Movie review: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword 

Movie reviews

Hello!

I’m still playing catch up with the summer movies, so let’s review a picture that some people (small numbers of them as it tanked at the box office) saw last month. It’s King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword.

IMDb summary: Robbed of his birthright, Arthur comes up the hard way in the back alleys of the city. But once he pulls the sword from the stone, he is forced to acknowledge his true legacy – whether he likes it or not.

A few general thoughts on the background of the movie: 1. I’m actually a fan of the 2004’s version of King Arthur. It used to be one of my favorite nonanimated childhood movies and the archery sequence on the lake combined with Lord of the Rings: Two Towers final battle were two reasons why I took up archery. 2. While the trailers for the film looked fine, I never expected it to succeed at the box office or to turn a big profit. Neither the two leads are big box office draws, nor is the mythology that the film is based on a hot property. So, bearing that in mind, who, the hell, approved a $175 million budget for this picture?

Writing

2017’s King Arthur’s screenplay was credited to the director Guy Ritchie, producer of HP films Lionel Wigram, and, the writer of the new Robin Hood and The Flash movies, Joby Harold. The Judge’s director David Dobkin contributed to the story as well. In general, the writing was of mixed quality. I thought that the narrative (broadly speaking) was fairly straightforward (an hour of Arthur being called into action, and another hour of him attempting to defeat Jude Law’s character), however, the details within the story were really convoluted and even confused (there was too much happening at once).

Thematically, the concepts of egoism and power were suitably touched upon. The ending teases of the round table and all the knights were also pleasant. Other than that, since I don’t know much of King Arthur mythology from the legends, I can’t comment on the stuff they did or didn’t use.

The script also made a lot of interesting choices with the characters. For example, Arthur was written as a witty, talkative and borderline cocky individual – all these ideas are in opposition to the Arthur I’ve alway imagined – serious, reserved, yet quietly proud (basically, the 2004’s movie’s version). Still, overall, I was quite pleased with a different take on a character. I have also seen a lot of complaints online about the female characters of this film, mostly the lack of them. I can definitely see where these people are coming from – a few female characters that are introduced are either sacrificed, portrayed as obese or sexualized tentacled mermaids or are used for decoration purposes. And yet, the main mage character was also a female and she did shine in the movie and displayed her powers (really vaguely defined ones) in a spectacular fashion. The informant female character did not have much to do but at least she was present. Hers and Jude Law’s characters interactions were actually quite neat.

Directing, Editing and the Soundtrack

The Man from U.N.C.L.E.’s and RDJ’s Sherlock Holmes’s director Guy Ritchie helmed King Arthur and did an okay job. The high fantasy medieval setting (which I’m a fan of) was realized quite well (I’m a sucker for the combination of good historical costumes, sword fights, archery, and magic). The epic scope of the film was also worthy of praise. However, the mediocre CGI was quite infuriating, especially in the movie that cost this much to produce. The action scenes – filmed in a video game-like close-ups and slow motion – could have been better too.

The elements of the film, which are the most discussion worthy, were editing and sound design/mixing. The soundtrack on its own (by Daniel Pemberton) was really good and it was, at times, inventively paired with the visuals. However, some combos of image and music did not work. However, even in the bad combos, the song choices weren’t as unfitting as they were in Suicide Squad. A lot of these combination sequences were edited in a music video style – a lot of jump cuts, short snippets of dialogue, and a fast pace. On their own, these sequences seemed quite unique and entertaining (their explosive energy was amazing). However, when these quick sequences were followed by long, drawn-out scenes of people sitting and talking, the final effect turned out to be quite jarring and the whole film – uneven.

 

Acting

  • The two leads of the film were played by Sons of Anarchy’s Charlie Hunnam and Jude Law. I really liked Hunnam in the titular role and would love to see him getting more cinematic roles but I doubt that that will happen, due to the poor box office of this picture. He previously played the lead in the Pacific Rim and a supporting part in Crimson Peak. The Lost City of Z is his other 2017 release. Jude Law’s (The Grand Budapest Hotel, Genius, Anna Karenina) performance, to my mind, was the best part of this film. He looked good (his armor was basically the silver version of Dominic Cooper’s armor in Warcraft) and he seemed menacing. In the final battle, I would have rather seen him fighting in the said armor rather than a generic CGI monster (his evil form). I also thought that the announcement of Law as the Young Dumbledore in Fantastic Beasts sequel will give this movie a boost and some free promo but it doesn’t seem like the said casting news helped much or at all.
  • The two female characters were played by theFrenchh-Spanish actress Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey from Pirates 4 and by The Mummy’s Annabelle Wallis. I really enjoyed the cool and collected performance of Bergès-Frisbey.
  • King Arthur also employed the talents of two GOT actors that can’t seem to espace the middle ages – Aidan Gillen (Baelish) and Michael McElhatton (Bolton). Gillen (who was also recently in Sing Street) did a good job and I could see shades of Baelish in his performance, while McElhatton’s role was just slightly bigger than a cameo.
  • Another two actors, whose involvememnt is worthy of mention, were Djimon Hounsou (Guardians, The Legend of Tarzan) and Eric Bana (The Finest Hours). They both did a fine job with their limited screeentime.

