Comic_Central

"See you soon" is a short fourteen second horror film, directed by David F. Sandberg, starring his wife Lotta Losten. The film is about a woman who is alone in her bedroom, thinking of her now deceased husband, as she is haunted by a ghost, she sees in the door way.

I am a big fan of Sundberg's short films and am proud to say that I have seen all of them, or at the very least, most of them, however this is one of his weaker ones.

The cinematography was also very well done and it is clear that Sandberg not only has skill in his directing ability but also in his lighting ability. The desaturated colour scheme, merely helped to enhance what was already great.

The camera work was very well done and the panning shot from the woman to the door, back to the woman, was very smooth and worked well in keeping the immersion. The great idea of using close ups and medium close ups to capture the emotion of what was happening in the scene as well as to capture the fear worked effectively as well.

However, the downside to this is Lotta's acting. Lotta has proven herself to be a very skilled and promising actor in a lot of short films that she has been in. In this film, however, her acting seems very wooden and not very expressive, to what the scene and plot demanded of her. When she was supposed to be grieving, I felt that, but not in a way that was very unique or memorable, which was disappointing considering her great performance in the short film 'lights out'.

I also felt it was strange how she moved the picture frame, it didn't feel natural. This may have come down to poor directing choices or the fault of the actor. It felt very forced in order to move the plot along, and would have worked better if it was smoother and more natural.

One of the biggest problems with modern horror today is a sharp noise for a jump scare, this doesn't create effective jump scares and lets the immersion and fear of the scene be a lot less impacting. This is because rather than the scare making the audience feel fear it is merely the noise that makes them jump. This is present in this short film and just the presence of the ghost or monster being closer with maybe a throaty growl of some kind, that isn't loud enough to make the audience jump would have been more effective and warranted a better scare out of the audience. This is quite disappointing as for a fourteen second horror short the pacing of the jump scare was exceptional, but was let down by a convention of modern horror. A film that does jump scares well is "It Follows" (the arrival of a tall man scene) and the short film "Launder Man" (the ending scare). Some people may like this sort of jump scare, but it is just not for me, for the reasons that I explained.

The plot by itself is a unique and interesting concept, sadly weighed down by issues that are absent from the better of the works from both people involved.

Overall, the short film was quite average, with some factors weighing it down more than lifting it up, because of this reason this short film gets a 5/10.

Annihilation is a 2018 science-fiction film with a splash of horror thrown in. The film is based on the first book of the Southern Reach trilogy of the same name. The film is directed by Alex Garland and features Natalie Portman, Tessa Thompson and Oscar Isaac to name a few.

The plot is a very intriguing one from the get go as it is about a biologist that served in the army that decides to sign up for a secretive expedition into the strange Area X where the laws of nature that we are familiar with don't apply. All in all, I was very impressed with the story and the plot all together and it flowed relatively well. There were some pacing issues with parts of the plot that I think could have sorted out with an extra ten or fifteen minutes added.

An example of where I would have liked the scene to go on for a little longer to flesh out the characters motivations at that particular time was the infamous bear scene where the bear comes into the house where they are staying. I wish the suspense was built a little more before we seen the bear was in the house, maybe from some screams from outside or something of the sorts. The first act also could have been cleaned up with inconsistent pacing issues throughout it. Despite these issues the plot is still intriguing and well crafted.

The characters are were the movie falls of the rails. The characters weren't entirely memorable or very interesting as they were very one dimensional besides for Natalie Portman's character who they attempted to make relatable and to make us have an emotional connection with the character but I just didn't. Don't get me wrong, there was some connections you could make with the character but because of the writing of the character there wasn't much of a connection with the main character like I wanted and if the character died, I don't think that I would have felt much, maybe a bit disappointed but also would have felt cheated at such a cliché. Despite this, she was the best written character in the movie and was interesting to an extent.

