Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

[Casual Shinji]

Although of course it also represents the fact that the Peter Jackson movies present elves as awesome, dashing and heroic, and the dwarves vary between dull and comic relief - the latter because getting laughed at is what short people are for, amirite?

That scene in the Extended Edition of Return of the King when they take the Paths of the Dead is so fucking cringe. I don't like in general what they did to Gimli in the movies, but that scene was fucking awful. In the book this is supposed to be Gimli's ultimate test of courage and loyalty, which he later laments with true sincerity he was this close to abandoning along of his friends, a shame that will likely stay with for the rest of his life. But in the Extended Edition it's treated as just a joke, 'hah ha, he's blowing at ghost hands and tiptoeing on icky bones.'

 

[Baffle]

Way to waste the fucking shieldwall, knobheads. Firstly, you've now got a load of Dwarves basically wasted doing nothing, secondly if the fight goes badly for the elves, they'll be pushed back against their own troops and either die or the disrupt the shieldwall so they can retreat through.

Backflips.

 

[Bartholen]

Although frankly, as far as an utterly shit on-screen battle strategy goes, I'm not sure anything beats the Battle of Winterfell from GoT, where they managed to do literally everything wrong.

Painfully correct. For all of Two Towers' emphasis on cinematic spectacle over logic and strategy, at least the troops in Helm's Deep were stationed on and inside the walls, not right outside them. The fact that you forced me to remember that made me have an aneurysm.

 

[Ag3ma]

But in the Extended Edition it's treated as just a joke, 'hah ha, he's blowing at ghost hands and tiptoeing on icky bones.'

I think probably the worst I recall is when he tells Aragon that Aragorn needs to throw him to get over a gap: this completely strips Gimli of his dignity (not least because it has echoes of the deeply controversial practice of dwarf tossing.)

 

[Piscian]

Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3 8/10

Finally got out to see this today. It was...fine. Good really, but not...great. It suffers from what I need to call "New Trilogy Curse". I think Trilogy Curse originally came down to having two decently successful movies and then studios struggling to find a compelling story or reason to drag everyone back for a third. I don't think that's as hard as it used to be now that we have these sustainable franchises. It's now about how do we finish these actors story so they can finish their contracts with a good finale resume, while we make loads of money, and set things up for further stories.

As you may already imagine this means every character has to have an arc, meaningful screen time, and a heartfelt send off. At this point in GOTG though there's like 10 main characters and then they gotta introduce new ones for the next films.

Since it's a good story, good actors, what guardians vol 3 probably suffers from the greatest is pacing. There's a lot of time spent flashing back to Rockets story because they also need to spend a great deal of time on everyone else. You only get a few moments of heartfelt stuff with Rocket before you gotta flip to Drax and Mantis being chased, but also quil doing a thing, Gamora fighting somebody, and you gotta build up this villain whos also doing a thing. I don't know if I'd call it exhausting, but it does pull you in so many directions that its not giving you a lot of time to care about any one thing. Rockets story is the center of the film, but it doesn't always feel like the focus.

My only other complaint is that the music just didn't hit it this time. It all felt very forced like Captain Marvel. Like "We gotta do the music now!" and I never once really felt like "oh this is the perfect ambiance for this scene." Might just be me on that one, but the music nearly alwasy felt "off". Also, for a movie that directly references Adrian Belew and King crimson, why wasn't there a single song from them? That's a minor spoiler because you won't know what I'm talking about until it doesn't matter.

Complaints aside it was a lot of fun, Rockets story is really well told and thoroughly convinced me that James Gunn should be the one to adapt "WE3" which you should go read if you haven't already.



I will say you need to go into this being prepared for the cutest animals you will ever witness on screen. I would never call Cosmo a bad dog. EVER.

 

[Hawki]

So I renewed Disney+ because I still needed to finish Little Mermaid season 3 (which I've done so...ugh) and do "proper watches" of the three films. Which, incidentally, means I've got to get my month's worth of watching stuff on the side as well. So not going to do "proper reviews" for this post, but basically:

Ice Age: The Great Egg-Scapade (5/10)


Sleeping Beauty (6/10)

The short version is that this feels like a slightly more refined version of Snow White and Cinderella - same basics, give the characters a "bit" more substance, and, um, yeah. Aurora's a drag, Phillip at least gets to do something, and Maleficent...sorry, no idea why she's so popular - she's an evil person who does evil things for evil reasons, the end. And like Cinderella's mice, too much time is wasted on the fairies doing 'comedy.'