In short, King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword was, to my mind, not as bad as everyone said. The filmmakers made some weird choices with the editing and music (at least they tried something different) and did overcomplicate the plot which lacked (sort of) female characters, and yet, I was still pretty entertained by the final product.

Rate: 3.5/5

Trailer: King Arthur: The Legend of the Sword

king-arthur-charlie-hunnam-poster.jpg

Advertisements

Movie review: The Great Wall

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to a review of the movie that is either groundbreaking or just a continuation of the oldest Holywood tradition. It’s The Great Wall!

IMDb summary: European mercenaries searching for black powder become embroiled in the defense of the Great Wall of China against a horde of monstrous creatures.

My introductory point about this film possibly being groundbreaking has to do with the circumstances of its creation. The Great Wall is the first major co-production between US and China (Kung Fu Panda 3 was also a co-production and came before this movie, but it was an animated project rather than a live-action one). And yet, this movie has also been accused of whitewashing – the old trend for Hollywood, which only recently started receiving some backlash. So, can this film be a start of something new or is just the same old thing?

Writing

The picture’s script was written by Carlo Bernard and Doug Miro (writers of the Prince of Persia movie), and Tony Gilroy (writer of the first 4 Bourne films and Rogue One). The combined previous filmography of these screenwriters is of mixed quality and the writing for The Great Wall is also kinda mixed, mostly leaning towards mediocre.

To begin with, the whole decision to have a white lead was not explained that well during the runtime of the picture. It made sense to have a white lead and a supporting cast, full of Chinese actors, from the business standpoint, but it didn’t make much sense story-wise. The film, at least, stated that Matt Damon was not supposed to be playing a Chinese character but a European explorer, who is looking for gunpowder, so Damon’s casting cannot necessarily be called whitewashing. However, the decision to focus on a European hero, who saves China, brought up the whole ‘white savior’ debate. The fact the character’s arc begun with him wanting to steal the gunpowder didn’t paint the best picture either. Is the film, then, only reaffirming colonial thinking or is trying to tell a historical story accurately?  In short, I, personally, didn’t think that the picture gave a good enough explanation for having a European lead (played by an American) in a foreign setting. Even the film The Last Samurai came up with a better reason.

Speaking about the other aspects of the writing – I did enjoy quite a few of them. I liked the world-building and the mythology that the film was inspired by. I loved the idea to have a variety of specialized parts of the army. I liked that the lead character was written as an archer, because of my personal fondness of archery. I appreciated the fact that two languages were used in the film – it made the movie seem more as a co-production in contrast to it appearing as if Hollywood just hijacked another foreign story. I also loved that so many female warrior characters were written into the story. I don’t actually know if that is historically accurate, but I didn’t care much, in the moment of watching the movie. The picture’s attempt to have an underlying important theme – the opposition between paid participation and the true loyalty – was also commendable. While this debate wasn’t really treated as fully as it should have been, I like the fact that the film at least tried to be something more than it ended up to as.

And that final something is the fact that the film’s story was just kinda meh. The narrative was simple and straightforward – nothing one hasn’t seen before. It had two obvious plotlines – the first about fighting the monster and the other about stealing the gunpowder – which converged in the end. The main character’s change of heart during the finale was predictable and cliche. Basically, for a movie that did something very different with its financing and production, The Great Wall should have also done something new and interesting with its story.

Directing

The Great Wall was directed by Zhang Yimou. The majority of his films act as Chinese submissions for the Academy Awards in the Best Foreign Language category, so he is an accomplished director. His direction for this movie was quite nice too and I do think he did the best he could with the given material.  The action scenes looked cool and I liked the massive scope of them. The film had some impressive long takes too. The historical setting, as well as the different sections of the army, were also realized well enough. Plus, the design of the monsters was varied and quite interestng (they kinda reminded me of the zombies from World War Z because of their movement and the sounds they emitted). However, the CGI definitely could have been more photorealistic, especially in this day and age.

