It was a bad time for everyone, Rambo. It's all in the past now.
First Blood is directed by Ted Kotcheff and adapted by Michael Kozoll, William Sackheim and Sylvester Stallone, from the novel written by David Morrell. It stars Stallone, Brian Dennehy, Richard Crenna, Bill McKinney and Jack Starrett. Cinematography is by Andrew Laszlo and the music scored by Jerry Goldsmith. Locations for the shoot were in British Columbia.
John Rambo (Stallone), ex Vietnam war veteran, wanders into small town Oregon and is met with hostility by Sheriff Will Teasle (Dennehy). Arrested for a trumped up charge of vagrancy, Rambo is subjected to rough house treatment by Teasle and his staff. Fuelled by the haunted images of his time in Vietnam, Rambo breaks out of custody and makes for the hills, with Teasle and the force in hot pursuit. But this is terrain made for Rambo, an expert soldier trained to survive and kill, it's a war, Rambo versus the rest.
The character of John Rambo would slip into pop culture and forever be associated with cartoon excess. By his own admission, Stallone himself felt they dropped the ball after the original film, and he's right. However, First Blood is often wrongly lumped in as part of that excessive package, because it's a film well worthy of revisits to see just how well it holds up as a taut and tense thriller. A film led by the bold theme of showing just how badly some of America's soldiers were received upon returning from Vietnam. First Blood delves deeper into the psyche of one such soldier whilst casting a caustic eye over small town Americana. The makers rarely let up on the troubling thematics at work, developing Rambo with clinical strokes as the plot unfolds, the trick in the tail being that the audience are firmly on his side as he goes about bringing his Vietnam to the picturesque place the locals call home. By 1982, it seems, America was on the side of the soldier.
Stallone is a perfect fit for the role, his physicality unquestionable, he brings the brood and pain to Rambo like few actors of his ilk ever could. The sarcastic may point to his lack of dialogue hardly constituting a great acting performance, that's rot, because this is a fine character portrayal by Stallone. Dennehy is on fine form as the brutish bully Sheriff who just couldn't leave Rambo alone, while in the support ranks McKinney and Starrett leave good impressions. The interesting casting comes with Crenna as Rambo's "maker", Col. Samuel Trautman. The role was Kirk Douglas' hook line and sinker, but he wanted a different script and insisted that the film end the same way as the novel. In the end the makers just couldn't give in to his requests and he walked at the last minute. In stepped Crenna to put a bit of father figure pathos into Trautman, and subsequently earning himself a three picture deal and a place in pop culture in the process.
It's also a film that's photographed with great skill by Lazlo. He captures the British Columbia mountains and forests with beautiful scope, but in keeping with the tone of the film his colour palette is suitably grey and green. Goldsmith provides an effective score, particularly when the narrative is focusing on Rambo's alienation, while the stunt work is very impressive. Even if we drift away from the theme of the piece, it still works extremely well as an action movie drama, be it motorcycle/helicopter pursuits, or jungle warfare, First Blood pumps the blood frequently. All neatly constructed by the director of Weekend at Bernie's! On release it grabbed the attention and became a monster box office hit Worldwide, today it still stands as a damn great movie, and you know what? Stallone and co were right and Kirk Douglas was wrong. 9/10

'Atomic Blonde' entertains!
A very stylish action-packed 115 minutes. Loved watching Charlize Theron in the lead role, a great performance from her. The whole cast are very good, though James McAvoy and Sofia Boutella stood out most to me. Some of the dialogue could've been better, while the story does get a bit overly entwined.
Still, there is no doubt that I had fun with this 2017 flick; which was David Leitch's official directorial debut. I've seen all five movies of his now and I've enjoyed all of them, albeit to varying degrees. 'Bullet Train' is definitely my favourite! 🚆

The movie wasn't that good. It does have a lot of action though. Some pretty sweet fight scenes too.