Ice Age: A Mammoth Christmas (6/10)

Hey, remember in the first Ice Age how a key plot point was that humans and animals can't talk to each other? Remember how this series started off taking itself somewhat seriously? Well, too bad - now we get to go to the North Pole and meet Santa (yes, Santa) with talking and flying reindeer, and discovering the spirit of Christmas over 10,000 years before Christ was supposedly born. Yeah...remember that?!

Still, this gets a 6 rather than a 5 because by itself, it's inoffensive and there's some decent jokes, so yay.

The Little Mermaid (7/10)

So now that I've given this film a "proper watch," it's actually gone up in my estimation, which is the last thing I expected. That being said, I think part of the reason is because of the animation. Being able to give it my full attention allowed me to fully appreciate the visuals. And while that probably wouldn't be enough to raise the score too much, whatever the reason, Ariel's life decisions didn't irritate me this time round, so yay.

Anyway, DAC rating is below:

Spoiler

36) The Black Cauldron

35) Dinosaur

34) Cinderella

33) Dumbo

32) Robin Hood

31) The Rescuers

30) Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

29) Oliver & Company

28) The Sword in the Stone

27) Peter Pan

26) Sleeping Beauty

25) Pocahontas

24) Bambi

23) Basil, the Great Mouse Detective

22) The Aristocats

21) Frozen II

20) Bolt

19) Wreck-it Ralph: Ralph Breaks the Internet

18) Tarzan

17) Fantasia 2000

16) 101 Dalmations

15) The Jungle Book

14) Alice in Wonderland

13) The Little Mermaid

12) The Emperor’s New Groove

11) Hercules

10) The Hunchback of Notre Dame

9) Fantasia

8) Moana

7) Big Hero 6

6) Beauty and the Beast

5) Treasure Planet

4) Frozen

3) Aladdin

2) The Lion King

1) Zootopia

 

[thebobmaster]

A ★★★★½ review of The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

This review may contain spoilers. Visit the page to bypass this warning and read the review.

letterboxd.com

 

[Bartholen]

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? 9/10

Having never seen this before, I now understand this movie's legendary reputation. This is lightning in a bottle in multiple ways, and nothing like it will, or can, ever be seen again. Just on a purely technical level this movie is an absolute marvel. Not only is the animation incredible, but it's paired absolutely seamlessly with live action, and the amount of effort and coordination in almost every such shot just makes my head spin. It's extremely charming, being a love letter to both classic cartoons and film noir, and the casting is pretty much perfect. Bob Hoskins is a perfect foil as the hardedged straight man, but when it's time to get goofy he passes with flying colors. The movie's also pretty raunchy and even edgy by today's standards for a PG film. I don't know if we'll ever see another family film where the main character is a traumatized alcoholic, where cold-blooded murder is committed on camera in full view, or where a character as unbridledly sexual as Jessica Rabbit exists. It's wild. The amount of awakenings this movie must have spurred has to be in the tens of millions.

It is ultimately rather insubstantial. There's not a whole lot of complex character arcs or thematic exploration to be found. What there is is very basic "grump lets go of their prejudice" type stuff. The film is basically all spectacle, but holy shit what spectacle it is. And I will say, they truly made the main villain monstrous. No, not because he literally melts people alive on screen, but because he bought out a public transit company to shut it down, and reroute the traffic to a freeway instead! Now that is what I call villainy.

 

[Piscian]

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? 9/10

Having never seen this before, I now understand this movie's legendary reputation. This is lightning in a bottle in multiple ways, and nothing like it will, or can, ever be seen again. Just on a purely technical level this movie is an absolute marvel. Not only is the animation incredible, but it's paired absolutely seamlessly with live action, and the amount of effort and coordination in almost every such shot just makes my head spin. It's extremely charming, being a love letter to both classic cartoons and film noir, and the casting is pretty much perfect. Bob Hoskins is a perfect foil as the hardedged straight man, but when it's time to get goofy he passes with flying colors. The movie's also pretty raunchy and even edgy by today's standards for a PG film. I don't know if we'll ever see another family film where the main character is a traumatized alcoholic, where cold-blooded murder is committed on camera in full view, or where a character as unbridledly sexual as Jessica Rabbit exists. It's wild. The amount of awakenings this movie must have spurred has to be in the tens of millions.

