Movie Review: Wicked: For Good

 The Freaking Film Fanatic with Nathan Unck

Wicked: For Good      Rated: PG for thematic elements

    So, I am a really big fan of stage plays and musicals. I have been in a lot of them myself over the years, but I am not exactly rich, so I only go to a Broadway touring company tour here in Salt Lake City. There are some really great shows I have seen, and there are ones I have never seen, but always wanted to. Wicked falls into the latter. I really enjoyed the first Wicked film, but Wicked itself falls into a category that I described when I reviewed the last Mission: Impossible film. When you see the first part, you are only seeing one half of the story, so I have to review the films on their own, but then after seeing both parts, I am able to review the films as if they are one continuous film. So, I will review this entry on its own, and then how I feel about seeing the films back-to-back, since I rewatched the first one a couple of hours before I left to see Wicked: For Good.

    Wicked: For Good starts off a year or two after the last event in the first film. The Wizard and Madame Morrible are spreading propaganda that Elphaba is an evil wicked witch all over Oz. They are also trying to use Glinda to make everyone think that she is magical and to lift people's spirits, especially since Elphaba is trying to turn the tables. I don't want to give too much away, but we are then introduced to Dorthy, although we never see her face, and her traveling companions, and how they came to be, and go through the story of The Wizard of Oz that we all know. 

    From what I understand, Wicked: For Good has a few original songs that weren't in the stage play that help with the running time, which this one is twenty minutes shorter that the first part. The songs are good, and the characters are all great. The set designs and the costumes and practical effects are fantastic. The movie really does look incredible. There were twists and turns that I was surprised with, since I haven't seen the stage version, and they were really cool to see how they fit into the story, especially since Wicked is told as the wicked witch's story. 

    The performances from Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande are great, and this second half gives Ariana Grande more to do, even though she was in the first part most of the time, but she has more emotions and twists in the story for her character that make her feel like she is an equal star of the film with Cynthia Erivo, where as she was more of the supporting star in the first half. I have to say I actually really enjoyed Ariana Grande when I originally thought I wouldn't. Jeff Goldblum is one of my favorite actors, and he is great as the Wizard in both parts, as well as Michelle Yeoh as Madame Morrible. The rest of the cast, all of the singers and dancers are all great, and I feel that director Jon M. Chu nailed those big numbers with hundreds of dancer/actors. 

    At the end of the first film, they have the show-stopping musical number "Defying Gravity", where the music soars as well as Elphaba on her broom. I remember telling my wife that if the new Superman movie had Superman flying around like Elphaba in that scene, that it will be great, and I really enjoyed Superman. However, there is a problem with the first film ending on with that song and exhilarating action, Wicked: For Good starts off with a slow pace. The songs are nice and the look of the film is great, but the story's first 45 minutes are slow and not as interesting as where the first film pulls you right into the action. However, after those 45 minutes the film really starts to get going again and has a really entertaining conclusion, though I feel that the songs in Wicked: For Good weren't quite as great as the first half, but they are good.

    So that is how I feel about Wicked: For Good, but here is how it felt when I watched the first film, and then left to go see the second part, I did that to see how it would feel to watch all five hours of the Wicked story together, and that's where it gets tricky. Like I said, the first half has the best songs, and when they ended part one with the best song in the whole show, and Elphaba flying on her broom at neck-breaking speed, and then the next scene going into part two, it hits a climax, but then you get that 45-minute slowdown time. It's not terrible, but it does feel a little bit disconnected. The first 45 minutes really do tell you a little bit about what has happened in the time gap between the two films. Together it just feels like a drag. 

    If you loved the first film, you will love Wicked: For Good. The new songs and the twists and turns in the plot, especially if you are like me where you haven't seen the stage production, are fun. The characters are still interesting, and you really care for both Elphaba and Glinda and how they are trying to have a friendship, but Gilinda is also being used by the Wizard to make everyone think that they are safe and in control of the situation. If you didn't like the first film, then you aren't going to be converted to the story and how it plays out, but it is a very emotional film, and I recommend seeing it in theaters.

    Wicked: For Good is rated PG for thematic elements.