It SHOULD have been good. It is a spy movie with a basic spy movie plot. It promises double crosses and intrigue.
But it never really delivers on the suspense and tension that are the principle trope of good spy movies...and it never really delivers on the empty mindless popcorn stuffing atmosphere that are the basic tropes of action movies.
So in the end you're left with a movie that isn't tense and suspenseful enough to be "3 Days of the Condor" or "The Americans" and a movie that isn't as mindless action packed fun as James Bond.
All the elements were there, but they never seemed to pull them off. It's like that old Native American saying, "if you chase two rabbits you'll lose them both." And that's really what happened here. it tried to be two different kinds of spy movie in one and never really made it into either.
You're left wondering why you bothered. Had they picked one and went whole headlong for that goal, it could have been stellar. Instead it's luke warm at best.

IN MY DREAMS I AM LORIANNE BROUGHTON, IN REALITY I AM MONA LISA VITO. OH WELL A GIRL CAN DREAM. CHARLIZE THERION IS ICEY COLD PERFECTION.

This is a good solid cold war spy story with plenty of action. I have to say that I liked this movie a lot.
I expected a fairly shallow over the top action flick with a sexy but not very bright kick-ass chick as the main protagonist. To my surprise I got something quite a bit more than that. Sure the movie is quite “Hollywoodish”, it is supposed to be a action movie after all, but it is surprisingly well done and Charlize Theron is great as the sexy, not at all stupid and very much kick-ass chick.
As a bit of a twist the story is told in the form of a debriefing at the MI6 headquarter. This type of storytelling can be a bit miss or hit since, unless the writer is good at it, it has a tendency to spoil the movie and the events already when the movie starts. I would say that in this one they got it right.
The movie is frequently quite dark and gritty which of course is fitting with the former East Germany setting. To my great delight they did not stoop to the usual dark, almost black and white, boring type of footage that you too frequently get. Instead the dark and gritty scenes are filmed in a “darkish” blue hue and the scenes actually have a lot of color in them.
The story is a fairly standard spy-is-given-a-mission-behind-the-wall-and-it-all-goes-to-hell one. As a story goes it is really not much to write home about and it has the usual plot holes and illogical twists. What makes this movie good is how it is implemented.
As I have already mentioned Charlize Theron is great in her role. She is sharp tongued, hot and kicks ass. Unlike many protagonists in movies like this one she not only administers pain but she receives it as well. Actually the movie starts with scenes of her showing off bruises all over her body (yes all of it).
To fill out the picture we get some brutal, and I mean brutal, KGB agents, the traitorous colleague, the defector and a few other characters. Together they embark on a roller coaster ride of spy work, chases, (brutal) ass kicking etc. All of it very well done as far as I am concerned. It is not the silly fx loaded blow-everything-up kind of action but instead up-personal-beat-them-up action.
I have to say that I quite liked the end of the movie as well. The twist at the end was maybe not the biggest surprise of the year but I definitely liked it. I really do not like movies that fizzles out with a bunch of loose ends and objectives not achieved. This movie is, to my great enjoyment, not one of those.
To me this movie was really good. Certainly better than I expected.

I have seen it said of _Atomic Blonde_ that it is hollow piece wrapped in an attractive shell. I would respond by saying that "attractive" hardly does the shell justice, it's absolutely fucking gorgeous. Otherwise though that sounds about right.
No, in all seriousness, the plot itself is more than fine. Even the absolute worst aspects from any individual part of _Atomic Blonde_, no matter how much you pick them apart, more than pass the litmus test for minimum acceptable standard. It truly is a case of style over substance, and that is something that I can understand the complaint for. But it's style **over** substance, not style **instead of** substance. At no point did I feel that the story was cobbled together as an excuse to get to the next setpiece. The story was what it was (a pretty genuine throwback to the espionage thrillers of the late and post-Cold War era) and the aesthetic, the music, the design, was simply how that story was chosen to be delivered. And a brilliant choice at that.
Walking in, I was already certain that I was going to like the film, because even if it was just an extended version of the trailer, then it appealed enough to my personal tastes that I was in for a good time. Walking out, I knew that taking everything beyond those factors into account, I didn’t just like _Atomic Blonde_, I loved it.
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