It is ultimately rather insubstantial. There's not a whole lot of complex character arcs or thematic exploration to be found. What there is is very basic "grump lets go of their prejudice" type stuff. The film is basically all spectacle, but holy shit what spectacle it is. And I will say, they truly made the main villain monstrous. No, not because he literally melts people alive on screen, but because he bought out a public transit company to shut it down, and reroute the traffic to a freeway instead! Now that is what I call villainy.

I think it's still a mystery as to how they got writes to use Disney characters, I think it's mostly WB or originals, but there's a lot of Disney scattered around in there. 100% should not be PG. That movies got drinking, murder at least some cussing, lot of cartoon sex references.

 

[Absent]

A ★★★★½ review of The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

This review may contain spoilers. Visit the page to bypass this warning and read the review.

letterboxd.com

Yeah I kinda agree with Moore. But also I'm a bit biased for sentimental reasons, this may help tip it towards the position of favorite.

And I like the fact that Blofeld wasn't there. I don't like stories that pit one hero versus the same one baddie each time, as if there was only one menace to the world, and coincidentally only one response to it, and coincidentally no way to stop this menace definitely. The idea that, without these legal issues, the Bond franchise would have been a strict Bond-versus-Blofeld franchise sends shivers down my spine.

So, lovely film. Magnificent casting. Sea, ships and submarines (always a plus). And my only gripe with it is... well, it's a nice bond-ish plot structure but the content seem to have been forgotten at points. I always like oral jousts and veiled threats between heroes and baddies that both pretend not to know what's going on, but this seems to have been the sole point to Bond's invitation to Stromberg's (totally not secret, btw?) base. He arrives, they exchange some sentences about sharks eating people who are too nosey or whatnot, he leaves and, well, is supposed to get killed. They skipped the pretense (by the way what were we supposed to discuss?), and that makes a weird, almost parodic sequence. And okay, Amasova could have been showed less systematically one-upped by Bond, but that was certainly way too much to ask for the times.

And, more forgivable, the jetski reveal is less impressive nowadays. Back then, it was a brand new gadget.

But not many other flaws. In the odd absence of John Barry, Marvin Hamlisch, the guy who arranged Scott Joplin's The Entertainer for The Sting, did a fantastic job there, and I personally adore the Bond77 theme during the ski chase (if this sounds jarring to you, maybe skip the pre-title scene of A view to a kill).

Qualities aside, probably (with You only live twice) the most iconic of Bond movies. One could say, the most stereotypical...

 

[Piscian]

Hear me out,

AVATAR 2 would have been a good movie if it were told from the Humans perspective and make the issue a lot more complex. You can still cut to Jakes family and make it clear they are the good giant blue rabbits, but throw all the shit about whaling for immortality brains, toss out all the shit about his kids learning life lessons or whatever the fuck.

You replace it with how bad things are going on Earth, Like blade runner shit, the colonists rapidly expanding on Pandora. You can still show them fucking up Pandora, but do it with purpose instead of a 40 minute sidequest catching a armored pokemon whale. They literally mention that food on Pandora is a major issue for humans, so fucking show us.

You still can firmly put the blue rabbits in the right and still make humans look selfish, but you show us something actually new instead of green otters and blue rabbits getting into tiffs about surfing.

 

[thebobmaster]

Yeah I kinda agree with Moore. But also I'm a bit biased for sentimental reasons, this may help tip it towards the position of favorite.

And I like the fact that Blofeld wasn't there. I don't like stories that pit one hero versus the same one baddie each time, as if there was only one menace to the world, and coincidentally only one response to it, and coincidentally no way to stop this menace definitely. The idea that, without these legal issues, the Bond franchise would have been a strict Bond-versus-Blofeld franchise sends shivers down my spine.