    

    

Movie Review: The Running Man

The Freaking Film Fanatic with Nathan Unck

The Running Man     Rated: R for Violence and Language

    Movies that are based on books by Stephen King kind of tend to be a hit or miss, there is hardly any middle ground. I have to admit, growing up I wasn't allowed to watch R rated movies until I was 17, and during that time, I would see movie posters and trailers for those movies, which were usually based on his horror films. However, I did see the TV version of It when it came out in the 1990s, and not only did I watch the TV version for The Stand, but it was filmed on the Main Street of the town I live in and drive past it almost daily.

    Those old horror movies didn't do so well with critics, but there were a few good ones, like The Shining. After I turned 17 and was allowed to watch R rated films, I watched The Shawshank Redemption, and not only did I love, it's in my top ten favorite films. I didn't know it at the time, but it was based on a Stephen King short story. A few years later I saw The Green Mile, which is also a favorite of mine, and even though it was a Stephen King story, it was an allegory for Jesus Christ and his ministry and crucifixion. True it was rated R, but if you have seen the film, it's easy to notice the story being similar to the first few books in the New Testament. 

    Then there some of the action films that were Stephen King stories, and the one I am focusing on here is The Running Man. The Running Man was an Arnold Schwarzenegger action film that is actually pretty terrible, unless you are a huge Arnie fan. After seeing this new updated retelling of the story, I watched a bunch of clips from the 1987 version, and this 2025 "upgrade" does a great job of taking a bad movie and retelling it to make it better and will probably have a longer shelf life since the action and near future special effects that are great. So, what is it about in a nutshell?

    There are some twists and turns in the film, so I will tell you the bare minimum. A man named Ben Roberts has a very sick daughter who needs medical attention, but his family is poor and needs to make money to take care of his family. In this near future time, there is a very popular reality show called "The Running Man". They chose three contestants and they are hunted down by professional hunters and regular people. If they survive, they win a billion dollars. Basically, they try to stay alive for 30 days for the money. If not, then a smaller amount will be given to their families. However, the show also pays people for information if they see the contestants, and get a bigger payday if it leads the hunters to kill the contestants. That's all I will talk about.

    The film was directed by Edger Wright, who is an awesome director. He as made a lot of films I love like Shawn of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. He was a great sense of what moods each film, and which scenes need to have to work just right. He's one of my favorites.

    I had my wife, Lindsey, with me, and we really enjoyed this one. It's exciting, it has some great humor sprinkled into it, and the characters are fun and easy to like. Actor Glen Powell plays Ben Richards and is a lot of fun. There are other actors in the film that are familiar from TV or maybe another film, but not a lot that stood out. Although the premise seems kind of original, well, original for a remake of a movie based on a book by a popular author, but there were a few things and took away from the original factor.

    The film has a lot of elements that are just like The Hunger Games, a TV show that everyone watches where contestants fight to be the last standing. Minority Report, the main character is running from everything and everyone and is spotted from here to there and has to fight to escape. Then it also feels almost like a Mission: Impossible movie with lots of stunts and a lot of the main character running a lot. Even though the movie feels familiar, it's actually still very entertaining. The movie is rated R for violence, and there is R rated language. It wasn't constant like in another Stephen King story film that came out two months ago, The Long Walk. 

I feel the need to say this; movie theaters are raising prices on their tickets and concessions. Ever since the pandemic, not as many people are going out to theaters to see movies. They like to stay at home and stream them, which I feel goes against film as an art form. I feel movies were meant to be exhibited in theaters, but because they aren't getting as many people buying tickets, they are raising prices to try and make up for the gap, but it's also a dumb idea. I think more people would go out to the movies more often if they weren't so expensive. I am lucky to have a job as a film critic, but when I want to take my family of six to the movies, and we buy popcorn to share and drinks, it costs us at least $110. I feel that is a joke, and I can't blame people for not wanting to go the theaters, even when the films are really good and entertaining.

    I feel the urge to invite people back to movie theaters because there isn't another experience for a film to be seen, but I get the prices. So, with that in mind, I just want to say, this film is a fun popcorn action flick with some humor that is legitimately funny, so leave the kiddos at home and go on an adult date night. It isn't exactly original, but it's fun and entertaining enough.

The Running Man is rated: R for violence and language.