**_The “least-biblical biblical film ever made”_**
Helmed by Darren Aronofsky, "Noah" (2014) is his imaginative reimagining of the story from Judeo-Christian Scripture. Being an artistic filmmaker, the production values are top notch, including the quality cast and stellar Icelandic locations, not to mention there’s a moving spirit of reverence to the proceedings. The storytelling is compelling enough, although I started getting a little bored in the second half when the protagonists are stuck in the ark.
The title blurb above is from Aronofsky himself, who described himself as not religious, but he once practiced Judaism and was interested in the Noah story, especially the environmentalist angle, yet other parts as well. The movie creatively adds lumbering rock creatures obviously inspired by the fallen “sons of God” and the giant Nephilim they fathered from Genesis 6. I found them interesting, but they are not part of the scriptural story.
The worst deviation is the depiction of the title character (Russell Crowe), who is described in the Bible as a righteous, blameless man who walked with God. We know Noah wasn’t perfect and that he sinned myriad times during his life, but the second half of the film erroneously portrays him as an extreme misanthrope bent on wiping out humanity.
Meanwhile the villain of the piece, Tubal-Cain (Ray Winstone), soundly believes that humans were made in God’s image and had dominion over the animals. He also believed in the right to hunt animals for sustenance even though such food was divinely prohibited before the global flood, which is the setting of the story; so, as depicted in the movie, Tubal-Cain was in sin on this count. (The fruits of the earth, by the way, were more nutritious and better adapted for the sustenance of the human body prior to the flood; later, they were less capable of supporting the growing feebleness of the body).
Needless to say, “Noah” can only be appreciated as an artistic movie inspired by the biblical story. The rock creatures are fantastical and plentiful bits are totally unbiblical. Nevertheless, a lot of key scriptural truths are featured, like the existence of God, the intelligent design of physical creation, the intrinsic corruption of humanity, divine judgment, the global flood, the ark-vessel that saves some people & animals, and love overcoming righteous wrath for a second chance.
The film runs 2 hours, 18 minutes, and was shot in southern Iceland, including Dyrhólaey, Fossvogur, Reynisfjara, as well as a set of Noah’s Ark at the Planting Fields Arboretum State Historic Park on Long Island. “Noah” was a success at the box office, earning $359.2 million worldwide on a cost of $125 million.
GRADE: B-/C+

I feel obligated to watch and review movies like this. I am just happy as a clam that they make movies based on real life or mythological things simply because it gets people interested in it.
I mean, I'm a historian...one that has spent his life walking that fine line between history, geology, and a Catholic faith...
They never agree.
Don't worry, I don't care about how historically accurate movies are and being a historian I play lip service to the presumed accuracy of my religion.
...And as someone with a deep understanding of geology, when it comes to even 5,000 years ago I play lip service to my own profession.
I think it's hysterical that people are hating on this film for religious reasons. "Noah" is largely Biblically inaccurate, which is even funnier than usual given that every Priest I've ever had recognizes Noah as Gilgamesh.
So to hate it on a religious stance is idiotic to begin with...and to hate a totally religiously inaccurate film simply because it's based on a tale from the Abrahamic Holy books is as idiotic because, well, it's not even accurate to those.
So we'll erase all the Religious and history crap now and just look at the movie.
If you didn't see this in the theater and if you don't have a, well, an Ark sized TV...it might not be worth it.
The main selling point is really watching the Great Flood, the Deluge is sort of why people like me want to see it...and we want to see it BIG. HUGE. ENORMOUS.
So...a small screen and you might as well be watching abrupt History Channel "The Bible" miniseries...and just leave it at that.
In fact, you may be better off passing if you don't watch it big...because without the enormity of the flood on the enormous screen you are left with Russell Crowe and that just hurts.
Yup...Russell Crowe. What you have here, minus the flood (which is the star of the show) is Crowe, a man that is so convinced that he is God's gift to acting that he totally forgot how to do it.
I don't care how you feel about religion (as long as you tolerate all of them) and I don't care how you feel about accuracy in film...no matter your feelings you have to endure Crowe.
If you can do that more power to you.
But then you have Jennifer Connelly and yeah, you may think she's still eye candy--and you would be right--but that doesn't change the fact that she still can't emote.
Thankfully you have Watson, who manages to out act both of them...and Hopkins if he really had a role in all of this worth his skills.
So if you have the means to watch it big...the flood is worth the price of admission...if you don't beware of the Crowe.

