Good adventure-thriller in the vein of Tomb Raider. Visual effects for the most part were decent and liked seeing Tom Holland in a lead role other than Spider-Man (where he excels) and he's good here. Now this is coming from someone who has never played the game but I thought as video adaptations go, it was fairly entertaining though nothing exceptional. **3.5/5**

I'm just an ordinary joe. I've never played the game this movie is adapted from but from what I hear it's pretty fun. The movie itself is okay for a treasure hunting movie. The action is good and keeps flowing, and the actors, Holland (latest Spiderman) and Whalberg seem to have good chemistry. Even the female protagonist did well in her "diverse & inclusive" part.
If I had any cons to put forth about the movie, I'd say the lead villian being a female (thanks to Woke-Hollywood's influence) has been thoroughly worn to the point of irritation. This woke trope is tired and worse, but oh-so-true to the core, it is dubious at best; especially so when it comes to fight scenes between the protagonist and villain. It is time for Hollywood to hang up its Woke-cape. There is no need for "inclusivity" when you can just give someone the job because it works for the story instead of politics. I wouldn't complain on this aspect so much if Liberal (woke) Hollywood had the ability to write good characters and therefore good scripts. But that is not possible when you are reaching to tick off checkboxes.
**Somewhat Spoiler & complaints:** If the movie had simply begun with a female villain and had her demostrate certain abilities in combat, then her fighting men would be more believable. It also would establish WHY her people would follow her. But the female antagonist's action scenes do not come across as pertinent as they should because her profession is not established in the movie. I struggled to get a handle on whether she was a fellow treasure hunter since she knew Walberg's character personally and was there to advise the rich villain, or if she was a hired mecenary. Turns out she was the later, but that still did not help her character gel. I kept thinking, "Why on earth would anyone follow her? She's hasn't done anything to prove she's more than any other run-of-the-mill killer." If the movie failed in any way it was this one glaring aspect. Henry Cavill made an EXCELLENT head henchman in _Mission Impossible: Fallout_, because men fighting men is believable; villains have menace. But without that special training I mentioned for a female villian, any interaction between her and men in fight scenes comes across as purely contrived. The actress, Tati Gabrielle, did very well as a villain but this women fighting men is just not believable; and that matters to the male viewing audience. Instead of sitting on the edge of your chair wondering who's going to win, you're sitting back with a finger to your temple wondering what bullcrap Hollywood is going to make of this fight scene.
If I have to rate this movie on a whole I give it 3.5/5 stars. It's far removed from _National Treasure_ or _Indiana Jones_, but it's better than _Red Notice_, if only just.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/uncharted-spoiler-free-review
"Uncharted is an action-adventure flick, but despite a more entertaining last act, it fails to break the curse of videogame film adaptations due precisely to the lack of said action and adventure.
Even though Tom Holland and Mark Wahlberg offer good performances, as well as convincing arcs by the two protagonists, Ruben Fleischer delivers an extremely generic and formulaic narrative based on endless exposition. Additionally, the secondary characters become irrelevant due to the irritatingly repetitive betrayals and constant shifts of the true antagonist.
In the end, the general feeling is that it would be much more interesting to be controlling the characters than simply watching them. It may be enough for fans of the franchise, but for the average moviegoer, it's "just one more"."
Rating: C-

After numerous attempts which saw talent attached only to depart before filming began, “Uncharted” has finally arrived on the big screen.
The movie is based on the hit Playstation series of games by Naughty Dog and stars Tom Holland as Nathan Drake, a young man who is as adept at history as he is with pickpocketing which he uses to offset his income from Bartending.
Nathan’s brother fled the law years earlier and aside from Postcards has had no contact with him over the years. Things change when Victor Sullivan (Mark Wahlberg) arrives and recruits Nathan by showing him that he used to work with his brother. Despite misgivings and unresolved feelings; Nathan joins with Victor and finds himself in a daring caper to steal a valuable object that could unlock the key to a gold supply that has been lost for over five hundred years.
Naturally, there are others who want the money, and Nathan, Victory, and their dubious partner Chloe (Sophia Ali); as they rush around the world in one adventure after another to solve the ancient puzzles and stay one step ahead of some very deadly individuals.
The movie has elements of “National Treasure” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark” in terms of the quests to find ancient treasures mixed with action but keeps things in a simpler context. The focus is not on plot development, character development, or plausibility but considering the film is based on a video game, it does a good job with the source material.
There has been some controversy about the casting of Holland as Nathan is older in the game series, but he goes all-in with his performance even when the acrobatic action sequences does offer many reminders of his Spider-man role.
The action in the game is fun and over-the-top and more than once I thought I should be pushing my X and Square button to help him make the moves necessary to complete the task and survive.
The post-credit scenes offer some great possibilities for future adventures and those would be more than welcome for those looking for some no-brainer escapist entertainment.
3.5 stars out of 5.

