movie;
3) So, during the end, The Dragon Emperor finally understood English? Another one of his supernatural traits or just an overlook from the guys responsible for the scenario?
3.1) The same could be said about the Chinese witch in the end. Do the fallen enemy solders understood English (because there was no English at that time) well enough for them to rise from their graves and avenge themselves against the Emperor?
Anyway, would have been looking forward for the fourth Mummy set in Peru (Jonathan's words), but, ah, well, you win some, you loose sum. All in all, not a bad movie, but some mistakes take the score away.
Flatliners (2017)
Decent remake, if nothing else
I'm probably in the majority here, but I liked this version of Flatliners better than the film version, which was made in 1990. In my opinion, if a horror movie makes you flinch a couple of times, then it fulfilled the intended purpose. The main theme of the movie is the capability not only to seek forgiveness for the sins, which you have done, but also to be able to forgive yourself, or else, you will not be able to live with yourself (figuratively and literally as was the case in this film). I would have given this film a much higher mark, if it wasn't predictible (for example, if Nina Dobrev's character would have also died in the movie) or if there weren't some discrepancies in the movie (how could their subconscious actually do damage to them? The case of Jamie and the knife).
All in all, it was a decent remake, which was more fun to watch then the original (a rare event), but I guess I wouldn't watch it for a second time (not that type of a movie)... well... maybe I would, if I happen upon it on some television channel.
7/10
Emilija (2017)
One of the more normal Lithuanian movies out there at this time
Emilija (or "Emilija i Laisvės Alėjos") is a movie about a young girl, who wants to be an aspiring theatre actress in the socialist Lithuania in the beginning of the eighties. All she has with her is the poems her father "left" her, which inspire her to "swim at the wrong direction of the river" so to speak. As much to the horror of the census committee of that time.
While the movie is primarily based on theatre life, but also the viewer is introduced with the spirit of freedom dwelling in the underground sections of socialist Lithuania at that time. Although, the movie tends to be serious about its topics, but overall, it is not. And it's a good thing, because even the most jaded of Lithuanians, who do not like our countries movies (and some have good reasons for it), wouldn't mind seeing this movie, because it is made for the masses.
That being said, at times the movie tries too hard to portray what was it like while living under the USSR rule in Lithuania. And for this reason some of the scenes are hard to believe for me (e.g. the scene at the insane asylum, the director being deported to Syberia) As the fat police inspector said to one of the antagonists in the movie: "What do you think you are doing? Do you think this is 1950 still? You're on your own from now on".
Although, props for the plot-twist at the end. I personally liked it how the main antagonist was tied-in with Emilija's history.
Overall, in my honest opinion, at least for the moment, this is one of the best Lithuanian movies out there for the masses. And, if for some reason, this movie's distribution will reach abroad and it will have subtitles, then I recommend watching it. Although, maybe, you will be put off by the theatre acting (as one reviewer said here), but this is understandable, because we do not have a movie industry here at all.
Logan (2017)
Probably the most interesting X-Men movie since the first
The movie Logan is set in the year 2029. There are no more mutants, only a handful are left in the world. The mutants have been "destroyed" thanks to GMO food that one science company, which is one of the bad guy branch from Alkali Lake, makes. We find Logan as somewhat of an old man: he can't heal properly and as it turns out later it's because of the Adamantium (either the bullet, which was embedded in his skull at the end of Origins, either the Adamantium itself) - it's slowly has been poisoning him for some time. So, he's working as a limo driver, trying to gather a few quick bucks to buy a boat, get Charles with him and get the hell out of dodge, before Charles' uncontrolled seizures kill everyone insight. However, some things don't go according to plan when Logan is approached by a woman and a child, who are being chased by paramilitary organizations wanting to get their assets back. At first, Logan is reluctant to help them, because as he states in the movie he's not Wolverine, that Wolverine is dead, but after a couple of assassination attempts on his person, Charles and the little girl, who turns out to be a mutant embedded with Adamantium and two Adamantium claws and very proficient in killing everyone, Logan decides to help them after all. If not for being decent, but just to get out of dodge safely.