Movie Review: Roofman

The Freaking Film Fanatic with Nathan Unck

Roofman     Rated: R for language, violence, sexual situations and nudity

    I remember a few years back about a man who escaped from prison and lived in a Toys "R" Us store for six months. I found that story fun, but I forgot about it over the years. Roofman is the "Based on a True Story" movie about Jefferey Manchester. While some exciting parts of the story are left out, probably for a shorter runtime, which is already two hours and six minutes long. What we do have is a drama about a man who is nice and kind but makes really bad life choices to support his kind behavior. Channing Tatum played this character really well.

    The film opens up telling us that Jeffery was a very skilled Marine, especially for noticing details that most people overlook. Roofman is a reference to Jeffery who would sneak up on roofs of McDonalds restaurants, cut a hole in the roof and ceiling, wait for the morning crew to come in, and would drop down with an unloaded shotgun and kindly ask the workers to put their coats on, and get in the walk-in freezer, steal the money from the registers and safes, and once he had escaped, would call the police from a payphone and let them know the restaurant was robbed and the crew were in the freezer. He did this at least 45 times. 

    After getting caught, he was serving 45 years in prison, but successfully escapes, and after a very close call, ducks into a Toys "R" Us store and found a place in the store to hide out.  These two elements are in the trailers. The film takes it's time to tell the story, and you really do come to care for, and even root for, Jeffery, especially when he meets and falls in love with a divorced woman, played by Kirsten Dunst, who is involved in her church and has two daughters. That's all I'm going to say about the plot.

    There was so much to like in this film, and yet there were a couple of disappointing things that kept this movie from being great. First off, there was a character that used the "F" word, and hardly anyone else does, which begs the question, why did it need to be there in the first place. Number two, There was a funny, but sort of uncomfortable scene where Channing Tatum is completely naked, and runs into some trouble almost getting caught. The scene was fun, but it was thirty seconds long, which was a little uncomfortable, although I did tease my wife telling her that it was her favorite part, to which she rolled her eyes.

    Another aspect that might harm the film a little bit is that the trailers and posters make the film seem like it was going to be a laugh out loud comedy, when it is actually a drama with some funny elements. The film is still a lot of fun, but it can be deceiving. If you go in understanding that it is a drama with some funny scenes, then I think you will have a good time.

As I said, it's kind of disappointing that they went for an R rated film because I think there is a valuable lesson for kids and teenagers. It doesn't matter how smart you are, if you make bad decisions, you will have to eventually face the consequences of those bad choices. Beyond that, Roofman is an interesting dramatic look with some funny elements.

Roofman rated: R for language, violence, sexual situations and nudity.

    

Movies I Don't Like, But Own on DVD and Blu-Ray

     When I started this website for my movie reviews, I also said that I would use it to write about other things that are about film or certain films, but I haven't written anything besides reviews, and I thought of this fun idea to talk about the movies in my DVD and Blu-Ray collection that I don't like. If you like some of these movies, it's okay. These are just my opinions, just like a film critic review. Film is art, and art is subjective. So why do I have these movies in my collection if I don't like them? Here's why.

    If you ask any teenager today if they know what a video rental store is, they wouldn't have that great idea of one. With streaming services and the internet, there is no reason to go to an actual store to pay three or four bucks to borrow a movie and then return the movie on time or else you would have to pay a late fee. There were a number of video and grocery stores that rented out movies. The ones I remember going to were Hollywood Video, Blockbuster Video, Reams (A local grocery store), and Top Hat Video. Blockbuster had the most stores, but Hollywood Video and the grocery store, Reams, where the closest video rental places by my house, so I went there more than the others, although when I was little, there was a Top Hat Video close to us in Magna. There were also other stores that I can't recall the names of, but they were there.

    One of the most fun things to do was to go to a video rental store and see hundreds and hundreds of movies on the shelves. The stores were actually pretty big, and some of them even rented out video games, but that's a topic for another time. There were so many to choose from. They had a ton of old movies plus new releases. New releases were hard because if you went to the video store hoping that you could get a new release, they were always out, and you would have to put your name on a reserve list, and when people returned the movie, they would go on the reserve list, which was a first come first serve basis. The store would call you and let you know that your reserved video tape or DVD was in and reserved for you.

    One of my favorite things about going to the video store is, you have to remember, the internet either wasn't a thing yet, or it was in its earlier stages, but there weren't any websites that would tell you what new releases were coming out. You would go to a video store, and they would usually have a poster board sign with what was coming out on video, and when. Also, again, there weren't any websites to go to that would have that information, so those poster boards were fun.