**EFC is a real women's MMA movie!**
I recently watched "EFC," a movie about women in mixed martial arts. This movie was really about women in the world of mixed martial arts and actually had real MMA fight scenes and a lot of them but the movie was more than just the fight scenes.
The film stars Karlee Rose as Cassady Jones, a champion MMA fighter who starts off defending her title against a rising star named Alexa Star, played by Kathryn Aboya.
While the film has its flaws, I still found it entertaining and worth watching because the movie was a bout more than women fighting in the octagon. The fight went into the boardroom for the future of the sport. The fight scenes were incredible and exciting to watch, 100% the fight scenes were the star of the movie.
The acting was solid, particularly from Karlee Rose and Avaah Blackwell, who both did a good job portraying their characters' determination and vulnerability and straight out craziness.
However, the story was a bit predictable and didn't explore the characters' backgrounds and motivations as much as I would've liked but if you're a fan of sports dramas or enjoy watching strong female leads, "EFC" is definitely worth checking out.

**A Powerful Journey That Inspires the Soul!**
EFC is nothing short of an emotional rollercoaster that left me deeply inspired. From the moment the story unfolds, you can tell it's going to be a unique cinematic experience. The characters are relatable, and their journeys are filled with heartfelt moments of struggle, growth, and triumph.
The direction by Jaze Bordeaux is exceptional, blending stunning visuals with a narrative that feels raw and authentic. Every scene seems to carry a message—about perseverance, about believing in yourself even when the odds are stacked against you. The cast delivers powerful performances, especially the lead (Karlee Rose), who manages to convey vulnerability and strength in equal measure.
What I loved most about EFC is its ability to resonate with audiences on a personal level. It’s not just a movie; it’s a reminder that no matter how tough life gets, it's important to keep dreaming and never give up on hope! It's a reminder that determination can carry us through. The film's message of never giving up is one that everyone can take to heart.
By the end, I was left with a renewed sense of purpose and motivation. EFC is a must-watch for anyone who needs a bit of inspiration in their lives. It’s a beautiful, uplifting story that will stay with you long after the credits roll.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://talkingfilms.net/cleaner-review-daisy-ridley-shines-in-a-die-hard-inspired-thriller/
"Cleaner is a functional action-thriller that meets the genre's basic requirements without ever truly standing out.
Daisy Ridley's all-in commitment elevates the material, but Martin Campbell's competent direction can't hide a predictable script and a thematic exploration that, while respectable, remains surface-level.
In the end, it's 90 minutes of decent entertainment, but one that won't leave a lasting impact in the endless lineup of Die Hard's spiritual successors."
Rating: B-

If it looks too good to be true, then it probably is... That's what "Kevin" (Keanu Reeves) must learn to appreciate after he is offered a dream job at a prestigious New York legal firm by "Milton" (Al Pacino). The potential wealth and the status of his new career path bring out the green-eyed monster in him and together with his reluctant wife "Mary-Ann" (Charlize Theron) they are soon living it up in their penthouse apartment with plenty of money but an increasingly dwindling amount of time together. She starts to cool on their arrangement and wants to return to Florida but pretty soon it's clear that "Kevin" is addicted - and not to her! Pacino is on good form here as it becomes clear just who his character is, and how adeptly he is pulling all the strings and manoeuvring his new charge into a position that might suggest that the clue is in the title! Now as a life-long lover of the baddie in films, I felt a bit let down by the ending. Faust it isn't - but, to be fair, it still goes as close as Hollywood will probably ever go in portraying a characterisation of the epitome of evil (and offering a wonderful critique on vanity being the downfall of mankind) that actually has a fighting chance of prevailing! Reeves is not the finest actor to grace our screens. Easy on the eye, certainly, but somehow he's just a bit too lightweight here. That might be because, however, Pacino is very much in his element and even though it can drag at times during the almost 2½ hour running time, it's a remarkably compelling ride that still holds up quite well.