Watching Noah, it occurs to me that it must have been made by atheists. After all, they are treating the Word of God as little more than a first draft.
On the other hand, though, co-writer/director Darren Aronofsky isn’t fucking around with the old "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain," making sure to substitute the G word with the epithet "the Creator."
Thus, Noah (Russell Crowe) tells his wife Naamah (Jennifer Connelly) that “[the Creator] is going to destroy the world” (after which he will presumably be known as “the Destroyer”) by way of a flood, which may have given rise to the expression 'when it rains it pours;' I mean, the characters are already living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland; destroying it would certainly qualify as overkill.
Noah turns to his grandfather Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins) for advice — by the way, according to the Bible, Noah invented wine, but what the Good Book doesn’t say is that Methuselah invented tea; the latter is a miracle in itself, since water and leaves, the two essential ingredients to prepare this beverage (not to mention the fuel needed to start a fire and the kindle to keep it burning), are entirely conspicuous by their absence.
Luckily, Methuselah has a magical seed that can grow an entire forest overnight, but which he had apparently been saving to give to Noah. Noah uses the wood from the trees in this forest to build the Ark, which follows the Field of Dreams Principle; i.e., 'If you build it, they will come' — 'they' being two of each animal, all of which without exception clearly belong to the computatrum generatae genus, but then the visual effects are one of the few pleasures to be had here; in particular the “Watchers” (fallen angels turned into semi-anthropomorphic rock formations voiced by Frank Langella and Nick Nolte, among others), as well as the montage that accompanies Noah's narration of Genesis.
Additionally, the Ark itself and the accompanying flood are not unimpressive, and I like how Aronofsky has Noah's sons succumb to Rapid Aging Syndrome to indicate the passage of the many years it would take to complete such a gargantuan project.
The problem with this is that they grow up to be Emma Watson, Logan Lerman, Douglas Booth, etc., all of them with impossibly perfect hair, skin, and teeth (unless, of course, Methuselah also invented shampoo and toothpaste, in addition to tea).
All things considered, however, the real highlight of the film is Ray Winstone's performance as Tubalcaín. Winstone is nominally the villain, but his character is really the most sensible of all (and Winstone’s delivery lends eve more weight to his convictions), correctly pointing out that both the Creator and the proto-David Koresh that Crowe plays Noah as — although his madness is justifiable; "if the noise of all those animals didn't drive Noah insane (not to mention the insect bites), the smell should have killed him" (The Skeptic’s Dictionary) — have become drunk with power.

This is a hard movie to watch and rate.
The Good: The images of the flood coming from both above and below the earth were spectacular. The trauma that Noah deals with during the flood and post-flood is beautifully depicted. I loved the image of Noah realizing that the ‘sickness’ is in him as well as the others. The story-telling of creation to fall to the flood was beautifully done. I also liked the tension of Noah and the family on the ark as they wrestle with the possibility that the Creator has forgotten them.
So with all that good, what ruins the movie?
I do think a director/writer has an obligation to the source material. Subtract the religious aspect of this movie and imagine the outrage if someone changed the story of Harry Potter or Thor. (Oh wait…they are doing that.)
Point is: if you have source material, use it. Go ahead and be creative when there are blanks to fill in but why have source material if you're not going to use it? The director did merge two ancient flood stories – the Bible and the Babylonian Enuma Elish. In the end – neither tradition gets a clear telling of their story.
Other issues? The role of Methusala was a complete waste of the talented Anthony Hopkins. And I still have no idea as to why he was even in the film.
The conclusion felt hollow and rushed. Noah at the beginning of the film leads an isolationist lifestyle focused on raising his children to be good stewards of the earth. How is this different at the end of the film? It's not. Their understanding of life, the Creator, the world isn't any different than the beginning. There really isn't a pay off to the story...at all.
It's just an average film and I expected more with this cast.