My favorite action sequence was the first battle, mostly because it was reminiscent of the final battle from The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers, although not as good. I also really liked the smaller corrida-type (Spanish bull-fighting) fight scene, in which Pedro Pascal’s character was luring the monster and Matt Damon’s character was trying to shoot it with an arrow. I also loved that the battle scenes had a diegetic beat – the drumming within a story provided a rhythm for both the characters, who were fighting, and the viewers, who were just enjoying the soundtrack. Lastly, the scene with the Chinese lanterns also looked lovely but, as weird as this sounds, it didn’t felt unique. These lanterns are now used all over the world for various celebrations (or in movies, like Tangled), so their usage in an actual Chinese setting didn’t seem as unique as it should have.

Acting

Matt Damon played the lead and did as good a job as he could have. Honestly, he has never been my first choice for a historical movie but he did make the role work. Even with all the whitewashing backlash, Damon will be fine, as his career has been going great. While his return to the role of Jason Bourne wasn’t as positive as it could have been, his work on The Martian is still on everyone’s minds. Besides, in addition to acting, Damon’s producing work has been going great, as the film he recently produced – Manchester by the Sea – is a big awards nominee this season.

Pedro Pascal played a supporting role and brought a tiny bit of a different kind of diversity into the picture. Pascal impressed everyone on a single season of Game of Thrones and I am kinda surprised that his work on GOT didn’t lead to more roles for him. Nevertheless, I really liked his The Great Wall’s character’s sass – it pleasantly reminded me of Oberyn.

Willem Dafoe also appeared in the movie and didn’t have much to do, while the Chinese part of the cast delivered great performances. Jing Tian was amazing as the female lead, while Andy Lau and Zhang Hanyu did a good enough job with what they were given as well. I really wish that I knew more about these actors and their previous filmography.

In brief, The Great Wall was a film, whose behind the scenes story was more interesting than its on-screen plot. While it might have broken grounds from the business standpoint, it was nothing more than average from the creative one.

Rate: 3/5

Trailer: The Great Wall trailer

GreatWall_13.jpg

Movie Review: Ant-Man

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to another movie review, written by me specially for you. This time, it’s the review of Ant-Man – a film about the superhero with the weirdest name and also, a closing chapter of the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s 2nd phase. I hope you’ll like it! Enjoy!

To begin with, you probably know that I am a huge Marvel fan, (my previous reviews of the Marvel films: Captain America, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers; thoughts on Phase 3), so I was extremely excited about the film. In short, for all of my fellow MCU fans, I would describe Ant-Man as a mash-up of the first Iron Man and Guardians of the Galaxy. For all of my mainstream readers, I would like to introduce this as a new and really cool version of Honey,I shrunk the kids with some superhero action and surprising amount of seriousness thrown into the mix. Either way, no matter how do I describe this film, it is irrelevant, because Marvel did it again – they made a solid film that pleases the hearts of the fans (mine included) and is enjoyable for the general public (my dad knew nothing about it and liked it a lot).

IMDb summary: Armed with a super-suit with the astonishing ability to shrink in scale but increase in strength, con-man Scott Lang must embrace his inner hero and help his mentor, Dr. Hank Pym, plan and pull off a heist that will save the world.

Spoiler Warning – I advise you to watch the film first and then come back to the review. I will repeat the spoiler warning before talking about huge plot points.

The name

The name of the film suggests that it’s a movie for kids. However, Ant-Man surprises all of us because he is a sophisticated character. I believe that the name might target the film to a different audience that it’s actually meant for. I know one thing for sure: nobody will see this film in my country because the translated name sounds not only childish but stupid. 

The controversy

Our world is ruled by social media, so it’s not a surprise that Hollywood secret don’t stay under locks for long. Probably all movie fans and just general internet users know that Edgar Wright spent a lot of time working on the script of the film and he was set to direct it. However, due to creative differences, he left the project and Peyton Reed stepped in as a director. I don’t want to speak negatively about Wright, but I believe that he should have fought for the project or found ways to reach a compromise if he was really passionate about it. His original screenplay is still used in the film with some minor tweaks and he receives the story and screenplay credits, which is nice. Speaking about directing, I don’t know if Wright would have done a better job, because I really liked what Reed did as well. I always try to allow the work to speak for itself, so, before going to see this film, I didn’t want to let these controversies form my judgement. And you shouldn’t give any influential power to gossip as well.