So, lovely film. Magnificent casting. Sea, ships and submarines (always a plus). And my only gripe with it is... well, it's a nice bond-ish plot structure but the content seem to have been forgotten at points. I always like oral jousts and veiled threats between heroes and baddies that both pretend not to know what's going on, but this seems to have been the sole point to Bond's invitation to Stromberg's (totally not secret, btw?) base. He arrives, they exchange some sentences about sharks eating people who are too nosey or whatnot, he leaves and, well, is supposed to get killed. They skipped the pretense (by the way what were we supposed to discuss?), and that makes a weird, almost parodic sequence. And okay, Amasova could have been showed less systematically one-upped by Bond, but that was certainly way too much to ask for the times.

And, more forgivable, the jetski reveal is less impressive nowadays. Back then, it was a brand new gadget.

But not many other flaws. In the odd absence of John Barry, Marvin Hamlisch, the guy who arranged Scott Joplin's The Entertainer for The Sting, did a fantastic job there, and I personally adore the Bond77 theme during the ski chase (if this sounds jarring to you, maybe skip the pre-title scene of A view to a kill).

Qualities aside, probably (with You only live twice) the most iconic of Bond movies. One could say, the most stereotypical...

It wasn't so much Blofeld not being there that bothered me. It was more that all they did was do Ctrl-F in the script, replace "Blofeld" with "Stromberg", and left it at that. It basically leaves Stromberg without any identity.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

When we get the grityt teen version of Silmarillion on Ice, I guess people will like Rings of Power more.

Simpson, you diabolical...

 

[Casual Shinji]

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? 9/10

Having never seen this before, I now understand this movie's legendary reputation. This is lightning in a bottle in multiple ways, and nothing like it will, or can, ever be seen again. Just on a purely technical level this movie is an absolute marvel. Not only is the animation incredible, but it's paired absolutely seamlessly with live action, and the amount of effort and coordination in almost every such shot just makes my head spin. It's extremely charming, being a love letter to both classic cartoons and film noir, and the casting is pretty much perfect. Bob Hoskins is a perfect foil as the hardedged straight man, but when it's time to get goofy he passes with flying colors. The movie's also pretty raunchy and even edgy by today's standards for a PG film. I don't know if we'll ever see another family film where the main character is a traumatized alcoholic, where cold-blooded murder is committed on camera in full view, or where a character as unbridledly sexual as Jessica Rabbit exists. It's wild. The amount of awakenings this movie must have spurred has to be in the tens of millions.

It is ultimately rather insubstantial. There's not a whole lot of complex character arcs or thematic exploration to be found. What there is is very basic "grump lets go of their prejudice" type stuff. The film is basically all spectacle, but holy shit what spectacle it is. And I will say, they truly made the main villain monstrous. No, not because he literally melts people alive on screen, but because he bought out a public transit company to shut it down, and reroute the traffic to a freeway instead! Now that is what I call villainy.

It's also the movie that spawned the industry term 'bump the lamp', which refers to making a special effect way harder to achieve than it needs to just so you can show off how hard it was to achieve. In Roger Rabbit it was the scene in the back room of the bar where Eddie hits his head on the lamp causing it to swing, making the shading on Roger kinda a nightmare for the animators. And there was no reason for them to hit that lamp, but they did it anyway.

Also, at the time Disney was pretty much at a low point with animation, so the animation director for this movie was actually a british guy who I think had no affiliation with Disney.

 

[Absent]

It wasn't so much Blofeld not being there that bothered me. It was more that all they did was do Ctrl-F in the script, replace "Blofeld" with "Stromberg", and left it at that. It basically leaves Stromberg without any identity.

Stromberg is, I'd say, underutilised and underwritten (the movie had too much with the other characters maybe), but I think they did try enough, identity-wise. For starters, I appreciate they didn't have him caress a pet trout on his legs. But also, he's more of a glance on some Drax draft than a Blofeld. If I remember well, he's not a lazily written chief of criminal organization blackmailing the world but an even more lazily written misanthrope destroying the world - and an aquatic flavored one (with slightly palmed hands). That's enough of his own thing.

With a bit more screen time and a bit more intensity, a bit more content to a bit more encounters, possibly even a bit more palm, I think he could have been more memorable. But I think the correct ingredients were there. Mostly diluted by a lack of focus. The big bad feels like an afterthought, sketched to justify the real characters (Jaws, Amasova).

-----
Edit: wait, the script had actually been written with blofeld before a last minute change? oh that's tough. that makes stromberg a missed opportunity, grown in the wrong pot.