    I think the release posters were so great because there weren't any streaming services, and VHS videos took a long time for the studios to make. Files weren't just burned onto a disc that was cheap and easy to produce. Videos had magnetic tape and a lot of plastic to hold the tape inside. Back when I was a kid, and even most of my teenage years, a movie would come out in theaters. It would play for a little while, and then when new movies came out in theaters, they would take the movies that had been playing at one theater would give the film canisters to "Dollar Movie Theater", which is, you guessed it, one cost one dollar for a ticket, but they had good popcorn and candy where they made most of their money. I bet I saw Jurassic Park fifteen times in theaters because of the dollar theater.

    After movies were in theaters, they would be taken out, and it took a year before they were released on video. I have to also say, if you wanted to buy a movie, you could go to stores in their electronics section and buy them to keep, but I'm talking about the rentals. It was so exciting to go to the video store and see a movie you loved in theaters and the release date on the poster boards. Not only did they tell you they would be in stores to buy, but they were also coming to the rental stores on the same day. Those new releases were usually hard to get right away, so reserving them was the way to go. However, Blockbuster and Hollywood Video started to do something new when DVDs were starting to come out, and it was kind of a game changer for the new releases.

    Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video started ordering 100 DVDs of just about all of the new releases. They guaranteed that the new release would be in stock for you to rent on day one, and if they were all gone, they would put you on a reserve list, and you got to rent the movie for free. This made it fun knowing you could get the new release very easily, or you got to get the free rental. It was awesome. However, once the movies started getting less popular, they would put two or three DVDs on the regular shelves, which were organized by genre and then alphabetical order. For example, Jurassic Park would have been in the Action section, and then you would find it alphabetically. So, what happened with the rest of the DVDs that they didn't keep?

    The best thing about the guaranteed in stock DVDs was that they usually were only used for three weeks, and then the video stores would sell the used copies of the DVDs, and not only could you buy them, but they were cheaper than renting it. They were also guaranteed to work, or you would get your money back, like if a DVD was scratched and wouldn't play. So, they were selling these used DVDs for $2.50 to $3.00. So back then before my film critic years, I wouldn't see quite a few of some movies that I was only about half interested in seeing. When the films came out, used for three weeks, and then sold for a really cheap price, I would just go down with ten to fifteen bucks and buy three or four movies instead of renting them since they were cheaper to buy the used discs than the rental charge.

    Needless to say, I have a lot of DVDs and Blu-Rays in my collection that I really don't like. Most of my Blu-Rays were ones I bought myself because Blu-Ray disks weren't a thing until after the video store markets started fading away, so just about all of my Blu-Ray movies are ones that I liked and wanted. So, with that in mind, here is a bunch of movies I own that I don't like, in no particular order.

Stuck on You

Shallow Hal

Daddy Daycare

V For Vendetta

Shark Tale

Blades of Glory

Lady in the Water

Zookeeper

Yes Man

The Island

A.I. Artificial Intelligence

    So, these are the ones that I have on my shelves right now, but there are still quite a few movies I have that are in storage at my parent's house. Like I said, you might like some of these movies, but I didn't. They were cheaper to buy than rent, so I bought them and then didn't care for them. If I get to them any time soon, I will either write another blog post or just update this one.

    I really hope this wasn't a boring post. I wanted to explain the video rental stores in detail to show kids and teenagers that things weren't easy when it came to watching movies you want to watch, and not have instant access to it, and being able to watch them on day one. Movies that are in theaters don't go to a dollar theater anymore, and it only takes a maximum of 45 days after a movie opens up in theaters. If the movie isn't performing well, it can even be streaming at home to buy or rent in even less time. It's interesting to see how technology can be great, but it can also take away things you love to do. I love listening to actual vinyl records on a record player sometimes, even though I can stream my music easily. There's something nostalgic and magical about using physical media from the past to capture what made something so great, even when it was just a common place or thing that we took for granted at the time.

    Anyway, I apologize about the length of this post, but I wanted to try and recapture that feeling of going into a video store to try and explain things to a generation of kids who will never know the joy of renting a movie from a store. I know that there weren't a lot on my list, but like I say, I do have more in storage that I am not exactly thinking about at the moment.