OK, full disclosure, I have a thing for Al Pacino. I'll watch just about anything he's in and...if he screams and yells a monologue in it, if he delivers a diatribe of rage....yeah I get flashbacks to him screaming: "I'd take a flame thrower to this place" and roll my eyes back like a shark in a feeding frenzy.
Oh, yeah, almost forgot, Keanu is in this one too...but for a good slice of the film he doesn't play the most savory of characters and, really, honestly, he just seems too nice to play a lawyer...
...but despite that he does a pretty good job of exhibiting the ego that has to come with the law profession...just not the vile evilness. So, I can't totally fault him for miscast as I could for Dracula.
Jeffery Jones is in there too and due to recent revelations he totally fits the sleazy lawyer role.
But yeah, 1997, the 90s had a way with films that was only really beaten by the 70s and The Devil's Advocate is one of those films that could really only be made in those two decades. Stand alone horror not intended as a franchise piece and one with a twist that asks you to think a little.
No way that would be made today and that is a shame.
I could tout its glory, but really, honestly, the movie could have stank and I wouldn't care thanks to Pacino screaming "I'm a fan of man!" It's worth the watch.

Apparently I saw this before (had a rating on my computer program) but didn't really remember much of it. A bit uneven between a serious drama with supernatural fantasy, but I had fun with these performances by Reeves and Pacino (forgot how normal he once looked) and never a bad thing with Charlize Theron and Connie Nielsen being there for the obvious reasons. Not great and could've cut some of the running time but still found it somewhat entertaining. **3.5/5**

Sorry, but this is just all over the place. A potpourri of myths and legends loosely connected with the famous vampire hunter that just don't gel at all. Doctor Jekyll, Mr Hyde, Victor Frankenstein and his monster all vie with Count Dracula for the attention of a really rather lacklustre Hugh Jackman in the title role. Kate Beckinsale sort-of recreates her "Underworld" role as she becomes his kick-ass sidekick. It's fairly action-packed but the scenes go on for far too long, the script is cheesy, the CGI just isn't great and the attempts at humour don't work well either.

**Van Helsing doesn't deserve its early grave and should be resurrected for more fun adventures.**
Why do people love to hate such an enjoyable movie? Van Helsing falls much more in the adventure genre than horror but still has a little of the edge of a scary movie. Stephen Sommers' influence can be felt throughout with a lot of the same charm that made The Mummy (1999) so great. Van Helsing showcases many of the Universal classic monsters while building a shared universe that should have been explored more than once. With big names like Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale, blockbuster effects, goofy fun moments, and all the adventure one could hope for. Van Helsing deserves way more love and a lot less disdain. Sure it isn't a perfect movie, but it was a much better attempt at a shared Monsterverse than Tom Cruise's The Mummy (2017) and was entitled to more.

Absinthe Actioner!
Van Helsing is written and directed by Stephen Sommers. It stars Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale, Richard Roxburgh, David Wenham, Shuler Hensley, Elena Anaya, Will Kemp, Kevin J. O'Connor and Alun Armstrong. Music is by Alan Silvestri and cinematography by Allen Daviau.
Famed monster hunter Van Helsing (Jackman) is sent to Transylvania to stop Count Dracula's (Roxburgh) fiendish plan involving the Frankenstein Monster and the Wolf Man.
Well it was universally savaged by the pro critics and is considered a flop. Yet whilst understanding those things, it does for a reason hold above average ratings on the big internet movie sites. It did find a market (and continues to do so), it's like one big long MTV video, a sort of chaotic monster fun frolic in rock opera style.
It's effects laden, which is no great thing since they are shoddy, and the dialogue is often as cringe worthy as some of the accents are. Yet it's still a thrilling ride, a strap yourself in and run with it job, to be in the company of sexy lead actors in Gothic garb and devilish period surrounds.
Loud and boisterous for sure, and tacky at times, but exhilarating all the same for those after some pure escapist carnage. 5/10