 

[Bartholen]

Zardoz, 7/10

On the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Roger Rabbit, this is a 1974 post-apocalyptic sci-fi film famous for the line "The gun is good. The penis is evil." And if you think that sounds weird out of context, boy oh boy is this movie a goldmine of that stuff. If you've seen the Rick and Morty episode "Rising Gazorpazorp" then you know the premise: in the far future the world has devolved into a savage wasteland, but a secret society of technologically advanced immortals are running things behind the scenes. One of the outsider savages (played by Sean Connery) gets inside the secret society, and a whole bunch of 70s weirdness ensues.

This is a very weird and out there film, but if you can get past that, there's a lot here to chew on substance wise. It's incredibly 70s: lots of nudity, provocative imagery, themes centering around sexuality and gender dynamics, and half the movie feels like it was made on drugs (because it was). The dialogue just rambles around all sorts of themes: societal stagnation, utopia, sexuality, authoritarianism, just a whole bunch of stuff. It's unfocused, but touches on a lot of interesting topics. Some of it is done well, some of it with sledgehammer subtlety, but I was definitely not bored while watching it.

The acting is all over the place too: Sean Connery is supposedly some savage barbarian, but most of the time he just looks confused, and I can't really blame him. Some actors turn it into camp, some play it extremely straight, but considering how wildly incoherent this movie is overall, it somehow comes together in how it totally doesn't.

Apparently this movie is considered a campy, so bad it's good failure, but without that background beforehand I think time may have been kinder to this movie than critics upon release. It's definitely unique, it's got an interesting primitivist future aesthetic (within confines of its very meager budget), and it actually being about something certainly helps it stay interesting. The fact that it's so weird and incoherent makes it special.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Super Mario Brothers (2023)

Second movie adaptation of the Mario games, this time an animated feature by Illumination, the studio behind the Despicable Me/Minions franchise and a handful of other things I've never heard of.

If I hadn't been a fan of the Mario series I wouldn't have liked this at all. Being a fan of the Mario series I still didn't like it at all, but at least I was reminded of things I like. Jokes aside, this is just not the sort of thing I get much out of. It's a movie with hardly any greater ambition than to adapt the imagery of the Mario games into a short cartoon. Which it does. Mostly decently enough.

It presents a parade of some of the iconic characters and critters and environments and objects of Mario's storied history. The most noteworthy part being that its premise is based on the apocryphal, and nowadays probably somewhat obscure, backstory from 90's spinoff media that pictures the Mario Brothers as Italian Americans from New York, rather than Mushroom Kingdom natives with cartoony Italian accents. Other than that the plot is sort of the baseline Mario fare with the exception of Luigi ending up as the damsel in distress where Princess Peach, reimagined as a sassy tomboy, acts as adventure companion and mentor to Mario. They face off with Jack Black playing Meat Loaf playing Bowser.

I'm kind of at a loss of things to say about it. It's 90 minutes of Mario stuff. And it's not that I don't like Mario stuff, I just didn't care for most what tied it together. The jokes were mostly misses for me (aside from that suicidal Luma who had a few amusing lines) and it's one rendition of "Hallelujah" short of having the most generic needle drops of any movie I've seen. All of which just makes it fit way too neatly into the line of so-so children's action comedies that also make for a decent chunk of Dreamworks' filmography following Shrek.

Despite my love for the Mario series I'm hard pressed to name much of anything that would elevate Mario Brothers beyond fare like Shark Tale or Robots or Madagascar or what have you. Mind, I'm about twenty years past the age of the movies core demographics, the way I see it there are movies that are for kids and movies only for kids and this was closer to the latter.

I'm never one to say no to a well shot 3D animated action scene, of which the movie had a handful, some of the arrangements of Koji Kondo's iconic music were cool and most of the actors were a decent enough fit for the version of the characters they played. I didn't like Seth Rogan as Donkey Kong, but then again, I don't like Seth Rogan period.