Let me make it clear from the beginning, I do not care if a movie like this is 100% true to the bible and I could not care less about the creationist fanatics moaning about how this and that movie is telling the wrong story or is distorting their religion. But this attempt to re-tell the story is just bad.
The first half of the movie is not all bad. It is actually somewhat enjoyable. The dark scenery is sometimes depressing and beautiful at the same time. I did like the watchers. It added a bit of extra to the movie and the fight when Tubal-Cain tried to capture the ark was not bad at all.
However, then it went downhill quickly with Noah going more and more nuts and Tubal-Cain, having survived, is subverting Noah’s son Ham. Not that Noah did not really bring that upon himself to some extent though. The parts where Noah want to kill his grandchildren and stops in the last minute is just Hollywood soap-opera bullshit. Also, do not get me started about the ridiculous scene where Anthony Hopkins goes berry hunting like some mental retard.
Up until about half the movie I did not really understand all the very negative reviews but after having watched through the miserable last half I have to say that I do understand them more. I think the one-star ones are a bit harsh since the movie is often quite beautiful and the acting, despite the crappy script, is quite good, but the lousy script is just destroying the movie.
Definitely a disappointment.

> You can't respect the friendship by denying the facts.
Definitely a modern love story. The movie covers the story of the title character, Rosie's 12 years of life. From the night when she celebrates her 18th birthday till becomes the 30 year old mother. It's a long journey in the real life, and the movie report only the romance side of the life as it is a romantic comedy. Based on the book named 'Where Rainbow Ends', but lots of changes have been done to make a youthfully celebratible movie for the young generation.
Usually, the famous romantic dramas are slow, lengthy, and well developed characters. Of course, this one was a romcom, though, much better in many aspect with less emotions and swift pace. About the characters, it was Rosie's perspective and having Alex as a counterpart, the rest are not given much importance other than permits a fair display. Nowadays I kind like Lily Collins, she's cute, maybe it is a crush. But that does not the reason to I like this film, not entirely true. I find it somewhat atypical with many convincing scenes and lines.
The story is intensifyingly frustrates us as it takes extreme turns all the time just to make a further riddle and complicate. But that is how the screenplay survives or there won't be any story to tell. It might be Rosie's romance, but you don't have to be a woman/girl to enjoy this film. I don't believe such kind of categorisation, because in the earlier time everyone believed animation is for children only and then it proved wrong. So if a man can watch a movie without damaging his brain, losing his eyesight, or becoming paralysed, then I don't see an issue rather making up everything himself. Hope you all enjoy the movie as I did.
7.5/10

The rock looks best in this movie. with his gleamingaura look.

OK, this isn't a bad movie.
But, it as a bit much CGI (like everything else nowadays) and I think modern audiences are getting tired of paying out the wazoo to basically watch a video game.
And then the narration. The voice is too young and though it does make sense with the plot, it is jarring because basic tradition is that narrations have an older and wiser voice... Morgan Freeman, Spock, etc. So that is going to instantly set the radiance off.
And then the Snyderverse is over. Period. They made no illusions about that, we have known it was over for years, there was even a massive backlash about his cut of Justice League because it was given the fans what they wanted and thus bad... because politics and politics have declared that people that are enthusiastic about anything that isn't left wing politics are evil.
Because the world has gone insane.
But the greater point is that people already don't care. They not only already don't care, but they were sort of told not to by the very people that made the movie.
It's world is over. This world ended before it was released.
Which, sucks, because Shazam was my favorite to come out of the DCEU.
People aren't going to care. They aren't going to watch it and when they do it's going to come with disdain.
But as far as a Superhero movie goes... come on, you're not really getting much. They aren't Chinatown, they are just popcorn munchers and nothing more, and that isn't bad. But let's call it what it is.
Unless they are political like the MCU, they are just mindless action and gags. And if they are political like the MCU, they sort of stink.
This is relatively politics free. It's high on adventure and so-so on action (see the above CGI comment) so you have a decent film for the genre. It just should have come out before they declared the universe dead.

it wasnt bad , thats good

Okay movie that suffers from similar issues to other DC movies, in that it wants takes shortcuts with character development and, in the case of one character, their sacrifice feels hollow as we barely get to know them. In addition, the fight scenes, being rendered either against a green screen or via CGI, lacks any punch and thus suspense. On the plus side, I guess Dwayne Johnson was decent and as a whole it's a watchable superhero action-thriller but I doubt I'd ever revisit, and the little kernels of the now defunct DECU feel pointless, including the mid-credit cameo. **3.0/5**

Much watch movie :)

Black Adam feels dated. And not like it came out at the dawn of superhero movies. Before that. Like it came out during TMNT II: Secrets of the Ooze.