While the movie is 2 hrs and 11 minutes long, it's not boring. The viewer is constantly captivated by the quick action scenes, explosions and sometimes stunning nature's visuals, which were shot in British Columbia during Fall season.
The acting was by far the best one in any X-Men movies up-to-date. From Dafne Keen's shock-mixed-with autism scenes too Patrick Stewart's dementia and Alzheimer's ridden motions, it's the best acting I have seen in any of the X-Men films.
Lastly, it's the bloodiest X-Men film of all. From dismemberments to decapitations, the rivers are flowing blood when Logan's and Laura's characters are in action scenes.
10/10
Silence (2016)
Look at them - they hate you, yet you come to save them.
Went to the movies today to watch this film without any particular knowledge on the subject. Just knew that it will be a historical movie about a Christian priest getting stranded on Japan.
After watching the movie I came to these conclusions: 1) This Martin Scorsece's film is serious and very much so. It depicts a story about a priest from Portugal - a one Father Fererra (Liam Neeson) - during the time of persecution of Christians in Japan, about how he was forced to disavow his faith for the sake of saving the lives of others. And how after a couple of years two Portugal priests will share the same faith that Father Fererra had.
2) There's a lot of Christian undertones in the movie, and at times it seems too much of them for a person, who is not entirely religious. A lot of convergence of the main protagonist - Father Rodriguez (Andrew Garfield) - with the trials and tribulations of Jesus Christ. And, as Father Fererra in the movie so said - and I am paraphrasing it - "These men are not suffering from hubris to think of their suffering as Jesus's suffering, but you do. Will your pride get the better of view and you will suffer as Jesus had suffered and let these poor souls die?" 3) I don't know much about the history of Japan apart the basics that I was taught in school many years ago, but it would have been nice to have an introduction in the movie as to why the Christians were prosecuted. The unfamiliar with history viewer will just have to suffice with the answer that it just the way it is. Was it due to Opium Wars? Again, we do not know, because it's never explained in the movie.
4) The movie is very lengthy and monotonous. The same faith crisis of the main protagonist and his mentor is seen throughout the movie. And the same question is questioned through the length of it - will you disown your faith so others may live? How strong is your faith? While these monotonous introspection are sometimes enlivened - if one could say so - with some pretty graphic execution scenes, but the very tone of the movie remains the same through the length of it: a lot of melancholy mixes with rain.
I rate this movie a six out of ten. Again, if I was of a religious type, I may like it more, but even though this is a Scorece's film, it does not warrant to watch it a second time, at least in my opinion.
X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
A good bloc-buster, but too long
Yesterday I went to the movies in hopes that I will have a good time by watching this movie. Was it a good movie? In general, yes. The story is about an ancient mutant called En Sabah Nur who is thousands of years old and is like a parasite, going from one host to another in order to get their powers. So, one day in ancient Egypt he's being betrayed and entombed in a golden pyramid. Thousands of years later, he's accidentally awoken by CIA agent Moira (from DoFP) when she uncovers his resting ground. So, being the bad-ass villain that he is, he's goes on looking for "four horseman" to spread his will.
While I liked some parts of the movie: of how Magneto resurfaced, namely. But I get the feeling that it was just too long movie. Don't get me wrong, it has everything: stunning visuals, cinematics, story lines, CGI etc. But it's jut too long and too overcrowded and at times you wish that the story would pick it's pace.
Also, the defeat of En Sabah Nur was anti-climatic for me. However, it does pose some credibility to the future of the franchise with the current young actors.
As well as, that En Sabah Nur while being this omnipowered presence, but... he was dull.
7/10.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
I liked it, but it's too long
Today I went to the movies and thought I'd see this one. First off, I'd like to begin by stating that it was not what I have expected in the slightest. From the very old trailers I thought I'd see something from the Injustice (video-game?) universe: Superman gone mental over the death of his loved one and the others try to stop him, however, this was not the case.