***Big Dumb Blockbuster Monster Fun***
Although writer/director Stephen Sommers had an unexpected hit with 1999's "The Mummy," he went overKILL with the 2001 sequel "The Mummy Returns," a prime example of modern blockbuster dreck that's full of explosions and "exciting" things going on, but somehow is strangely boring. That's the problem with 2004's "Van Helsing," although not as bad.
THE PLOT: In 1887 Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) teams up with Anna (Kate Beckinsale) in Transylvania to fight Dracula, his three lovely but vicious brides, the Frankenstein monster, werewolves, vampire babies, etc.
It won't take long for the viewer to perceive that "Van Helsing" shouldn't be taken too seriously. It's a partial parody/homage of the classic Universal monster movies and part serious, just barely. Imagine "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992) with the over-the-top thrills of Indiana Jones and the flair of classic monster parodies like “The Vampire Happening” (1971) or "Young Frankenstein” (1974) and you'd have a good approximation.
The film looks good, but there's too much CGI and some of the monsters look really cartoony, like Mr. Hyde and the werewolves. Others look quite good, like the flying vampire brides and Frankenstein's monster. As was the case with "The Mummy Returns" the film is strangely tedious despite all the manic happenings. Thankfully, there are worthy hints of depth, e.g. the Frankenstein monster and Anna. I wish there was more.
Speaking of Anna, Kate Beckinsale is definitely one of the highlights here as she looks stunning throughout in an amazing form-fitting costume and thigh-high boots seemingly appropriate for the late 1800s (speaking as someone who’s not even a Beckinsale fan). Josie Maran and Elena Anaya are also striking as two of Dracula's wives, Marishka and Aleera. Needless to say, excellent job on the female front. On the other side of the spectrum, Jackman is a great, masculine leading man, perfect for the role. Richard Roxburgh (Dracula), David Wenham (Carl), Kevin J. O'Connor (Igor) and Shuler Hensley (Frankenstein’s monster) are all entertaining or effective.
At the end of the day, though, "Van Helsing" barely rises above the limitations of what it is: a big, dumb modern blockbuster with all its over-the-top trappings. Considering the $160 million thrown into it, it shoulda/coulda been better. The story needed time to breathe and less constant mania. The movie’s also over-long at 2 hours and 11 minutes. Still, it's better than "The Mummy Returns" and there's enough here to make it worthwhile, if you're in the mood for this type of fare.
THE FILM WAS SHOT in the Czech Republic, Rome and Paris with studio work done in Southern Cal and Orlando, Florida.
GRADE: B-/C+

I can not understand which was the purpose of this remake . A really bad choice . A movie which was 100 times worst than the original one . It was a waste of time for me . I am a huge karate kid fan but this one was one of the worst remakes i have ever seen .

Well, the theme of the movie is the same as the original Karate Kid BUT this movie is actually not about karate but kung fu. The comedic parts and the dramatic parts are just right. The action is okay. There weren't much especially from Jaden. He just got some action in the end. But then it's enough for the film considering kids will be watching this movie.
Jaden Smith is amazing in this movie. I kept on saying that Will and Jada Pinkett made a good investment in their son. Just like his parents, he's a great actor. He's good in both drama and comedy. He did well in this movie. There were even "kilig" moments with him. I just love him.
Jackie Chan is of course amazing as well. His character was an older man but that didn't stop him from having a fight scene of his own. We all know he has great comedic timing but I was really impressed when he did his dramatic acting in this movie. It's a different Jackie Chan. And that's what makes him great. He has always something to surprise his audience with.
Jaden's nemesis is also great. He's scary. But I like the pictures of behind the scenes in the end because it showed that he's not that scary after all. He looks like a nice guy who's friends with Jaden.
My rate for this movie is A. It's a great movie for everyone and I'm not even surprised that it's a box office hit.

A Karate kid which practices Kung Fu for a bad re-make.
Only Jackie Chan could be saved from this movie.