The other characters were very poorly written as well, relying too heavily on exposition from the characters to explain them rather through visually showing us a lot of stuff. There was some visual storytelling to flesh out the characters but was only used after the exposition of the characters was already done. The things that they said a character was I didn't really feel they were or it was just done in a very questionable way. For example, in John Wick it is stated that, in summary, John Wick is not a character that you want to mess with (that is an understatement) and we can clearly see that in his character. But we don't get much, in this movie, to reinforce what the exposition told us, in an effective manner anyway.

When one of the characters said another of the characters was a cutter in the movie to Natalie Portman's character I was thinking, 'Really? They are going to tell us that instead of show us?'. We do see the cuts on her arm before that character dies but it didn't need that exposition or leave the exposition very vague. For example, Natalie Portman's character could have seen her wrists when her long sleeve shirt moved up a little bit. She seen that she was looking and pulls her sleeve down, giving her a look and then avoiding eye contact. She then gets up and walks off to see if another of the characters needs help. This would have been more effective character development rather than the exposition, showing us a lot about the character without telling us.

The motivations are also pretty poorly fleshed out as well. The man character (Portman) has her motivations fleshed out well but the others it is done very poorly, which instantly makes you not have an emotional investment in the characters.

At this point, you may be reading and wondering why I am not using the characters names, rather the actors name or just calling them 'a character' (or a variant of that). Well, that is because their names didn't stick with me. They said them a few times throughout the movie but they just never really stuck, because of the placement of the names (which was commonly filled with exposition, which is disappointing). The characters are all female as well, which I know a lot of people might have been mad about, but it wasn't pushing it and the characters could have been gender swapped and it wouldn't have made a difference so that critique I don't feel is valid in this case. The main character despite the poor writing was actually not a strong female character but a just a strong but flawed character, which is what many movies lack nowadays.

I would argue that the plot is story based rather than character based so this doesn't destroy the entire experience for me.

The visuals of this movie are very well done and it is a visually 'pretty' movie. This is my first movie I have seen that Alex Garland has directed and I have to say, I am a fan of his visuals. They are a stand out of the movie and the scenery is one of the most memorable things from this movie. The visuals themselves are utilized in a way that makes the worldbuilding very unique and visual (which is sad I can't say the same about all of this movie). Of course, the worldbuilding isn't just all visual and it does have some exposition to it, which was essential in creating this narrative.

The CGI is quite impressive in a lot of the cases such as the bear and the crocodile are both expertly done. However, in some cases for example the world around the characters is quite obviously green screen in some cases and the CGI structures seem a little odd and out of place, which they are supposed to be, but they could have made them blend into the environment a little better than what they were. The ending CGI with the alien was well done and I understand why the CGI was a little odd in this part, which, I would assume is to make the alien look more alien but the CGI is not out of this world. Not just the alien in that scene looks rubbery, the construct the alien forms from is very odd as well. By the looks of it, most of this movie will not age well and in about ten years' time the movie's CGI will be very inconsistent (more than what it looks like now).

The CGI of the gore is very well done and reminded me of Mortal Kombat a lot. The graphic nature and well-rendered gore make it look as if it was hyper-real Mortal Kombat. Great examples of good CGI gore and violence is when the bear bites the jaw of one of the characters and the tongue lolls around or the structure of the deceased soldiers' skeletons looks quite cool and nice (in a disturbing sort of way). The spot that stands out the most is the footage the expedition group we follow finds where the soldiers cut open a fellow soldier and his intestines are moving inside of his stomach.

The acting was also at times strange. At times it was very good and impressive such as the scenes with Oscar Isaac and Natalie Portman had very good acting. The chemistry between the two played out well on the screen and her reactions when she found her husbands recordings of when he was inside Area X were well acted. Most of the acting was very dull and not much emotion seemed charged behind the delivery of their lines, there was still emotion there just not as much as other lines and made some scenes fall flat. In other scenes the acting is incredible such as in the ending scene with the alien. Natalie Portman felt like she was happy to be doing the movie in parts and put her all in it and sometimes it felt like she just wanted to get the film done. Oscar Isaac delivered a very good performance, one that I would imagine be a stand out in his career despite his relatively small role in the film.

