This action drama is the definition of a solid watch. It has an interesting story and executes its action sequences…
Where I agree with you about the action, plot and lead actress, I found her friend to be a bit irritating, and I saw nothing special in their engagements.
About half way through this, I thought: Ah... clever. Unfortunately, that moment is all this film really has, and it spends the entire final act reiterating it, so that the audience, the people behind this seem to believe are fucking stupid(!), get how ingenious they are. With flat villains and a ridiculously OP MC, this one - I felt - could never rise above "good", at best, and "middle-of-the-road, at worst. All cast are very competent, the production values are top drawer, but this is a one trick pony and, ultimately, a disappointment, given all the buzz this had when it first came out.
> who hides in the back of a neighbour's van because of some scraping furnitureHaven't seen this movie, but…
Dude, people tell me that I have, "Daredevil hearing!" Luckily, my neighbours seldom play music (albeit, it is annoying in the summer pretty much everywhere!), but their TV during ice hockey can be utter bullshit! The other side are night-owls, so I hear the woman laughing late on (I shan't endeavour to guess why, but she has about 3 different laughs, which I've deduced have different prompts).
The problem with this film wasn't so much that the neighbours were making noise, but that the MC was terrified! Well, it's on Viki (Europe), if you want to check it out.
I don't think it's intended that way. It is problematic for the system to figure out if the previous work is an…
Actually, you're kind of wrong:
When a PREQUEL is mislabelled in the sense that it's the original work, people might want to see the supposed prequel first, which could definitely spoil the ACTUAL ORIGINAL (sorry for the cap, btw, but I don't know how to use italics).
The system, itself, should know what work is a prequel simply by the DATES.
Star Wars 4, 1977: THE VERY FIRST FILM SW 5, 1980: SEQUEL to the original film SW 6, 1983: 2nd sequel
SW 1, 1999: a BONA FIDE PREQUEL - this film begins to explain how the main villain of the original 3 SW films came to be. SW 2, 2002: continuation of the Darth Vader story, thus still a prequel to the original trilogy, but a SEQUEL to the 1999 film. SW 3, 2005: final episode of the prequel trilogy. They were all shit, btw.
SW 7, 8, 9 (2015, 2017, 2019): SEQUELS in every sense of the word to both of the previous entries of triplets. Also total dog turd, but that's neither here nor there.
Before anyone asks: NO, I can't stand stand bloody Star Wars, but it does serve as pretty much the perfect example of how DATES, and correctly labelling titles as PREQUELS is important to people wanting to consume content.
Edited to add: Sometimes people who aren't so interested in putting tens or hundreds of hours into an on-going, developed world (often TV series) but want to sate curiosity and/or say to their mates, "Yes, I actually tried it," will opt for prequel or SPIN-OFF, if they are easily accessible and rated highest by whoever made the recommendation to see it. Yes, spin-offs and prequels can ruin the main and/or original story, but, again, the correct labelling is important so that the viewer knows he'll be diving in to a relatively fresh new story/world, and not just randomly watching, say, S6E1, which directly follows on from the previous 5 series.
Lol! I was going to watch this but I didn't know if it was gay.I'm not into "BL" but, even though the straight…
Lol. I get notifications that someone's replied and I click on the said notifications. Usually they're for the forums, but sometimes they're for arse-clowns who object over people having different tastes/opinions and want to start needless drama.
Lol! I was going to watch this but I didn't know if it was gay.I'm not into "BL" but, even though the straight…
You should look up the meaning of *bigot*, you might just find that it originally meant, *hypocrite*... and the way it's used, implies that it still does. So people who have different beliefs/values to you are *bigots*? Yep, hypocrisy, right there.
2 
I think that one little stupid, pointless scene probably threw off a lot of people.
I'm aware of the sequel, but was there a spin-off?
EDIT: Never mind - I scrolled back up and the link to the series is there.
Unfortunately, that moment is all this film really has, and it spends the entire final act reiterating it, so that the audience, the people behind this seem to believe are fucking stupid(!), get how ingenious they are.
With flat villains and a ridiculously OP MC, this one - I felt - could never rise above "good", at best, and "middle-of-the-road, at worst.
All cast are very competent, the production values are top drawer, but this is a one trick pony and, ultimately, a disappointment, given all the buzz this had when it first came out.
It wasn't coming up when I entered the fill title, but showed up when I keyed in just, Ninja.
Seriously: more people need to know about that site.
Luckily, my neighbours seldom play music (albeit, it is annoying in the summer pretty much everywhere!), but their TV during ice hockey can be utter bullshit!
The other side are night-owls, so I hear the woman laughing late on (I shan't endeavour to guess why, but she has about 3 different laughs, which I've deduced have different prompts).
The problem with this film wasn't so much that the neighbours were making noise, but that the MC was terrified!
Well, it's on Viki (Europe), if you want to check it out.
Why permit opinions if they're going to be censored?
When a PREQUEL is mislabelled in the sense that it's the original work, people might want to see the supposed prequel first, which could definitely spoil the ACTUAL ORIGINAL (sorry for the cap, btw, but I don't know how to use italics).
The system, itself, should know what work is a prequel simply by the DATES.
Star Wars 4, 1977: THE VERY FIRST FILM
SW 5, 1980: SEQUEL to the original film
SW 6, 1983: 2nd sequel
SW 1, 1999: a BONA FIDE PREQUEL - this film begins to explain how the main villain of the original 3 SW films came to be.
SW 2, 2002: continuation of the Darth Vader story, thus still a prequel to the original trilogy, but a SEQUEL to the 1999 film.
SW 3, 2005: final episode of the prequel trilogy. They were all shit, btw.
SW 7, 8, 9 (2015, 2017, 2019): SEQUELS in every sense of the word to both of the previous entries of triplets. Also total dog turd, but that's neither here nor there.
Before anyone asks: NO, I can't stand stand bloody Star Wars, but it does serve as pretty much the perfect example of how DATES, and correctly labelling titles as PREQUELS is important to people wanting to consume content.
Edited to add:
Sometimes people who aren't so interested in putting tens or hundreds of hours into an on-going, developed world (often TV series) but want to sate curiosity and/or say to their mates, "Yes, I actually tried it," will opt for prequel or SPIN-OFF, if they are easily accessible and rated highest by whoever made the recommendation to see it.
Yes, spin-offs and prequels can ruin the main and/or original story, but, again, the correct labelling is important so that the viewer knows he'll be diving in to a relatively fresh new story/world, and not just randomly watching, say, S6E1, which directly follows on from the previous 5 series.
Typical gay bullshit.
So people who have different beliefs/values to you are *bigots*?
Yep, hypocrisy, right there.