Jennifer Roberson

It's 2025 now, so several years since this movie was released. I couldn't help myself; I kept thinking about Amazon's The Boys series, where superheroes are not the good guys, and one of the good guys can gain superpowers for a day if he takes the substance. By no means am I suggesting showrunner Kripke ripped them off--he's working from an established comic book. As someone else noted, a mostly gaping hole when it comes to character development. But since know one watches this film for character development, it's tolerable. The CGI is quite good, but there are also very human moments, such as Gordon-Levitt (not Lewit, as some other reviewer kept typing) pretending to be the boyfriend of a woman his mother's age just coming out of the shower when the bad guys break in. It was cool to see what various powers the pills unleashed. I never did understand clearly why they wanted Foxx's daughter or what kind of surgery they did on her. But it was pretty good for a mindless escape film.

Nothing much new. Acting was good, it has some nice touches, features a very unexpected character, but much is the same old/same old. If you really love the whole Alien universe, you'll be pleased. I just happen to think none has come close to the original, and certainly this one doesn't. But that's just me, and obviously most of you disagree.

This is classic Tarantino in all ways. I've seen many of his 9 movies, and if you've seen one, you know what's coming: violence on steroids. But in this one, he holds back until the ending--and that is Tarantino doing his Tarantino thing. By no means is this perfect movie. It has no real plot, and some long scenes were simply pointless. Not bad, mind you, just pointless. But Tarantino's genius is to be compelling and fascinating, and the acting is always incredibly impressive. As a director he gets more than the best out of everyone. So while this movie is thin on plot, and is self-indulgent in certain scenes, it is a tour-de-force in many ways. It helps if you are familiar with the story of the Manson murders, because you then know who's who, but not required. This is not one of his better movies. Hateful Eight was superior, as was Inglorious Basterds, because they actually had plots. But it's classic Tarantino, and that's not a bad thing.

I see why Colman won the Oscar. She is outstanding. However, the directing is so choppy and episodic as to render this film into a series of vignettes without benefit of plot. In a way it is Monty Python and Saturday Night Live, occasionally including slapstick. Very droll, very British, with typical understated humor of the style I truly enjoy, but I found the directing and editing to be all style and no substance, with intrusive and seriously annoying musical effects. (Why on earth were we subjected to endless metronome-like banging effects?) I don't recommend against viewing this movie, and there are a fair number of incredibly moving scenes (such as when the queen explains why she has 17 rabbits) but it's a stitched together quilt of scenes. No matter how pretty those scenes, they don't, for me, constitute a successful movie.

I will bow to the collective wisdom of the hive mind that is shredding this broadcasting team . . . smoke, fire, etc. Personally, I think Michaels and Collinsworth are the best. However, I have to chuckle because so many of the comments feature terrible grammar and spelling. Go for the criticisim because it sounds like it's deserved, but spellcheck before sending or risk not succeeding any better than the broadcasters. I detested Cosell, just detested him, but MNF in those days was superb.