A lot of criticism in this film comes from the alien scene at the end which attempts to mimic her. A lot of people see this as quite confusing, which loses them, but I disagree with this a lot. This scene is one of the most powerful in the movie with it representing the character fighting against herself and her inner demons, which I thought was a relatively easy concept to grasp, but I guess not. With minimal dialogue throughout this whole scene it showed that Alex Garland is a very skilled visual story teller, so I don't know why he didn't use this skill throughout the entire film.

All in all, this film is highly entertaining and it had me gripped almost all the way through it, with only small times where I got bored (mostly in the first act). I recommend watching this film if you are a fan of sci-fi horror films but just be warned that it does favor style over substance with a good balance only in some parts throughout the film. With all things considered this film is a 6/10. Not bad but not particular great.

Let's be honest, every fan of the character and even new comers to the character wanted this movie to have a R rating, it's what we wanted and not a Pg-13 rating. But did this movie need it? Definitely not. This movie is the Venom movie fans of the character both new and old deserved.

Let's start somewhere simple, the acting. The acting in this movie was incredible. Tom Hardy did an amazing job portraying both Eddie Brock and Venom and was able to make it transfer over to a cinematic scale with near perfection (not uprising as it was Tom Hardy that is being talked about here!). As for Riz Ahmed, his performance as the crazy scientist, that wants to save the world, Carlton Drake was done to a high standard. This was a stand out performance for Riz in his career and will be remembered for years to come. Good performances came from other actors in the movie such as Jenny Slate (Dr. Dora Skirth), Michelle Williams (Ann Weying) and Woody Harrelson (Cletus Kasady).

The writing. I was expecting this movie to have quite poor writing, but, surprisingly, I was wrong. This movie turned out to have a very intriguing and entertaining movie and made for moments that genuinely made me laugh or at the very least amused, something that movies seem to struggle to do nowadays. I wasn't expecting this movie to be very funny but the jokes and humor was just written beautifully and presented with a high quality from the cast. I was able to write and feel for the characters and the characters arcs had satisfying conclusions and were interesting to watch play out on screen. Venom was also given a very distinct personality that was different from Eddie Brock's own personality and made the two have chemistry that made the movie just that more entertaining. The final battle between Riot and Venom seemed to be a little rushed and I would have preferred that to have more time to see the two symbiotes and their hosts clash just a little longer. They could have easily achieved this as well by cutting out a little bit from the long chase scene in the middle that almost got to the point of it being boring. Adding on that Riot could have done with a little bit more screen time to just flesh him out a little more and made the symbioses between him and Carlton Drake just a little more felt in the audience. More development for the evil symbiote also would have helped us understand his motives just a little more and helped them not be so cliche. Riot was probably held back a little because of budgeting reasons though. There are some small plot holes in the movie that were sort of glossed over, but I only noticed these after I was dissecting the plot after I had seen it. It was quite obvious to see that Sony wants to make a sequel with Carnage as the villain (like it is implied in the mid-credits scene with Cletus Kasady). If they want to do that, I am all for it and would support them all the way.

The CGI in this was incredible. In fact, the movie had some of the best CGI I have seen all year. It did look a little strange and rubbery in some parts, which was understandable because a lot of the movie was CGI (not just the symbiotes). I can stress enough how much this movies CGI needs to be praised more.

The action scenes were well crafted and entertaining. However the ending fight scene could have just been extended a little more and the middle chase/fight scene could have been decreased a little, balancing the two out.

The easter eggs/references and calls to the comics such as Ann Weying been the host for the Venom symbiote (like she does in the comics) for a short time was cool and amazing to see on screen. It's those little things like that, that make me just love this movie even more. It was also good how they aimed the movie around the 90's era of the character, which is the Venom comics that Todd McFarlane is most known for (and are arguably the best comics for the character). This makes this movie just a nice package for comic book fans and movie goers alike.

All and all, this movie was a great comedic adventure that will be loved by both fans of the character and the comics as well as movie goers who enjoy superhero, action or sci-fi movies. If I had to give just one small piece of advice it would be to ignore the critics and watch this movie, you'll enjoy it.