I hope you are all doing well and that things are going well for you and yours. Life gets busy and crazy, and I am so grateful to have people who take their time and enjoy what I have to say. I don't do it as much as I used to, but I really want to get back in the habit of writing more posts. Thanks again, and I hope you will read the next one.

Movie Review: The Smashing Machine

The Freaking Film Fanatic with Nathan Unck

The Smashing Machine      Rated: R for Violence, Language and Drug Use.

    In 2001 I was a huge fan of the first two Mummy films with Brendan Fraser and was excited to go see a spinoff of those two films, The Mummy: The Scorpion King. I found out that a popular WWE wrestler was going to become the Scorpion King. When I saw the film, I was so disappointed. Not only did the special effects look terrible, but the acting from this wrestler known to the wrestling world as "The Rock", was just as bad. However, Hollywood wasn't done with this wrestler turned "actor". 

    After a few films, it seemed that "The Rock" was becoming more popular in some comedies where he was a super strong man, but put into rolls like the Tooth Fairy, or a professional football player that learns he has a little daughter that he needs to take care of. These films weren't very good either, but they didn't use the terrible special effects, so that was a step up. However, thanks to the Fast and Furious films, "The Rock" came into the franchise and made it fun. I'm not the biggest fan of The Fast and Furious films, but "The Rock" made them better. At about this time, he wanted to go by his real name Dwanye Johnson, and not "The Rock".

    Most of the roles Dwanye Johnson have either been action hero, or comedic action hero. I have grown to like him over the years. While I haven't ever felt that Dwanye Johnson was an Oscar caliber actor, I have enjoyed films he is in... until now. Before I say anything else about the film, I want to say that in this film, Dwanye Johnson delivers a killer performance of one of the original UFC Fighting pioneers, Mark Keff. Dwane Johnson, with the help of some prosthetics and a wig, Dwanye Johnson is able to transform into this fighter but broken human being.

    Along with his performance, fellow co-star actress, the wonderful Emily Blunt, working together again after starring in Disney's Jungle Cruise movie, but the characters could not be any different. Emily Blunt is incredible in The Smashing Machine as well, but that's where the good stops.

    The film follows the fighter, Mark Kerr between the years of 1997 through 2000. After winning challenge after challenge, Mark Kerr started fighting regularly in Japan in a competition called Pride. He lives with his girlfriend, Dawn, played by Emily Blunt while he trains, but their relationship is strained due to Mark's training diets and workouts. Mark is also addicted to opioids which numb his pain after a fight but also makes him numb to his relationship with Dawn.

    The film follows Mark through his fighting career, his first loss, this drug addiction, rehab and return to the sport. It's not a complicated story, which makes watching the film a chore. The film feels very segmented and there are times when time passes, and you aren't made aware of it. A small example, Dawn and Mark get into a fight, and Dawn leaves Mark, but she reappears and they are back together. There wasn't one hint or clue that they had somehow fixed their relationship. It feels like someone was telling you a story and kept forgetting parts of the story, but then abruptly remembers something that happened and goes back and tells you about it. It doesn't even let you know that he is addicted to drugs until it is pointed out that he is high before a fight. The film is a mess.

    Besides Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt's performances, the film is kind of hard to watch and follow, but there are two things that did make some of the scenes interesting. The first is a scene where the song being played for the soundtrack has a woman singing lyrics to the effect of, "take me in your arms and I will make you feel better". It's a romantic love song, but it's playing as Mark is shooting up his drugs, so the "take me in your arms and I will make you feel better" makes sense to the movie.

The other scene is after Mark has gone through rehab, Mark goes with Dawn to a carnival, and there is a demolition derby going on, so they go in to watch it, and it shows a car ramming into the side of another car, backs up, and rams into the car again, over and over, which makes Mark feel uncomfortable as he is reminded of the fight he lost where the other fighter kept hitting him over and over while he was on the ground. It's a shame that the movie is a mess because every once in a while, there are little pieces of a great movie in it. It's sad that the performances are so great, but the movie never really makes you feel an emotional connection in any way to any of the characters. 