It's a movie I could have done without, honestly. I think it's far from the best possible Mario movie and even as far as comparable fare goes, I felt that the Detective Pikachu movie or the Sonic movie have slightly more going for them in simple entertainment value beyond the novelty of seeing things from a game in a movie. Not to rain on the parade of anyone who enjoyed it, which seem to be a lot of people, but I can't count myself among them.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? 9/10

Having never seen this before, I now understand this movie's legendary reputation. This is lightning in a bottle in multiple ways, and nothing like it will, or can, ever be seen again. Just on a purely technical level this movie is an absolute marvel. Not only is the animation incredible, but it's paired absolutely seamlessly with live action, and the amount of effort and coordination in almost every such shot just makes my head spin. It's extremely charming, being a love letter to both classic cartoons and film noir, and the casting is pretty much perfect. Bob Hoskins is a perfect foil as the hardedged straight man, but when it's time to get goofy he passes with flying colors. The movie's also pretty raunchy and even edgy by today's standards for a PG film. I don't know if we'll ever see another family film where the main character is a traumatized alcoholic, where cold-blooded murder is committed on camera in full view, or where a character as unbridledly sexual as Jessica Rabbit exists. It's wild. The amount of awakenings this movie must have spurred has to be in the tens of millions.

It is ultimately rather insubstantial. There's not a whole lot of complex character arcs or thematic exploration to be found. What there is is very basic "grump lets go of their prejudice" type stuff. The film is basically all spectacle, but holy shit what spectacle it is. And I will say, they truly made the main villain monstrous. No, not because he literally melts people alive on screen, but because he bought out a public transit company to shut it down, and reroute the traffic to a freeway instead! Now that is what I call villainy.

Yeah, it works in part because so much of it isn't comedy. The same guy did the music for the Predator films, and it shows, but the same sort of music works for both.

 

[BrawlMan]

Despite my love for the Mario series I'm hard pressed to name much of anything that would elevate Mario Brothers beyond fare like Shark Tale or Robots or Madagascar or what have you

Shark Tale is a piece of shit movie about some dumb ass wanting to become famous for the sake of it or by doing nothing of importance that we're supposed to like. An unfortunate reminder in real life why such people should not be elevated nor given any attention. Something that has gotten worse in real life. It's when Dreamworks was going through their dork age and becoming thing they made fun of Disney for at the time. Madagascar got less interesting as the sequels went on, and Robots is okay. The new Mario Bros. movie is better than all of those. I will say that Puss n Boots: The Last Wish and the upcoming Spider-Verse 2 will beat it out for me.

I didn't like Seth Rogan as Donkey Kong, but then again, I don't like Seth Rogan period.

I've always been indifferent towards Seth, but I didn't mind him as Donkey Kong.

It's a movie I could have done without, honestly. I think it's far from the best possible Mario movie and even as far as comparable fare goes, I felt that the Detective Pikachu movie or the Sonic movie have slightly more going for them in simple entertainment value beyond the novelty of seeing things from a game in a movie. Not to rain on the parade of anyone who enjoyed it, which seem to be a lot of people, but I can't count myself among them.

I appreciate the love you're giving to the Sonic movies, but even though I am more of a Sonic fan than a Mario fan, I consider the Mario Bros movie better than Sonic 1 (majorly better) and Sonic 2 (slightly better). The Mario Bros. movie doesn't waste my time with a dumb wedding scene featuring human characters I don't give a shit about, aside from Sonic's adoptive parents. I am here for Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, and Eggman! I am not here for Maddie's obnoxious sister! They could've axed 25-30 minutes of the movie, and nothing would have been missed. Thank God, the last 20 minutes of the movie is straight up Sonic Heroes style action and interaction. I will say Sonic 2 does have better action than Mario Bros., yet the latter is no slouch either. As for comparison to Detective Pikachu, I will give credit to the film doing something a little more unique, but lets be honest: Ryan Reynolds was doing his Deadpool schtick. The only difference it was more PG than R-Rated. Detective Pikachu is a good movie, but is a one and done for me.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

The Mother

J-Lo stars in this action thriller of nearly the same name as the J-Law psycho thriller. Both go to extreme lengths in displaying their own unique brand of motherly love, but this is far more by-the-numbers with sloppy writing that does nothing beyond serving the predictable plot. J-Lo herself was surprisingly good in this type of role where you can actually tell it’s her and not a stunt double. I liked the setting and that they went with an R rating, but Netflix went with some budget camera work and action choreography here.

Anyways, go girl power and Happy Mother’s Day!