Daredevil is a delight to watch. It in-corporate everything from the comics that a long term fan of the character would want this show to include. Let's start with the cinematography of this. The cinematography is amazing, some of the best I have seen in a long time. I thought that maybe it would drop off in season 2 but it keeps it's tone and doesn't bend to what the 'ideal' superhero model is. The first five minutes of season 1 episode 1 introduces you to the world of street levels in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and from those few moments you get intrigued fascinated by the world, all thanks to the cinematography, colour, tones and lighting. This is by far the best cinematography in a movie or TV Series post 2010 that I have seen. The comic accuracy of this was how I wanted it it be. Accurate but changed slightly where it needed to be to suit the tone that the 'ground level' of the Marvel Cinematic Universe was aiming for. Everything down to the suit was how I wanted it to be. The character development and writing was incredible as well. Matt Murdock, Foggy Nelson, Karen Page and Wilson Fisk (Kingpin) had satisfying story arcs that you could connect to and feel for, something many forms of media fail to do nowadays. The story arc in Season 2 with Elektra was weak and I found it annoying and boring and would have much rather watch the interesting and intriguing story arc with Frank Castle (Punisher). The story arc only had one good thing about it: It gave way to The Hand story arc and morphed into it. Supporting characters such as Frank Castle were also interesting and he quickly became one of my favourite characters in the series, just like he is in the comics. The acting in some spots was quite poor as well. Deborah Ann Woll's acting was wooden and seem overacted at points. Although I think she handed the time when her character (Karen Page) killed Kingpin's right hand man, Wesley, very well and it seemed realistic and emotional. Elden Henson (Foggy Nelson) and Charlie Cox (Matt Murdock/Daredevil) seemed off in parts as well. Most of the time Charlie did a great job as acting as a blind man but some times it seemed like he forgot that he was blind and was acting like a person that could see would act (although technically Daredevil can 'see' per say). This only seemed to happen when he wasn't the centre of attention and/or wasn't talking. The fight scenes of this show were some of the best I have seen and they always were realistic and kept you on the edge of your seat (which is more than what can be said for most movies these days). They weren't the traditional extremely stylized violence but were more toned on and relied on expert stunt work and good camera angles without extreme shaky cam like most fight scenes rely on. I found season one did the better sneak/stealthy Daredevil better and Season two did the 'stare death in the face and go for it' sort of Daredevil better. Overall this series was some of the best media I have seen in a long time. It uses great lighting, tones and cinematography to pull off a perfectly executed and written series of scripts. With everything considered I rate this series a 9/10 with only losing points for the Elektra story arc and some small acting errors here and there.

When I was first going into watching Blade Runner I had very high hopes for the movie as of all the praise that the series got and the hype that the sequel was getting and I have to say it was one amazing movie.

Lets start off with the writing of his. The writing was well done and created a universe that is believable but also futuristic and unreal at the same time. I think that not all that credit can go to the writers though and i can in part go to the wonderful directing done by Ridley Scott. The story arcs of every character seemed to have a beginning, middle and end. These story arcs flowed well and allowed the villain of this movie to get a good amount of screen time. I prefer movies that hide the villain in the shadows but show them off in a few scenes that leads up to the final dramatic showdown between the hero and the villain and this movie delivers just that. If the villain is great though we need to have a equal hero as well and that's just what we got. Rick Deckard was a interesting character to follow and his character was intriguing and made me want to find out more about him as a character. The only bad thing I have to say about the writing is that the movie did seem to drag at points and became a bit boring in parts. To the point where I was very eager for something that was interesting to happen again. These parts did seem to come and go faster than some movies in modern day cinema. Also the character named Gaff seemed a little underdeveloped and I would have liked to see his character fleshed out a little bit more.