MCU

This is the first film in a long time, which introduces a new character to the MCU in its own stand-alone film. I believe it was 2011 when we got the last stand-alone film of the MCU – the first Captain America. Granted, Guardians of the Galaxy were also new characters in a separate film, but they were still treated as a team and we didn’t have time to get to know all the them well. Ant-Man is a start of a stand-alone trilogy (probably), which can work on its own but is a great addition to the MCU as well.

The first scene of the film not only explains why the Avengers couldn’t be called for help, but also allows Ant-Man to fit in perfectly with the overall arc of MCU. SPOILERS. It was really nice to see John Slattery back as Howard Stark and Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter. Furthermore, the feud between Howard Stark and Hank Pym sets everything in motion flawlessly. Plus, I liked that they found ways to include Hydra and Shield into the plot.

Visuals

The visuals of the movie are stunning. Ant-Man’s powers are really well realized. And the way they used the ants in action scenes was wonderful. I didn’t even know that there were so many different species of ants and that they could do such things.

The first 30 minutes are a bit slow, but the 2nd half of the film has non-stop action, so the work of animators and editors can definitely be seen there in all of its glory. Moreover, while the movie has a weird and funny premise, the shrinking scenes looked were grounded and realistic. You could actually believe that something like that could be happening in, for example, your neighbors house. The CGI work is really really impeccable. I cannot praise it enough.

My favorite scenes were SPOILERS the ones in the subatomic level. That whole ‘outside of reality’ type of a world was extremely cool and pleasing for the eyes.

Montage

As with all superhero films, this one had a training montage as well. This was, however, probably one of the best training montages I have ever seen. It was funny and serious, it felt like the training was useful for the character and that he really had time to grow as a hero. Also, that montage was quite long, so the training didn’t feel rushed, which happens a lot in other films.

The Cameo of an Avenger (SPOILERS)

We knew that somebody from the Avengers team was going to shown up in the film. I wasn’t really surprised that it was Falcon because he isn’t an A-list Avenger (although, he might be one day, if he is the one who picks up the shield). Moreover, the appearance of Falcon (Anthony Mackie) set up the after credits scene were nicely. I think it is safe to assume that if Ant-Man shows up in Civil War, he will be on Cap’s team. Moreover, we cannot forget that Hank Pym hates The Starks, so he wouldn’t allow Scott to pick Tony’s side. Lastly, we had a chance to see the new Avengers base some more, because we only spent a few minutes there during the Age of Ultron

Also, keep your eyes peeled for Stan Lee cameo because it’s very short. Siri, of all things, has a very funny cameo/reference as well.

Characters and Acting

Paul Rudd as Scott Lang / Ant-Man was really great. I wasn’t familiar with Rudd’s work, because he mainly starred in comedies before becoming the next Marvel Superhero, and I rarely watch comedy movies – I am very picky about them. Anyway, I was extremely impressed with his performance in this film: he sold the action scenes, his comedy was great and I believed his connection with his daughter,

Evangeline Lilly as Hope van Dyne was also really great. I really liked Lily in the Hobbit films when practically nobody liked her there, but I hope that with this film, the people will finally realize what a great actress she is. I will talk more about her in the end (credits).

Also, the way they handled the inevitable falling in love moment between the two leads was amazing. I laughed a lot.

Michael Douglas as Hank Pym was perfection at its finest. It was interesting and refreshing to see a Marvel movie focusing a lot on a more mature and more sophisticated character as well as seeing Marvel Studios casting a seasoned and well accomplished actor in the role. They usually prefer “growing” their own actors.

Corey Stoll as Darren Cross / Yellowjacket was a cool villain. Personally, I believe that Marvel villains are getting better with each film. Yellowjacket was smart, he had a personal connection to our heroes, he had a cool costume and was ruthless with a dash of craziness. What more could you want form a villain? 
Michael Peña as Luis was the comedy gold of this film. His scenes and explanations were amazing, especially the matching lip movements and the words. I want to recreate his style of talking with my friends just to confuse them. Also, their whole heist was really funny and had wonderful jokes. ” Back it up, back it up, we are backing up!!”.
Bobby Cannavale as Paxton (Scott’s ex-wife’s new boyfriend who is also a policeman) – was the only character which I felt was irrelevant in the beginning. He was just there to anger Scott and the audience. Granted, he became more useful in the end, but I still believe we would have been perfectly fine without him. 

