What movie did you last see?

[Dancefortwo]

That movie is my birthday present to myself. Seeing it tomorrow.

My husband's birthday is tomorrow too.  

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm talking about the Peter Jackson restoration movie, "They Shall Not Grow Old". The film is restored and colorized and they had lip readers provide the dialog. It's spooky.

[Dancefortwo]

I'm talking about the Peter Jackson restoration movie, "They Shall Not Grow Old". The film is restored and colorized and they had lip readers provide the dialog. It's spooky.

I just googled it.  Wow, it looks interesting.  Thanks for the info.  I've been watching documentaries and Time Team stuff on WW I so I'm a bit worn out by it all, but maybe in a few months I'll be in the mood to watch  "They Shall Not Grow Old".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Keep tissues handy.

[Kim]

I'm talking about the Peter Jackson restoration movie, "They Shall Not Grow Old". The film is restored and colorized and they had lip readers provide the dialog. It's spooky.

Yes - I saw this!
When it first came out, there was a special showing at one theater for only two days. It was pretty incredible and yea, spooky. I'm glad he did it - it could help young people to visually better relate to that time & those events.

[Kim]

Keep tissues handy.

Same to you with Skywalker.
When I saw it- young & old - not a dry eye in the theater.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm talking about the Peter Jackson restoration movie, "They Shall Not Grow Old". The film is restored and colorized and they had lip readers provide the dialog. It's spooky.

Yes - I saw this!
When it first came out, there was a special showing at one theater for only two days.  It was pretty incredible and yea, spooky.  I'm glad he did it - it could help young people to visually better relate to that time & those events.  

Reminded me of an old saying "Different places. Different faces. No different spirits."

[Mark]

Just saw The Two Popes. For some of us here even one pope is aggravation enough but I liked the movie. Interesting to see the old, german pope realize his intellectualism had been escapism and that he was not really fit to be pope. The south american one made for an interesting contrast. Also interesting to watch how they managed to work through their differences. Most annoying part for me was the speed with which the subtitles flew by. Watching it on a little laptop didn't help anything.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

1917 Amazing.

[grympy]

I'm talking about the Peter Jackson restoration movie, "They Shall Not Grow Old". The film is restored and colorized and they had lip readers provide the dialog. It's spooky.

Yes - I saw this!
When it first came out, there was a special showing at one theater for only two days.  It was pretty incredible and yea, spooky.  I'm glad he did it - it could help young people to visually better relate to that time & those events.  

Reminded me of an old saying "Different places. Different faces. No different spirits."

Oh.Had never heard of it. Will look around.  Seems we both made an assumption  

[grympy]

Yes - I saw this!
When it first came out, there was a special showing at one theater for only two days.  It was pretty incredible and yea, spooky.  I'm glad he did it - it could help young people to visually better relate to that time & those events.  

Reminded me of an old saying "Different places. Different faces. No different spirits."

Oh.Had never heard of it. Will look around.  Seems we both made an assumption  

 FOUND it ,and have been watching. The colourisation and soundtrack certainly  make a difference.
You might like the doco linked below:

[Aractus]

Joker (2019)

I just re-watched this film. It's a great movie a solid 4 or 4.5 out of 5. It requires re-watching to properly understand the narrative because,

Show ContentSpoiler:

Most of the movie is Arthur's imagination/fantasies. The first solid clue to this is the therapy session immediately after the opening scene - this scene takes place after Arthur has been hospitalised, but this doesn't happen until the end of the movie. At the end of the movie this is made explicit - the hospital Arthur is shown in at the end of the movie is the same as the one in the earlier flash-back scene. Midway through the movie in the scene where Arthur goes to get his mother's record, the hospital is shown to be Arkham State Hospital - an asylum in the Batman universe for the criminally insane. So everything that happens between the opening scene and the closing scene is Arthur's fantasy.