The worst ever movie I've ever seen.

"Its alright." I know, its hardly a resounding endorsement but Black Adam, is just that.
To be fair the super human genre is pretty formulaic by its very nature. Its simplistic narrative and story telling, often with a very pro American, globalist message, as is the case here, does not resonate terribly well with a sophisticated, mature audience.
So rather than pick on its predictable shortcoming's let's look at what it does do well.
Firstly, I think the choice of Dwayne Johnson as the lead , is a good one. Usually associated with nice guys roles, its interesting to see him cast as someone flawed, with a darker, personality. His physicality plays well here, too. He's intimidating physically, with a strong presence that fits well with this brooding, ominous, characterisation.
The action that runs the length of this film is well paced and visually spectacular, if a little repetitive. This is not a boring film, if you are in the mood for lightweight, action fare.
Special effects, are unsurprisingly, of a high standard too and do breathe a little extra life, into this production.
In summary, you know what you are getting when you watch these US made super human flicks. Its lightweight action fare, with a pro US, globalist message. That said, there's enough on offer here to make it mildly entertaining, nonetheless.

I enjoyed the action mainly sometimes the shotty CGI took me out of it. Very surprised that a triple A title in this age would have subpar CGI at times. The story was ok, but most of the dialog was poorly written. Especially with 5he scenes the boy was in. On the tech side the video is crispy clear. Just gorgeous. And the audio is also great. There is a lot going on.

In all honesty, I was anticipating the same old rubbish. Neither the teaser nor the people involved left me feeling optimistic. To my surprise, I got a rather well-crafted superhero film that, despite its imperfections, is still superior to the vast bulk of its genre’s offerings in recent years. Coming from the DCEU, which has produced some of the most inconsistent content in recent memory, and starring Dwayne Johnson as the lead, who, apart from his charm and muscular physique, isn’t exactly known for his acting talents. In many respects, “Black Adam” had more going against it than for it.
Nevertheless, thanks to director Jaume Collet-Serra, writers Adam Sztykiel, Rory Haines, and Sohrab Noshirvani, and a supporting ensemble that makes the most out of a script that is at best passable, “Black Adam” manages to stand out from the recent run of lacklustre comic book films. It manages to establish a broader universe without appearing forced while introducing some new concepts to the genre. “Black Adam’s” most distinctive characteristic is the way it refuses to settle for any clear-cut morality. It all adds up to a film that succeeds more often than not.
In 2019, when the Infinity Saga ended, you couldn’t have convinced me that I’d be more interested in the DCEU than the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But fast-forward three years, and that is precisely what has happened; DCEU has produced some good content during that time (Zack Snyder’s Justice League, The Suicide Squad, Peacemaker). The future seems bright for the DCEU!
___
Rating: 6.9/10 (Good, It Gets the Job Done, Slightly Flawed)

Very Good Movie

Best DC Movie ever !!!

_Black Adam_ is in every aspect a generic superhero movie. There is nothing that really separates this for me, besides the body count that Black Adam stacks up during the film.
One thing I need to mention is the audio quality. So many lines of dialogue sound like they were recorded straight off from a cell phone. They do not match the scene at all and it was incredibly jarring throughout the entirety of the film. While I am talking about sound, in almost every fight scene the film included a badass rap song. It was cool the first time, but it got old and corny fast.
The plot was very generic from all aspects. It suffers by trying to catch the audience up in the first act. The film introduces the Justice Society and Black Adam and quickly accelerates the plot to start the main conflict of the film. It felt rushed and the conflict between the JSA and Black Adam was forced, nothing about it felt genuine. The villian in this movie was so forgettable, by the time he is introduced the conflict is over. I had zero emotional attachment to anyone in this movie. The dialogue was pretty bad as well, the scenes constantly switched from serious to comedy causing both aspects to fall flat for me.
The performances were okay, everyone was pretty average including Dwayne Johnson. Nothing spectacular and nothing bad enough for me to notice.
Overall, I was excited for this new phase and direction of the DCEU and was left disappointed. Definitely one of the poorer movies in the franchise.
**Score:** _48%_ |
**Verdict:** _Average_