The title Flight is a perfect illustration that brevity really is the soul of wit. Its six letters describe not only the protagonist's occupation (flying), but also what he spends most of the film doing (fleeing), and if we only added a seventh letter (-y), it would describe the character himself. The film itself could stand to be shorter, but overall it's no exception to the rule that no good movie is too long.
In addition to illustrating the aforementioned Shakespearean principle, director Robert Zemeckis inverts a famous Simpsonian maxim; in this case, alcohol is first the solution and then the cause of all the problems.
One can identify a compulsive smoker when he lights a cigarette with the butt of the previous one; Similarly, one can spot an alcoholic when he soothes his hangover with leftover beer from the day before — and that’s just the start of commercial pilot William 'Whip' Whitaker's (Denzel Washington) breakfast of champions.
Whip is still drinking in the cabin of Flight 227 bound for Atlanta, making himself a screwdriver, or several, before taking a nap. He wakes with a start when the plane begins to nosedive. Unable to regain control, Whip is forced to make a controlled crash landing in an open field, saving most of the "102 souls" on board.
This includes a maneuver where Whip flies the plane upside down, and it's not just him but also Zemeckis who takes a huge risk and lives to reap the reward. The scene avoids becoming unintentionally funny because part of its purpose is precisely to provide some much-needed humor to ease the almost unbearable tension; at the same time, it manages to stretch the audience's suspension of disbelief without breaking it for two reasons: 1) it has real precedent, and 2) it's exactly the kind of thing someone flying under the influence would do.
There’s no doubt that Whip has the expertise to pull off this maneuver successfully; the question is whether he would have dared to execute it while sober. Moreover,, the cause of the accident is a mechanical failure completely unrelated to Whip's sorry physical state.
But Flight is not, like Druk, an apology for alcoholism. In an inferior film the vehicle, be it a plane or a car, would crash as a direct result of the driver/pilot's drunkenness, and the driver/pilot would be the only or one of the few survivors, making him feel even guiltier. Flight instead debunks the myth of invincibility that every alcoholic invokes by leading us to believe, practically to the end, that Whip might very well be literally invincible.
"Maybe I'm a fool," Whip muses, "because if I'd just told one more lie, I might have walked away from the whole mess." But he knows as well as we do that after that “one more lie” there would be another lie, and another, and another, and that eventually his lies would have caught up with him, because ultimately there is no escaping the negative effects of addiction.
Like the similar Clean and Sober, Flight loses momentum with a Romantic Subplot that a nearly two-and-a-half-hour film doesn't need; on the other hand, I really liked Washington’s and Zemeckis's attention to detail — for example, when in the middle of crash landing Whip has the presence of mind to make a flight attendant tell her son that she loves him so that the box black can record it (in case they don’t make it), or the way his facial language unequivocally expresses the world of difference, the passage from hell to paradise, that exists before that first line of cocaine — supplied by John Goodman in a pair of hilarious cameos, each one heralded by the presence of “Sympathy for the Devil” on the soundtrack — and after.

With Robert Zemekis at the helm, it has to be good, right?
Pretty much. Not the strongest performance by Cheadle, but otherwise the cast is great. John Goodman is a welcome surprise half-way through and really brings this home.
With a feel good ending, what more do you 1-3 star people want??
It's Denzel!!

'Blade' is not entirely what I expected. I had no clue this was about vampires, like at all. I evidently knew little about these films, I was anticipating a relatively standard yet stylish superhero flick - based upon the lead character's look, which is the only thing I knew of.
That's not a criticism, as the vampire stuff ended up being pretty fun to watch unfold. I will say that Wesley Snipes is the reason for that fact though, as Stephen Dorff and his band of one-dimensional renegades are only just narrowly watchable. Snipes as the titular character is excellent though, while Kris Kristofferson and N'Bushe Wright are good too.
The special effects haven't aged the best, though some parts are still decent and, to be honest, even the less than good pieces still work. For example the effect used when the vampires are killed looks fine, though the end with Frost's blood does look a bit dorky now - but again, works.

