Adil Saleemson

Title: Rebel Moon: Part One - A Child of Fire (2023) - A Gritty Galactic Saga Director Zack Snyder, renowned for his stylized action sequences and visual flair, takes audiences on an interstellar journey with "Rebel Moon: Part One - A Child of Fire." However, while the film boasts an unmistakably evident budget, its execution leaves room for mixed sentiments. The narrative draws significant inspiration from the epic space opera, Star Wars, presenting a darker and grittier rendition. Despite the familiar thematic echoes, the film struggles to establish its own identity, lacking the resonance of Snyder's previous works like "Man of Steel" and "Batman v Superman." Fans anticipating the intensity of Snyder's trademark action, akin to the memorable warehouse fight scene from "Batman v Superman" or the breathtaking spectacle of "Man of Steel's" Krypton sequence, may find themselves yearning for more. One of the film's notable shortcomings lies in the swift and somewhat abrupt character deaths, a missed opportunity for emotional depth and connection. The pacing feels akin to an extended introduction to a larger franchise or the opening episodes of a television series, leaving characters in need of further development and depth. While the film features Snyder's signature slow-motion and speed-ramping techniques, reminiscent of his previous successes, the action scenes fall short of the director's high standards. The promise of a grand, Krypton-like experience from "Man of Steel" remains unfulfilled, and the recruitment-based action scenes come off as somewhat unrealistic. "Rebel Moon: Part One" suggests potential, with Snyder hinting at an extended director's cut that could address some of the film's shortcomings. The prospect of an additional hour promises a deeper exploration of characters and narrative arcs. Perhaps, the director's cut will elevate the film from its current status as an okay, watchable feature. The movie's ending battle, despite its anticipated grandeur, unfolds somewhat lacklusterly, leaving viewers with mixed impressions. For those who recall Snyder's redemption with the extended cut of "Batman v Superman," the hope lies in a similar outcome for "Rebel Moon: Part One." In conclusion, while the Initial cut of "Rebel Moon: Part One - A Child of Fire" falls short of expectations, the potential redemption lies in the awaited director's cut. Snyder enthusiasts may find solace in reserving their final judgment until the extended version emerges, reminiscent of the transformative experience offered by "Batman v Superman's" extended cut.

This is a film that I have seen quite a few times since it is quite a fast-paced film with wonderful cinematography and soundtrack, and in terms of the narrative, this was a film that was very excellent and enjoyable. It is both upsetting and unexpected that this movie did not fare well in cinemas, but ever since it was made available on streaming services, not only I but also a great number of other people have fallen deeply in love with this movie. One more thing, it is reported that the original version of this movie had a much longer running length, perhaps about three and a half hours. Why not release that version as an extended cut, most likely on HBO MAX?

The only thing that I enjoyed about this film was the fugitive's lab escape scene. But, why kill them if you have a gift? Shane's got some good movies under his belt, maybe he deserves a director's cut even if his film has a radically different storyline, even if it's not canon, I think his vision would be fantastic. Or maybe the studies can un-canon this one and release The Predator's Director's cut on Hulu. Someone needs to start a campaign.