Now lets look at the acting and the cast of this movie. The acting for this movie was incredible. I don't have any flaws I can pick out from this. There was that scene where Rick Deckard did bad acting but this was done on purpose by Harrison Ford. It takes a good actor to portray a character that's bad at acting. The cast was also a amazing cast that consisted of Hollywood greats such as Harrison Ford, Sean Young, Rutger Hauer, Edward James Olmos and Daryl Hannah.

I wasn't expecting much from the special effects and was actually expecting some quite bad effects whether it was practical or not. But what was in the movie was incredible for the year it was made in. (In case your wondering it was made in 1982). The effects still hold up today unlike the original Star wars effects which look a bit odd in today's cinema. Ridley Scott's unique directing style reminded me of the tone and vibes of what i got from The Watchmen. When Rick Deckard is climbing up the building to the roof in the final showdown scene the lighting, the cinematography, the music and the overall tone of it was very similar to that of how The Watchmen tone is.

The ending and start of the movie are arguably the two most important parts of the movie. This movie did it very well. The start drew me in and already made me interested in the Blade Runner universe and the final battle was crafted beautifully. I really liked the part where Rick Decakrd got some of his fingers broken because it made it seem more realistic and didnt make the hero/main character have too easy of a win. One of the choices in this final fight was strange though. This choice was having Roy Batter push his head through a wall. This part made me laugh more than it did make me feel on the edge of my seat and into the fight. Before and after he stopped having his head sticking through the wall had me on the edge of my seat though. The very last scene did seem to end the movie abruptly and I think that just ten more seconds could have giving it a much more satisfying ending though. That is just me though.

In conclusion this movie was fantastic with a few errors and problems and added up. But altogether this movie was entertaining and enjoyable. I am very eager to see what is done with the universe in the future whether it is another sequel or a comic or book series. With everything considered this movie gets a 8/10.

The Blade trilogy is a great set of movies and Blade: Trinity does a pretty good job at wrapping the series up.

Lets start off with the acting. The acting of this movie is nothing to rave about and is nothing extremely special. There a great performances from the cast and Dracula seemed threatening and imposing. The acting altogether was great from Ryan Reynolds and Jessica Biel. Wesley Snipes actin at times seemed a bit wooden and stiff.. In the first Blade movie his acting was great and it slowly went down hill from there throughout the trilogy. When we get to this movie his acting doesn't seem like Wesley Snipes but all and seems like another actor altogether and not just at a handful of times.

The directing of this movie is alright but some choices that David S. Goyer made seemed odd and unfitting. Some of the transitions between scenes seemed off and poorly done as well which is a shame because the first two blade movies did this well. With David S. Goyer not only writing and directing it made the movie seemed stressful.

Now lets look at the character of Blade (Wesley Snipes) himself. Some action scenes seemed taking from him and handed to Abigail whistler (Jessica Biel). This was a shame because Blades action sequences always were the highlight of the movie. That being said the action sequences that we did get were compelling and entertaining and very, very well crafted. The humour of Blade that he had in the first two movies seemed taking from him as well. This time it was handed to Hannibal King (Ryan Reynolds). I am not going to lye Ryan Reynolds is a great actor and handles jokes very well and he made me laugh multiple times in the movie. But because of this Blade had little to no humour left in him which was unfortunate.

The action sequences of the movie were incredible though. This movie had some of the best action sequences in the Blade trilogy. The action scenes handled the characters very well and made them look cool doing it. The ending fight with Dracula and Blade was gripping and we got to see Blade action. Unfortunately this was at the end of the movie though. It is one of the best endings to a super hero movie pre 2005 which is saying something.

The villain of this movie Dracula (Dominic Purcell) was a great villain. His scenes were intimidating and well made. The scene that I liked most with Dracula was the scene were he stalked the vampire hunters and killed them. This scene was intriguing and left you on the edge of your seat. I didn't feel much sadness for most of the characters that died though but the blind lady I did and her death was saddening and made me like the villain Dracula a little bit more. The reason for this is because we don't see many comic book villains that have the guts to do something that Dracula did on screen.