Themes

The film main theme is family dynamics. They explored father-daughter (Hank and Hope; Scoot with his daughter) and father-son (Hank and Scott, Hank and Darren) relationships. Furthermore, ideas like ‘jealousy in the family’, ‘secrets which can break a family apart’ and ‘becoming the person that others think you are’ were touched upon as well.

End Credit Scenes (SPOILERS)

This movie has 2 end credits scenes: one middle credits scene and one after credits scene. Both of them are interesting and they actually mean something. Finally, Marvel movie uses the end credits scenes to set something up as they used to do before, as opposed to Guardians’ end credits scene, which was just a funny Easter Egg.

Anyway, the middle credits deal with Hope becoming the Wasp and taking up her mother’s mantel. I believe that they should have added this scene to the main part of the film, because it is really important for Hope’s character development. Throughout the whole movie, it is hinted that she will become the Wasp and everybody in the audience is hoping for it. Mainstream audiences might not wait for the end credits scene and, therefore, they cannot get any closure, so for them it seems that Hope’s character doesn’t get an ending to her story.

The after credits scene is Marvel at it’s finest. We get to see Steve Rogers and Sam Wilson and DUN DUN DUN Bucky Barnes. Yes, the Winter Soldier has been caught! So, now we won’t have to spend any time looking for him in Cap 3 and we can get straight to the the Civil War story. Moreover, this scene solidifies the fact that Ant-Man will side with Captain America.

All in all, I had a great time with Ant-Man. My dad really liked the film as well and he is not a die-hard Marvel fan, just a general movie goer. He has seen a few Marvel films, so he had a general knowledge of what he was getting himself into, but he still couldn’t understand all the references and he enjoyed the film nonetheless. I highly suggest you go see this movie for the great action, interesting and unique characters, a refreshing small scale story, funny jokes and Easter Eggs. If you are still not convinced, go see it just because it’s Marvel and Marvel never misses! Close off Phase 2 with Ant-Man an start the preparation for Phase 3.

Rate 5/5 (obviously)

Trailer: Ant-Man trailer

  

Movie review: Terminator Genisys

Movie reviews

Hello my dear readers!

Let’s continue the summer of sequels and review Terminator Genisys.

I am a kid of the 90s (I was born in late 90s), so I grew up watching Jurassic Park, Terminator and Mission Impossible on TV in the early 2000s. During this summer, we are getting sequels to all 3 of my childhood franchises. Jurassic World was normal (financially successful, a flop with the fans (review)). Sadly, Terminator Genisys is a double flop. So maybe Mission Impossible Rogue Nation will succeed in every aspect? We will find out in August. Anyway, let’s stay on topic and review the film which should be terminated.

Also, if you still plan to watch this film, don’t watch the trailer. The biggest twist and practically all cool action scenes are spoiled in the trailer.

IMDb summary: John Connor sends Kyle Reese back in time to protect Sarah Connor, but when he arrives in 1984, nothing is as he expected it to be.

Timeline

The timeline of Terminator films was complicated without this 5th installment but Genisys decided to mess it up completely. Don’t think about this movie in terms of other films – it’s impossible to put it in a timeline, so that it would make sense. You can watch the original James Cameron’s films in order to understand the Easter Eggs but the T1 and T2 won’t help you to understand the plot of T5 at all. However, if you think about this film as stand alone one (a reboot, a new beginning and so forth), it doesn’t makes sense as well. It relies too heavily on the originals but tries too hard change everything and misses the mark. The multiverse and time travelling are tricky things to do and, while I applaud the creators’ efforts, the results are bad. I hope The Flash season 2 will deal better with multiverse.

Reboot

Some people say that this is the 5th film of the franchise, some think it’s a reboot. For me, it’s somewhere in-between. The movie’s plot is definitely different – they tried to do a mash-up of T1’s and T2’s plots with some unnecessary twists added. Basically, they wanted this film to be a new generation’s version of Judgement Day. I have no idea why they wished to remake a perfect movie, by making it worse.

In addition, if you treat this as a reboot, why do you cast the same actors? The Connors have always changed in between movies, so it’s okay to recast them for a reboot, but why keep Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character? I know he is iconic but if you want a fresh start, you have to leave everything behind, even your icons.