Here is a frank assessment from someone who has seen every predator movie, even 2018 one, which I didn't enjoy save for the lab escape sequence. I've seen this movie three times since it was released. This film was a complete masterpiece. It's understandable why viewers in general and critics alike adore this film. In some ways, I thought it was superior to the original movie, which I must have seen several times. This movie has a lot of hand-to-hand combat, complete carnage, and a massacre rather than creeping about and killing covertly throughout the entire movie and just going for a fair battle in the final confrontation like in the first movie. This predator has the best agility, speed, and sword and spear mastery. Of course, after fighting a bear, the predator hoisted it up and soaked in its blood, which made many people wonder how a lean, light-weight lady would combat it. That component of the movie is exceptionally effectively handled because if you watch it, the humans either get mowed down or dodge like crazy and rely on their speed to avoid the predator's strikes. One of the victims of the predator's backhand attack became disoriented and clumsy, which led to the spearing and amputation of his leg. I adored this movie, the lead character, and in particular this fierce iteration of the predator known as the feral predator. I genuinely hope to see more of this ferocious predator in upcoming movies. When contrast to the horror-centric first movie, this is more action-oriented. This movie is just as entertaining as the previous one, and I suggest seeing it because it's not just a great predator film, but also a really good action film. It makes sense why the filmmaker said Mad Max: Fury Road was his inspiration. The only thing that I did not like or did not understand is that (spoiler from now on), the predator apparently did not know how to use its weapon or let us say how the weapon works. How is it possible that someone who is coming to hunt aliens on an alien planet comes without knowing how his weapon works? The predator points three laser dots at where it wants to shoot and its handheld weapons shoot at where the laser dots are pointed, even though if the predator shoots in a different direction, let us say the opposite direction to where the laser dots are pointed, the weapon shoots the projectiles that go in the direction shot, as far as 10 to 15 meters and then turns like a missile and ultimately ends up where the laser dots are pointed. The predator drops or loses its mask and yet shoots at a target while the mask points laser dots elsewhere. One could say that the predator wants to shoot someone who is within the range as far as the projectile would go before turning to where the lasers are pointed. That's understandable. Besides, if the predator is not cautious as to what the mask is pointing at, there is a possibility that this projectile would shoot the predator itself. Let us say the predator saw where the laser was pointed. But the second time, the predator loses its mask again, stolen by the protagonist based on her observation of how the weapon works. She creates a trap and wisely leads the predator to attempt to shoot her while the mask is pointing right at the predator's head. Now the problem is, that the predator is not cautious at all. It does not even think of the mask as to where it's pointing. He attempts to shoot, and before the projectile shoots the protagonist, it turns, goes around, and ultimately shoots the predator's head. I hope the director explains the ending or some deep-thinking critic comes up with reasonable and logical theories on this matter.

In my humble opinion, Nolan's trilogy was way better than Burton's two films, but Reeves's is pretty much on par or somewhat even better. Everything is cool in this film from the story, to world-building to characters and costumes. Especially Greg Fraser nailed it with the cinematography. I hope the next film has more action sequences. One thing I hated about this film is that Batman's wearing a leather cowl! Are you kidding me, this guy is the most shot batman, but no one shoots him in the head or the face. Even in the dark shooting scene, people are simply blind firing, and yet how on earth did no one shot at his head? I hope, this batman gets a bulletproof cowl, so to make it a bit more realistic, even though the mouth and jaws area is fully exposed. Except in the scene where the penguin shoots at batman, in no other scene batman bothers to cover his face when guys are shooting like hell. But let me conclude by saying except for these very simple mistakes, this is one of the best Batman films ever.

I'm writing this review after viewing around 55 percent of the film, and so far it hasn't disappointed me and has shown to be rather enjoyable. However, one of the most absurd features of this movie is the reason why the Arabs are dressed in suits and traditional headwear in the first place. In all seriousness, I've been living among the Arabs for over two decades and have never once encountered a person who was half Arab and half European. They either dress in full Arabic garb or in a complete suit and tie with no headgear, depending on the occasion. The costume section of the film simply did not do enough study regarding the manner in which Arabs dress themselves, and as a result, they did some really idiotic things. Simply said, it seems to be exceedingly impractical and nonsensical.

A fantastic masterpiece that I thoroughly loved, and let me inform everyone who says this movie is poor that it is not, and that it is even a good challenger to Disney's The Jungle Book. Why does this film deserve a sequel, just as The Jungle Book 2016, which is now under production? Here is the thing, what made the rebooted Planet of the Apes trilogy so memorable? It's because, despite the excellent images, the apes displayed emotion and had human-like eyes, and Caesar even smiled. So it's not the photorealism that's important, but the quality of the CGI. If Andy Serkis' version had been of the same brilliance, this would have been the clear winner. The CGI, on the other hand, isn't horrible; it's just a touch poor in comparison. In terms of plot and acting, I preferred Mowgli over The Jungle Book. I truly hope they do a Mowgli sequel with the same core characters and actors.