In conclusion this was a very good conclusion of the Blade Trilogy. The humour was great and the action scenes even better. But I did feel that David S. Goyer sort of lost contact with Wesley Snipes and the Blade character though leaving the main character in a strange way. But thanks to a compelling villain this balanced out and Dracula even outweighed the bad at times. With everything considered Blade: trinity gets a 7/10.

Grown ups is a great comedy movie for any age and for families.

Lets start off with the writing of this movie. For that I have to say that it is quite good. the plot flows well and no scene seemed out of place and everything worked really well together. For some characters there story arcs either went too quickly and were rushed or seemed incomplete and patchy but you wont pick up on it during your first viewing. I only did after my second viewing because I was so intrigued by the movie.

The comedy of this movie was very funny and I found myself laughing all the way through it. The mix of jokes for kids and adults blended well and neither seemed to unbalance it. The combination of adult and kid jokes also make it so that parents watching it with there kids will be able to enjoy this movie just as much as the kids will. At times there did seem to be one to many fat jokes in it though.

The acting of this movie was incredible good as well. There was only a very, very few times when the acting was only slightly off which I am very appreciative of. Adam Sandler and the rest of the cast deliver good character interaction and also just generally good acting. There didn't seem to be any over acting in this movie and it all seemed natural. The comedic timing of the actors also made this movie that much more entertaining and funny.

In conclusion this movie is great. I haven't seen a good comedy as this in a while now. The mixture of humour and laughs just seemed to be the icing on the top of the cake for this movie. With everything considered I am going to give this movie a 8/10.

America Made is certainly above average. It is not the best movie in the world but it just a little above average.

Tom Cruise once again did a incredible performance in this movie. The supporting cast also had great acting as well. there were only a few rare moments that the acting was a bit rusty or off. Other than that i don't have much more to say about the acting in this movie other than it was great.

Usually when I review or talk about a movie I don't judge the movie too much on the cinematography but in this movie the cinematography started out good. Not great or anything just your average movie. But then towards the end the cinematography was just plain strange and quite bad in parts. Some parts more than others as well. The camera sometimes quickly zoomed in then out slightly for no reason and it made the movie have a amateur tone to it. Some of the directorial decision i thought were off as well such as when Barry seal (Tom Cruise) got shot and killed. That sort of bleeds into another segment though.

That segment being run time. This movie ran for 1 hour and 55 minutes which is a good length for a movie. I have liked movies to be at least 105 minutes long which equals to 1 hour and 55 minutes but this movie didn't need to go for that long. They could have cut out about 10-15 minutes worth of unnecessary footage and scenes that either didn't progress the story or weren't entirely needed. When Barry Seal got shot and the camera failed (like I was talking about just before) the camera freeze framed because of course it got shot along with Barry. This freeze frame lasted for way too long to the point when I was wondering if it had actually frozen or not. Just little things like that made me dislike this movie a little more.

The writing of this movie now. To be honest i was quite impressed at how smooth the dialogue was. The dialogue was smooth and progressed well and wasn't patchy. With some characters the writing seemed a bit bland and they didn't seem to have much personality at stages. But Barry Seal's (Tom Cruise) dialogue was well crafted and well executed. I think in part this is because of Tom Cruises suburb acting ability.

Movies about drugs are sometimes seem to glorify drugs and make them seem like a cool, good thing. This movie did that a bit. It seemed to make this business look cool and something you can make a lot of money from reasonably easily. vibes like these rub me up the wrong way and make me a little annoyed about why theirs so many of these movies. It makes you not really like the character all that much. It didn't really help with the fact that the main character was a bit rude and arrogant at times which made me really not like him. a character being one or all of these things can work and can make you either root for the character or at the very least like them. But this is one of the movies that shows drugs in a almost good light. If this is to be achieved and executed well there needs to be at least a character or two against it to make it look not all that good and happy. You could argue that it fixed this issue when the people he was trafficking for killed him and JB but by then I think that it was too late. it did have some aspects of the film that were about that but not enough to balance it correctly.

In conclusion this was a decent film. It had great acting and pretty good writing. the way that some themes and issues were displayed in the movie didn't seem right and weren't balanced correctly though. It was a bit above average and for that reason I am going to give it a 7/10.