Wesley Snipes is "Blade" - an immortal half-breed charged with protecting mankind from the menace of the ever-peckish vampires with only his quirky sidekick "Whistler" (Kris Kristofferson) as an ally. Finally, the vampire council decide it is time to rid themselves of their nemesis and so "Deacon Frost" (Stephen Dorff) is tasked with bringing him down. I was always a fan of Dorff - never the best actor, but he had a bit of presence on screen - a good looking bit of rough, I suppose - and here is is a good counterpoint to the fastidious man-in-black whom he is out to destroy. The fight scenes are too choreographed for me, way too much acrobatics that detract from the menace of the story - it's supposed by about vampires, not rhythmic gymnastics - but it still moves along well as "Frost" tries to summon the blood god "La Magra" to give him the ultimate power to defeat our hero. This doesn't hang about, the action is fast-paced and the effects and characterisations gel quite well together for an enjoyable, if predictable story that is by far the best of the sequels it spawned.

When this came out I thought it was the best vampire movie ever. Tons of action, fight scenes, and gore. I love how the vampires look when they die. One of my favorites!

Some good fight scenes and like Snipes in the role (reminded me of a time when he was trying) and Stephen Dorff was an okay villain, plus it was a serviceable plot. However, and I know this was 1997/98 when it was made, but the CGI at the end took me out of it (hell, good CGI done today takes me out of these sorts of films). But all in all, found it entertaining enough. **3.75/5**

The Daywalker.
Half human and half vampire, Blade's function in life is to rid the world of vampires, he is driven forward by the notion that his mother was killed by his half brethren.
This is no ordinary vampire film, this is nothing to do with bearing crosses and creatures making music of the night, this is armoured weaponry, dazzling swordplay and a protagonist that is as cool as anything that has leaped off of the comic book page. Wesley Snipes (perfect piece of casting) is Blade, a much troubled superhero (aren't they all?), he has to take a formula suppressant to keep away his inner vampire cravings. Aided by trusty pal, Whistler (Kris Kristofferson), they wage war against all blood suckers and here they must stop the sinister Deacon Frost (Stephen Dorff) from executing his monstrous plan.
There are no cranial pondering's here in this piece, this is a joyously high velocity action horror movie, containing great choreography and retaining its comic book heart. Blade is pure popcorn fodder for the MTV generation, in fact director Stephen Norrington utilises his music video background to great effect as the combat scenes are scored with delightful sledgehammer precision. Blood brains and gore flow freely as the film hurtles towards the head splitting conclusion, loud, dark and tinged with brooding menace, Blade is hugely recommended for a ripper of a night in. 7.5/10

First released in 1998, Blade brought commercial success back to Super Hero films, after the woeful distribution of films like Batman & Robin and Steel stopped the genre in its tracks.
Starring Wesley Snipes as the eponymous Half-Vampire/Half-Human hybrid come Super Hero/Vampire Hunter, Blade works with Dr. Karen Jensen and Abraham Whistler (Kris Kristofferson) in order to defeat vampires Deacon Frost (Stephen Dorff) and Quinn (Donal Logue) and their host of undead soldiers before they can kill Gitano Dragonetti (Udo Kier) and the other vampire Elders in a ritual that will transform Deacon Frost into La Magra, the vampire Blood God.
With me so far? No? That figures. The script's interesting, but it's not terribly sense-making. What I mean to say, is, the script's rubbish, but the *story* is great. The whole film is really rather story and effects driven, but the characters are pretty lacking. Quinn is sort of fun, and Deacon's... well... he's attractive, but not a lot else. Still, there's more to him than most of the characters, including the titular Blade.
Straight up, just putting out there, I think goth-culture is attractive, so, my aesthetics may go quite a way to influencing my decision in the final score, if you disagree with me, you might want to keep that in mind, seeing as most vampires have at least a little bit of that going on. All that aside though, the opening of Blade is one of the strongest ways a film can start off that I've ever seen. It has basically everything you could want for a modern vampire tale. Including the Blood Rave song, Confusion (Pump Panel Remix) by New Order.
The cinematography was another cool point, lots of ins and outs in a non-nauseating way. Although the fight choreography suffered from a serious case of "Only-One-Guy-Attacks-At- A-Time" Syndrome. Come on guys, this ain't Tekken. When there's an army to fight, fight an army. Maybe not all at once, I know that could get a tad pointless, but it really didn't transfer well in this film.
To end with, there's one plot-hole I'd like to bring up, I don't think I'll be spoiling anything too badly, but if you want to go in completely fresh, stop reading. There's one point when Frost says he needs to kill the 12 Elder vamps in a big underground ritual in order to complete his ascendancy into the Blood God (Khorne?), but he kills the leader earlier, on a beach. Okay, so maybe he wasn't counted, and he was actually number 13. But, Frost's lady-friend Mercury kills another with Blade's sword, before the ritual gets started, and nobody seems to care... I am dubious- faced.
After all that though, Blade is a vampire film that's not slow like Nosferatu, and not indescribably awful like Twilight, so for people with tastes like mine, it's certainly worth a geez.
66%
-Gimly

