Ian McLellan

An Oscar worthy performance for Phoenix as Joker. It is realistic in many ways relating to mental illness, the marginalized and society as a whole. The music was haunting and sometimes foot tapping worthy which captures the mind and soul of Arthur/Joker. Arthur is a tragic character who you actually feel for as society turns its back on him (bullying, laughing at his disability and social awkwardness, being taken advantage of, cuts to social services, the arrogance of the 1%) until the Joker persona takes over. Joker is not a hateful character but understandable as a result of a combination of mental illness and society causing a vulnerable person becoming unhinged. I'm sure there are many Arthur's out there who are just as disenfranchised and vulnerable who change for the worse as a result of society and government but in a much smaller scale hence the realism of the movie. Although both excellently acted, I think that Phoenix's interpretation of Joker and his development from Arthur to Joker is on top with Ledger's Joker a very close second. Quick note: my Dad is not easily impressed by movies but he really raved about Joker for the acting, realism, and as a strong overall movie. I couldn't agree with him more!

When the first two minutes are dedicated to all the production companies who invested in this movie, it was already in trouble. The movie was rushed, no character development and tried to do too much in 110 minutes. The movie tried very hard to make Gotti a sympathetic character. Difficult to sympathize with a murderer. But they specially thanked the Gotti family for their support for this film in the credits so the director's vision for the character was already biased. Gold standards for this genre like Godfather and Goodfellas were at least objective and took a neutral view. They didn't even try to play sad, emotional music to get the audience to sympathize and emotionally connect with their deaths,. This movie could've been much better with a more capable director who know how to direct a movie on gangsters. And Pitbull?

After having read Dune three times, I was so looking forward to this movie and it didn't disappoint. I read comparisons to GOT with an emperor and houses and some political intrigue, but the comparisons stop there. If you are expecting Marvel or JJ Abrams Star Trek type pacing, this movie may not be for you. Think LOTR with great action sequences with slow burns in between to build a compelling story of a boy's journey to become the Messanic anti-hero in the Dune story. Everything in this movie defied my expectations especially the actors and the faithfulness to the book. This is a masterpiece I haven't seen since LOTR.

Futurama meets Star Trek. Don't take it seriously, it's good fun and a good laugh. Not a bad show unlike the polished turd called Discovery.

I'm a life long Star Trek fan who grew up watching TOS as a kid and TNG in my teens in the 90's. The story telling then was second to none save one or two duds, the characters you grew up with and connected to and shared and sympathized with their struggles and emotions. The stories evoked many feelings, from heartfelt, to polarizing, instructive, and contemplantive hours and days after. Sadly, Discovery misses the mark in so many ways. Michael Burnham is so under developed I feel no connection to her. If she was written as a stronger character I might be sympathathetic to how she feels as she is so emotional and literally cries on every episode. Unlike TNG, I don't have a favourite character(s) I can connect to. I'd like to know more about other characters like Saru and his growth as a Captain, Geiorgu and her struggles in a different parallel universe; PTSD is touched on in a few officers but never fully explored which is a shame since it's an issue that dominates front line people everyday. Star Trek missed the mark there in promoting PTSD awareness. Inclusivity gets full marks which is what Star Trek is all about. Instead we have Michael who spends more time trying to elicit emotions on things the writers haven't bothered to build for me to care about. Every other character other than Michael is less than secondary which is too bad because they have a lot of potential for their own stories about their own struggles. They are merely touched on and move on to the next minor struggle only second to Michael's. The show title should've been changed from Star Trek: Discovery to Star Trek: Michael Burnham because the rest of the Discovery crew are just ancillary and we are stuck with Michael's endless speeches and tears which are all covered in a 6 minute compilation on YouTube and Easter eggs to pander to the nostalgic. Next to the Abrams movies, this is a polished turd.

If Deadites are the new Bond Girls now in the revisited Evil Dead, my favourite will have to be Alyssa Sunderland. She absolutely crushed this and I could tell she had a great time doing it as well! She chewed the scenery and gave me the goosebumps, spine chills everytime I saw her possessed form. This movie doesn't resort to cheap jump scares but more focuses on hypertension-inducing dread which is missing from a lot of horror movies these days. I loved the nod to Kubrick's The Shining too! The Marauder Deadite at the end was a new idea, not a bad one, but could've been a great one if it wasn't so hidden. Seen it twice now and I was thoroughly entertained on both occasions. And it wouldn't be an Evil Dead if there was gore, a laugh, and a chainsaw! I liked last one, but this one is far better. This film remains true to the Evil Dead franchise. Watch it and you'll be entertained and wanting more.