Acting/Character by character

Since I am a teenager/young adult, I should like younger actors more, but this time the old Arnold was the best one.

Arnold Schwarzenegger as Guardian/The Terminator – was the best character. His action scenes were the coolest – after all these years he still looks like a bad ass. His comedic timing was also great – the joke about smile worked for me.

Jason Clarke as John Connor was okay. Nothing too good but definitely not bad either. If his reveal wasn’t spoiled in the trailer, the movie would have been more enoyable and interesting for sure.  

Emilia Clarke as Sarah Connor. I am a fan of Clarke, I love her on Game Of Thrones but she is no Linda Hamilton. However, I warmed up to her by the end of the film, she won me over but it took some time.

P.S. The Clarkes were playing The Connors – I’ve only noticed that now.

Jai Courtney as Kyle Reese. Courtney has been getting a lot of work recently, but I still haven’t seen him in a role which he would truly make it his own. He was functional in Divergent and Insurgent (review), he didn’t stick to me in Unbroken (review), but I hope he will be awesome in Suicide Squad! (Have you seen the trailer?)

Courtney and Clarke really lacked chemistry at first, but they got there by the end of the film. Their pair and Arnold’s character made for an awesomely awkward trio.

Lee Byung-hun as a T-1000 brought some diversity to the film but I still prefer Robert Patrick in the role. I also was surprised how quickly they defeated him, when it took them the whole T2 to do the same.

J. K. Simmons as Detective O’Brien wasn’t a character but a plot device. But J.K. Simmons, being the master of acting he is, was great in the role. His comedy was nice too.

Matt Smith had a small role, which I don’t wan to spoil. I have only seen a few episodes of the Doctor Who, but after seeing what Matt Smith can do with 5 lines, I’m maybe more interested to try my hand at Doctor Who one more time.Regarding this film, I’ll only say this – if Smith’s role was bigger, the film might have been much better. 

Effects

The CGI looked terrible in some places (young Arnold *facepalm*), but really good in others (John Connor’s robotic body). T-1000 looked cool too, but he looked the same 24 years ago, so that isn’t a big compliment. Action scenes were okay too, they actually were the best part of the film because they did not require any explanation. And when this movie tried to explain something, it starter to sink like a Titanic. Or even faster than a Titanic.

Screenplay

The screenplay was the worst part of the film. The plot made absolutely no sense. I tried to follow it so hard in the first 30 minutes but then just gave up. My dad was napping the whole movie, because he wasn’t able to follow the plot too and then simply did not know what was happening and was snoozing because of boredom. I don’t know if a screenplay by a Laeta Kalogridis and Patrick Lussier was really that bad already or did a studio altered it way too much. Kalogridis was an executive producer on Avatar and Lussier wrote a few horror movies, but both of them aren’t really established writers, so maybe that was the problem.

However, I will give them credit for introducing the theme of humanity’s dependence on technology. Genisys app looked like an interesting device but we only had tiny bits of information about it. If the film focused more on the actual technology and less time on time travel and family dynamics, it might have been a really great motion picture.

Directing 

The film is directed by Alan Taylor – he has only directed 5 movies, including Thor 2, which I liked but a lot of people had mixed reactions to it. However, Taylor directed a lot of TV shows, like Sex and the City, The Sopranos, Rome, Mad Men and Game of Thrones. To my mind, after this flop, he won’t be making any movies moving forward, but I hope that he will be able to get some work on TV.

All in all, I loved Arnold as the Terminator once more, the action and acting was tolerable, the plot lacked focus but wrapped itself up nicely, although, it made no sense to begin with.  I advise you not to waste your time on this film or if you do decide to see it – have very low expectations. Mine were too high. I believe that this film will be a huge box office flop and although 6th and 7th installments are slated for 2017 and 2018, I won’t believe that they will be happening, at least not with this creative team. Maybe if James Cameron had the rights back, we would actually get a good Terminator film in the 21st century.

Rate: 3.25/5 

Trailer: (spoiler-y) Terminator Genisys trailer

terminator_genisys_poster3

Instaphoto

Uncategorized

Hi!

Today I prepared for you a very visual post with little text. I would like to share with you some of my best photos that I have taken during these past few years. I am not, by any means, a professional or even amateur photographer, just a person who enjoys taking photos. All of these picture are taken with my iPod 4 and the effects are made with Instragram or Vintique apps. I hope you like it.Bye:)

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Find more of my photos on Instagram @luknexx