    After all is said and done, I don't think I will ever watch this movie again unless I am teaching or taking a film class where you would need to study an actor playing and becoming a character where you are able to not see the actor, but the character. If you are a big fan of Dwanye Johnson and Emily Blunt, this film might be something you would want to see at some point, but I wouldn't suggest paying full price for a ticket. I would hold off until it is streaming somewhere. It's just frustrating that you know there is a better movie hidden under the confusion and bad storytelling.

The Smashing Machine is rated: R for Violence, Language and drug use.  

       

Movie Review: The Naked Gun (2025)

The Freaking Film Fanatic with Nathan Unck

The Naked Gun      Rated: PG-13 for violence, crude/sexual humor and language

    So, I have always loved the old Classic films by the Zucker and Abrams team with Airplane, Hot Shots and The Naked Gun. They are full of hysterical jokes almost every five seconds. The word play and gags that make those movies are still hilarious today, so with a new Naked Gun movie, whether it's a full reboot or not, was something that interested me. Not only that, but with Liam Neeson in the lead role of Frank Drebin Jr., the son of Frank Drebin played by Leslie Neilson in the original three films, was interesting to me because I've never really seen Liam Neeson in a comedy, at least not from what I remember.

    The key that made all of those other movies work was how serious the actors played through the comedy. The jokes aren't jokes to the characters, and that is what makes the movies so funny. Think of the line from Airplane, "Surely you can't be serious." then the joke said in a serious tone, "I am serious, and don't call me Shirly." The movies all needed that seriousness out of the characters to make them work. So did the jokes work or not? The short answer is "Yes", The longer answer is "Not all of them". 

    There were jokes that were very funny and gags that were done many, many times throughout the film, but there were some duds that weren't funny that the film kept referring back to. I hate to say it, don't think I am a pervert, but I laughed the hardest at a gag with a villain using a pair of thermal binoculars when Liam Neeson and Pamela Anderson are cooking a turkey, as some kind of form of foreplay, but they are positioned in a way where the thermal binoculars made it look like a super kinky love scene. I don't want to give away any jokes, and part of that thermal scene is in the trailer. There are some really good jokes in the trailer, but in the film, there are other gags in between those gags. The joke start in the beginning, and they never let up, which is what this kind of film needs to do to work. 

    The plotline, or "device" is good enough for the story to work all of the jokes. However, the film is very, very short. For press screenings, they never have commercials or movie trailers, so I turned my phone off right at seven, and when I turned it on, it was 8:19, and that's with the end credits being finished. By the way, there are a lot of funny jokes in the end credits as well, so they are worth watching. There is even an end of credit scene that has a certain celebrity that had a cameo in the very first Naked Gun movie. 

    I did take my wife with me who has never see any of the Naked Gun films, and she looked at me after the movie and said, "That was the dumbest movie I have ever seen!". I then proceeded to tell her, "That's the point!". It isn't meant to be a film that is going to win any big awards, but it doesn't have to. It does it's job. It has rapid fire jokes, a plot that makes some kind of sense, and if you leave having laughed a lot, even with the bad jokes that didn't work, it did what it was meant to do, so with that, it succeeds,

    If you really like the original films, then this is a no brainer. Liam Neeson does a great job at being the serious character making all of the jokes with deadpan delivery, and even Pamela Anderson has some great moments. I particularly liked a scene where Pamela Anderson sings at a Jazz club. It's goofy, unsexy, and really funny. Another thing I found interesting, the language was really tame. The "thermal vision" scene is the worst the film gets.

    Even though I did like the film quite a bit, with it's very short runtime, and the fact that it isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea, I would suggest waiting until this one goes to streaming services. I am sure the run in the theaters will be pretty short, and be available to purchase for less than the price of two movie tickets, or even waiting until it goes onto Paramount + after the $25 price tag of the initial streaming time. Like I said, it had a lot of humor that I find funny, but my wife didn't, and I am pretty sure a lot of people might be in that situation, but if you are a big fan and want to go out to the theaters and see it, then you will have a pretty good time.

The Naked Gun is rated PG-13 for violence, crude/sexual humor and some language. 

Movie Review: Superman

 The Freaking Film Fanatic with Nathan Unck

Superman       Rated: PG-13 for language and comic book action violence.