The whole premise of the Batman v Superman is miscommunication. Bruce Wayne thinks that Superman is a menace that needs to be stopped due to the fact that while Superman was fighting general Zod (in Man of Steel I think) he did not protect the lives of workers working at Wayne Finances (self entitled much?). While Superman thinks that Batman is a menace to the society of Gotham, because on the news he hears about a vigilante dealing out street-justice to the criminals of Gotham.
Other than that the movie is a eye-candy: great visual effects and scenes, the fighting choreography was top-notch. Also, Hans Zimmer gave the best soundtrack possible for this kind of movie, while listening to it it gave me goose-bumps.
The acting was also top notch for this kind of movie. The only no-no I could think of was Jessie Aisenberg's Lex Lutor. When I think about Lex Lutor, I think about Lex from the series Smallville (cold, efficient, sociopath). This one - straight bonkers. He would be better as Joker than Lutor in my opinion.
Also, the movie foreshadows the future of the franchise: a couple of stand-alone movies (or not stand-alone) depicting Wonder-Woman, The Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman. So, lastly - Justice League (I guess DC has to deal a blow to Marvel for their Avengers).
All in all - 7/10, because the movie was too long to watch.
Spectre (2015)
It's a great pass time
So, today I decided to go watch the newest instalment of James Bond. Decided to go only a week after it premiered in my country due to the fact that I like to not be in enclosed environment with hundreds of people, sweating, farting and stuff like that (if anyone would like to know why I took a week). Well, that does not matter at all.
So, I went to the cinema without expecting anything and what I've got surpassed all of my expectations: two and a half hours passed quickly with all of the car racing, explosions, shoot-outs and more explosions. Hell, if this was in real life, James Bond would be the most wanted terrorist in the world. Property damage was, I don't know, 100 billion (in three countries)? As Al Bundy would say: "Peg, I just saw the best movie ever: I saw four boobs, a bunch of guys slaughtered each other and no plot what so ever. Best movie of all time". OK, maybe I did not see boobs (and I was pleasantly surprised to not see in a today's movie nude scenes. Sure, a bit of lingerie on women, but that's it - no boobs, no butts. And I was like: "This in a James Bond movie? Whoa". Guess, they compensated lack of nudity with fighting sequences: D. Craig vs Bautista (Bautista in it was like Arnie in the first Terminator: does not say anything, apart one sentence, but gets the job done). And, OK, there was a plot (despite the fact that any Die Hard fans would predict it), I liked it.
While some of the actors acting abilities was putting-off (luckily, they were third plan actors - not second and not first), but it was a fairly good blockbuster movie. Perhaps, a bit prolonged at times, but all in all good.
P.S. Anyone else felt a bit weird when M. Belluci's character wanted to have sex with Bond moments after her husband died? I mean, I know you did not love him, but, com'on, his body is barely cold.
8/10
Good Witch: Starting Over... Again (2015)
I really liked the first episode.
As a person that seldom watches family oriented movies, exception being, I don't know, maybe, "Home Alone 1-2" (I don't recognize the later installments) and, perhaps, "Bethoven" (you, know, not the composer, but the dog), but only that being on special occasions, i.e. like Easter, Christmas and, perhaps, All Hallows Eve (Halloween to ya', yanks, just kidding), I really found that I liked the introduction to this movie based series. But primarily because of the fact that the dude from the "Pretender" (ya, know, late 1990's, early 2000s TV Series) is starring in it in a lead role.
I don't know, actually, I like the slow, no-action oriented, just family sappy drama pace this show has. You just sit back and enjoy how time quickly flies and think to your self. Really? It's over? It got me to think that I should probably finish watching Good Witch movies (as an adolescent I've watched, perhaps, the first and the second movie when Hallmark channel in my country was still on basic cable program).
Anyway, 10/10.