In search of the all powerful crown of "Sabbac", "Adrianna" (Sarah Shahi) unleashes "Seth-Adam" (Dwayne Johnson) from his mountain-encased tomb deep in the desert. With super-human powers akin to "Superman", he returns to his home city of "Kahndaq" which is under the control of the "Intergangs". Will he decide to help her and her son "Amon" (Bodhi Sabongui) free them from this criminal tyranny? Well what nobody had counted on are the folks from the Justice League/Brotherhood/Department - led by "Hawkman" (Aldis Hodge) and "Dr. Fate" (Pierce Brosnan) who have decided that "Adam" is a bit of an wrong-un and so bring their state-of-the-art rocket ship as well as the "Atom Smasher" (Noah Centineo) and "Cyclone" (Quintessa Swindell) to capture or destroy him. Thing is, "Adam" is the stuff of legend to these people - reputedly having defeated an ancient despotic king - but is/was he all that he seemed? Is he good or evil or both? Well, to be honest I didn't really care. This is a very well produced and technically superb creative effort, but the story is all over the place and the repetitive combat scenes just grate after a while. Johnson has charisma, we have seen it loads of times, but here he exudes none. Hodge looks great in his winged-suit but again, his character is as deep as an Ethiopian river in July. Centineo has some fun as the giant - more than a passing resemblance to Mark Ruffalo, don't you think? Otherwise the rest of this is about as derivative as it comes. Hopefully this is just a one-off, as this is nobody's finest work and is up there with "Morbius" as a superhero film too many!

cool movie

> _"My powers are not a gift. They're a curse, born out of rage."_
I had a blast watching this in theaters. This was very bombastic, with a lot of cool action, but also telling a heartfelt story about Black Adam.
It was very inventive how they depicted Black Adam's origin, keeping it a mystery up near the end. Dwayne Johnson was born to play Black Adam. He steals every scene he's in playing a badass anto-hero.
Now the Justice Society, while they didn't have a backstory in the film, they each had prequel comics detailing their backstory. Which I really dig, these comics are meant to sell comics, after all. Might as well get the audience to buy the comics to get into some great stories (they are also currently doing this with The Flash). The movie actually starts right where the Doctor Fate prequel comic ends, so I don't think it's apographa. Doctor Fate played by Pierce Brosnan was a standout. He really put his all into this character. Aldis Hodge was also a standout as Hawkman.
The surprise villain of Black Adam, Sabbac, was a really good addition to the Shazam! mythos. If the wizards have their own champion, why doesn't the seven deadly sins have one? Sabbac is the answer to that. Doctor Fate's battle with him was really cool.
Overall, this wasn't as bad as the critics were saying, I had a fun time! Be sure to stay for the mid-credits scene!

**Black Adam might not reinvent the wheel, but it doesn’t have to. It just wants to take you on a fun, entertaining, exciting superhero ride!**
Black Adam has its haters, and I can understand why. It doesn’t necessarily break new ground in the superhero genre, but that doesn’t stop it from being awesome! Action-packed from start to finish. The effects are incredible. I kept myself from saying Wow out loud on multiple occasions. Dwayne Johnson’s Black Adam is absolutely ruthless, ripping armies of henchmen with ease and speed. I was worried a PG-13 rating might soften his brutality, but it did not! The action sequences looked amazing and were well done. I really liked the Justice Society characters, although they all felt a little stereotypical with a SpiderMan jokester, a wise old Professor X, and a quipping leader in the vain of Wolverine or Deadshot. Pierce Brosnan was perfect at Dr. Fate, making me wish he hadn’t been relegated to special guest star status. The movie didn’t waste a ton of time giving background on each character which was wise with so many new heroes on screen. The film had its moments of cheese but didn’t overdo it. Definitely watch the mid-credit scene. It’s stupendous! Black Adam was a fine addition to the superhero genre, and I look forward to what comes next.