    When I was a little little kid, my dad bought a Betamax VCR machine, and I had two tapes that I watched all of the time. The first one had the original Rocky film and Rocky III. The other had Superman, Superman 2 and Superman 3 with Christopher Reeve. Ever since I can remember, I have always loved Superman. I was so excited 19 years ago for Superman Returns. I thought it was okay, but not great. Then 11 years ago, we got Man of Steel. I really liked Man of Steel, but it felt dark and bleak, and Superman comic books are not dark and bleak. Here I am today, 44 years old, and this new iteration of Superman made me feel like I was a little kid watching those Superman movies that I loved. 

    This movie is a complete 180 degrees from Man of Steel. I still really enjoyed Man of Steel, but James Gunn, who directed all three Guardians of the Galaxy films, wanted this new reboot of the DCU, to feel like you were reading an awesome silver age Superman comic book, and he succeeds to the fullest degree. The movie does feel a little short because it moves fast, and the two-hour nine minute felt like 90 minutes. There are a bunch of great secondary characters that should have had a few more minutes focused on them, but the movie is so entertaining, you kind of don't seem to notice until after the film ends. 

    David Corenswet was an incredible Superman, Rachel Brosnahan was perfect as Lois Lane, and their romantic chemistry is off the charts. Nathan Fillion's Guy Gardner Green Lantern character was hysterical. The other awesome characters in the film like Mr. Terrific and Hawkgirl was also great. Nicholas Hoult was so perfect for Lex Luthor and is a perfect supervillain that you love to hate. Even Jimmy Olsen's character in the film has a very fun and interesting side plot. Lex also has a couple of "Metahuman" villains that take their orders from Lex. The cast was just great. Even the CGI Krypto, Superman's dog has a lot of great laugh out loud moments.

    There are a couple things I didn't care for. I already mentioned that some of the awesome secondary characters deserved more time. I'm sure the film was longer that the theatrical cut we get, and I would love to see it someday, but for now, I am good with this one. I heard someone complaining about the special effects in a certain part of the film. Without spoiling anything and also telling you what it entailed had to deal with a river. That's all I will say. I can understand those critiques, which is fair because that is what I am giving you right now. For my personal opinion, I thought those comments were a little harsher than they needed to be. 

The other thing I love is there are some moments that are so funny. The funny doesn't take away from the action and drama, but it's in there, and most of it is great. There is a great scene where Superman and Lois Lane are having this really beautiful moment, and in the background is a window, and you see that Guy Gardner Green Lantern is fighting a big monster, and it's so funny, but it doesn't take away from the drama of the scene at the same time. 

(I'm just going to jump in here really quick and say, if you don't know much about Green Lantern, in the comics, Earth has four humans that are Green Lanterns, which are like intergalactic police, and you have to be a person who faces fear, but doesn't get scared of fear, and the one Green Lantern we get in this movie is the Guy Gardner Green Lantern, and he's a total jerk. You don't have to be nice to be a Green Lantern. Also, the new DCU is already filming a show called Lanterns that will introduce you to what the Green Lantern Corps is, and hopefully way better than the Green Lantern movie from 2011 with Ryan Reynolds).

    I thought that I might have to show my kids and wife a couple of character videos on YouTube so that they would know and understand the movie better, but the movie does a great job at setting things up for itself. In the very beginning of the film, it gives you information that set things up. For example, we learn that there are "Metahumans" or people with superpowers have been on Earth for 300 years before this movie's starting point. You don't get an origin story from anyone, which we already have seen three iterations of Superman's birth and spaceship ride to Earth. If you feel like you want to know more about the characters, a simple google search will help, but it's not needed. I do need to mention the language a little bit. There were quite a few "S" words, and no, I don't mean Superman. It's not too much, and I think kids eight and up will be okay. 

    All in all, I really liked this movie so much. It's not exactly perfect. Not everything in the plot is perfect and some of the jokes don't land, although most of these things do, and they do it enough to make this film a great time at the movies. It feels like not just a reboot of the old DCEU, but it felt a lot different than Marvel films, almost like it was planned to be more like a comic book instead of a movie based on a comic book. If you like superhero movies, you will really like this one, but it does depend on how much you liked Man of Steel. I still really like Man of Steel, I don't have to pick and choose which one I like better, but this new Superman film felt very comic book accurate. Not everyone will like this film, but this is what it made me feel like this.....

Superman is rated PG:13 for language and comic book action violence.