Deadpools "Gettin' wet on wet with Deadpool 2" is a short film that acts as the first trailer for Deadpool 2.

I think this is a excellent and fresh idea for trailers. Nowadays trailers reveal to much about the movie so the best way to get around that? Don't show any of the movie. That is somewhat incorrect though as this short film does show very small clips from the movie to come. In these clips we don't find anything about the plot or even who the villain is and that's what makes me love it so much. The only down thing I can think of about this short film is that we didn't get to see much of Cable in it. But other than that I loved the comedy of this and it made me laugh a few times during it and kept me entertained to the end. Some things such as what Deadpool put on the Bob Ross painting and got shocked or afraid of is a tad confusing. But that's only a very, very minor thing and I like it more than I don't as it adds more mystery to the movie. With everything considered I am going to give this a 9/10.

As this game is based of the world wide popular board game Battleship when I first watched this movie I was expecting it to be more strategy based. While I may not have gotten what I expected from the movie I was pleased with what I watched.

The plot is decent. Nothing for the writers to brag about or for anyone to rave about but it sure was decent. There were times when the writing seemed a little predictable and cliched but this moments come and gone quite quickly. All the scenes together connected well and progressed the story in some way. The introduction of the main character played by Taylor Kitsch seemed a bit rushed and didn't fit perfectly into how the rest of the movie played out. How it connected the land and sea and Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch) and his fiancé Samantha Shane (Brooklyn Decker) seemed fleshed out and well developed. Some characters had short un-needed story that the run time could have been used for other characters but the development for the characters was fairly good not great for most to all of the characters.

The special effects and CGI in the movie are some of the best visuals from a movie that is not from one or two years ago. The CGI holds up today and I believe that it will for many years to come. If you want to see good CGI and CGI used well defiantly see this movie!

The acting ability from the cast was well done with good portrayals from Taylor Kitsch and Alexander Skarsgard (Stone Hopper). The acting from the supporting characters was off sometimes which mostly came from the crew on board the ship. Good acting from supporting characters came from Liam Neeson (Admiral Shane) and suprisenly from Rihanna (Cora "Weps" Raikes). I was very surprised at Rihanna's acting and assumed it was going to be terrible but it was actually quiet good which made the movie that but more believable. Because of the acting from the cast it seemed that this scenario was believable real how humans would re-act.

The only part in the movie that had anything to do with the game which depicted two sides of humans fighting against each other compared to the movies aliens was the scene I like to call "Board Game Battleship". This scene had the crew guessing where the aliens were and launching missiles and torpedoes at them. This seen has you on the edge of your seat everytime you watch it and the lightning and music just add to the dramatic feel of the scene.

In conclusion this movie was decent. It did have a fair few flaws in it to do with the writing but the otherall movie was fun to watch and enjoyable. A sequel for this movie seems unlikely though and it will work better as a solo movie and not a franchise of sorts. Other all O rate it 7/10.

This movie takes you on a action packed adventure all the way around the world looking at batman's training and skills he learnt to become the batman then back to Gotham to become the dark knight! With the hero killing the villain at the end being the only thing I can fault about this tells you this is a truly excellent movie! With stunning visuals to realistic CGI there is nothing better than this! With great villains like Henri ducard (Liam Neeson) and scarecrow (Cillian Murphy) fighting against Batman (Christian Bale), batman's butler Alfred (Michael Caine). With a thick branch of supporting villains and heroes such as Victor Zsasz, Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and James Gordon (Gary Oldman). With Scarecrow planing to release all inmates from Blackgate and spread his fear gas the impending doom of Henri Ducard one of Ra's Al Ghul's henchman in the jaw dropping movie destroying Gotham to rebuild it free of crime batman is on a mission to take them both down with the help of his friends and bat family. With the movie starting the dark knight trilogy it made its mark on the superhero genre and helped form all of the MCU and future superhero movies! This is a splendid movie 9/10 with all aspects included!