Blade is tons of fun, particularly when viewed through the nostalgic lens of 90s action cinema. It's also worth noting that the success of this movie - an R rated vampire flick with an African American lead - gave birth to the comic book movie era. The action, effects, and music are silly and dated, plus the story makes no sense. But Blade is nevertheless still fun.

It'd have to be a pretty bad film for me to think it was worse than anything featuring Ioan Gruffudd, but ten years after that attempt - this 2015 version of the Marvel franchise is as bad as they get. Michael B. Jordan is in a class of his own as "Johnny Storm" (admittedly, the best character from this rather limited choice) but the remainder of the team deliver a performance totally devoid of humour - there is simply no fun to be had in this dark, dreary telling of the four youngsters who are involved in an accident on a parallel world that leaves them with some rather interesting quirks. Soon everyone is trying to cash in on their skills - from science to the military - until their erstwhile colleague "Victor von Doom" (Toby Kebbell) arrives determined to seek his revenge for them leaving him behind... The effects are great, colourful and professional but that's about the height of it - Miles Teller and Kate Mara have no chemistry at all and Jamie Bell's appearances aren't long enough before he turns to stone to merit much comment either. Maybe the 2025 version will be better...

**Better remake but with unneccessary hate**
Better story than the first film with less of the annoying hollywood romantics. Could do better with the humour.
Accompanied with better graphics too as it's 2015. Of course, the mainstream hate exists because our hollywood world has its dumb morals.

I was actually not having great hopes for this movie giving how Hollywood have screwed up with a lot of my favourite super heroes (Spiderman, Fantastic Four, Dare Devil and a few others). Having said that maybe there was still a glimmer of hope given that some of their latest Marvel work have been rather okay. Unfortunately this is not the reboot of the Fantastic Four that I, and a dare say the fans, hoped for.
One thing that I do not understand is why the dumbass script writers that Hollywood employs always have to change the basic story of a set of characters that have a solid fan base? There was nothing wrong with the original story, and thus origin, of the Fantastic Four and the source of their powers. Maybe I am just old-fashioned but still.
The second gripe I have with this movie is the nonsensical stuff with members of the Fantastic Four, especially Ben, being deployed by the US military. It is just so cliché. Lazy script writing plain and simple. Unfortunately this also causes the movie to not really feel like it is a Fantastic Four movie. The team is split up and it is not until the very end that they actually become a team, gets a headquarter and so on. Big fail as far as I am concerned.
Having said all that, I do not think it is as bad as some people claim. There are some good stuff in there. The story is not all bad after all even though it is not exactly to my liking and the special effects are quite okay. One thing that annoys me with the story is that the role of Reed is really diminished and he is never really allowed to show of his powers. Yes, I know, there are some “stretching” moments but, well, meh! To add to the pain the actor cast as Reed is, in my mind, totally unconvincing.
The bad guy is also somewhat underwhelming and thoroughly predictable. As I said a classical Hollywood concoction aimed towards the less intelligent viewers. I do not understand why Hollywood seems to be so bent on repeating the same mistakes over and over again?
Well, as I wrote, the movie is not as bad as some people claim but it is far from great. Given the abysmal reviews I am afraid that we will not be getting a sequel which is a shame. This is one of the (few) Marvel comics that I read as a kid (in Sweden we did not get treated to that many of these kind of comics) so it is indeed a bit of a disappointment that they managed to screw this movie up…again.

I just saw this and I wasn't expecting much as I have read some really negative reviews about it online and elsewhere. Honestly, I think they were wrong. It's not a bad film at all, just not as fast paced as the previous version which I quite liked too ... mind you, I am 60+ so maybe that has something to do with it. A scifi/action film for the older generation perhaps? I really enjoyed it. I gave it 4/5 stars here.