I’m right-handed and hold it with my left.

If you’re going to make your twist transphobic, at least don’t use a tired cliched trope. Dreck.
Has a breezy but unfocused sense of style, making this much more of a slog than it needs to be. Performances are unremarkable apart from Cavill, but the bland dialogue does no one any favors.
Pretty nondescript addition to the “eat the rich” subgenre, but running it through a foodie filter was a nice change of pace. Was far more interesting when it tried to be a dark comedy, such as the “taco Tuesday” speech or the repeated serving of split emulsions. Far less enjoyable when it attempts to humanize its aggressively two-dimensional characters, or outright explain the already obvious themes (“are you a giver or are you a taker”). Things clicked into place when Adam McKay’s name dropped in the credits as a producer.
This review may contain spoilers. I can handle the truth.
Incredibly timely, probably more so than Rian Johnson or anyone could have anticipated. But otherwise has a lot of the same problems as the first film, while adding new ones. It’s unfortunate, I was enjoying the first act well enough, but as soon as we hit the way-too-long flashback, this film just started going downhill. The twists and reveals, always the most fun parts of these films, generally land with a thud, although I’ll give credit to the “lights out”…
Why don’t bad football teams simply have a classic rock montage to win more
The spectacle is fine but it's soooo boooring otherwise. Also, taking the meddling of the Greek Gods out of the story and instead focusing on this religious zealotry vs secularism is...a choice. It's not a terrible idea but there's no payoff to it all, and only stands to be a change from the source material that makes everything less interesting. Same with Briseis being Trojan royalty, same with diluting the Achilles/Patrocles relationship. The Iliad is not a screenplay, changes can be made but they need to make sense and have a reason!
Fun idea but better in concept than execution. I think the problem is the future is too straight-laced to the point of being incredibly boring, and having no interesting characters that weren’t around pre-freeze. Stallone and Snipes are having fun, with the latter in particular almost like a living cartoon (was he doing a John Witherspoon impression?), but everyone else just functions to be a prude. And I wouldn’t say Stallone is an acting powerhouse by this time, but half a star bump just for his face when he tries his first burger in 40 years.
A better film than the first in many ways, but I wish it was as mean and cynical as the first. This film wants to clearly define characters in the “good” or “bad” camp. For example, in the first one Effie was a relatively clueless sycophant for the state, the kind of character you need for good satire, but here they’ve made her far too sympathetic to be interesting. Similar for Caesar as well. This film also spoils the most…
Interesting how this almost works as a forerunner to The Sopranos, how it deals with "middle management" Mafia and the sense of time, how the best days were in the past, if they ever even existed. Anyways, the stuff with Pacino and the mob is generally great, but the home life is bad. The film seems us to want to think that Depp's poor home life is due to his becoming enamored with the mafia lifestyle, but that doesn't really…
No A-lister had ever been so miscast as Brad Pitt in this.
Shoutout actor Ian Bliss, never seen him in anything else but his Hugo Weaving impression is on point.
More good moments than the first sequel, in particular the train station scene with the program family. It’s a nice example of how you can deepen the lore of the film while simultaneously deepening characterization. The story itself is thankfully streamlined, with clearer storylines and character objectives, but the whole enterprise still can’t quite justify its existence. From the beginning of Reloaded until…