The second clear clue to this by the way happens a couple of minutes later when Arthur is at home with his mum and they watch Live With Murray Franklin show together. The scene cuts directly to Arthur imagining himself in the live audience. This has to be his imagination because he starts laughing when Murray talks about the Super Rats story, but this story was on the news just minutes earlier so this has to be the show he's watching with his mum at home, and as this is a live show he can't be in the audience. The scene also plays out in a highly fantastical way - the result of fantasy not reality, before cutting back to Arthur at home still watching the same show.

The scene where he kills the jocks is a clear re-imagining of the scene where he was attacked at the start of the film, but this time he fights back with a gun. This fantasy leads to his fantasy romance with his neighbour. As he imagines a successful relationship with her, he imagines a successful stand-up comedy routine as well (later shown on Murray Franklin to be his imagination).

Another clue is the imagined "clown movement". The city's criminals are called "clowns" early on in the movie by Thomas Wayne - Arthur has taken this abstract idea and imagined it as reality. All of the clown masks, and most of the clown protester's make-up, very clearly resemble Arthur's clown make-up (rather than say red hair and blue eyebrows as one of his colleagues has early in the film).

As the film draws to its conclusion we're left with a perplexing narrative told through fantasy, about two murders that Arthur is infatuated by - Thomas and Martha Wayne. It is not clear whether Arthur is responsible for this murder, or for one of the previous murders. The most likely murder in the film aside from the Waynes for Arthur to be responsible for is that of his colleague Randall, as Gary's response is clearly not one of fantasy. Also he can't have escaped the police following that event (if it's real), because he's been committed to Arkham State Hospital. Either option is out of character for Arthur, so the option of the Waynes as an accidental shooting (indeed foreshadowed by when he accidentally sets off the gun in his apartment) seems the more likely.

[Aractus]

Terminator: Dark Fate

Every bit as terrible as I expected.

Rating: 1.5/5

I'm not a fan of James Cameron personally. His movies, yes, him NO. He has got to be the most arrogant egocentric asshole in Hollywood. Treats his actors like shit, treats his fans like shit, he no doubt treated director Tim Miller like shit as well. He lies. As soon as I learned of his involvement in this film I knew I had to skip it in the cinema. I've been, correctly, criticising this movie for months - from before it was even in cinemas, to now after finally viewing it.

Cameron was making all the same mistakes that Terminator 3, Salvation, and Genisys made, as well as brand new ones and he was in denial. Deep, deep denial. Heck he even made the same mistakes he made in T2. I'll just give you one from T2 to illustrate, in the original Terminator we never see the endoskeleton (the machine underneath) until the third act of the film when the skin is burned off the Terminator. The big reveal is done incredibly well, and from this point on the Terminator has lost some of his power - for example he can no longer run. This makes sense, he's a cyborg, the skin isn't just a disguise it also helps him function at full capacity. If you show the machine inside early on it becomes much less menacing, less threatening. Cameron can't see past his own ego. Let's talk about his lies for a minute. He told fans(/2nd edit) that Genisys had his tick of approval - saying he regards it as "the third film" - showing zero genuine regard for his own fans of his films! He later claimed he didn't: “I think it’s fairly widely known that I don’t have a lot of respect for the films that were made later. I was supportive at the time in each case for Arnold’s sake because he is a close friend. He has been a mate of mine since 33 years ago so I was always supportive and never too negative. But they didn’t work for me for various reasons.”.

Just look at his arrogant lies regarding Titanic 1997 - two lies in fact, firstly he claims he made the movie for "free" (he didn't), and secondly he insists that he was intending to make a historically-accurate movie. He actually made around USD 115-150 million for Titanic - does that sound like he made the movie for "free"? He pushed the movie way over-budget and delivered it 6 months late, to get Paramount off his case about it (this is Paramount I might add - known for being "hands-off" in production) he said they could keep his directorial salary, or as he puts it "I told them I'll make the movie for free, don't fuck with my movie". He's told this lie so many times, one time here he said "I will not make money off this film". Except that is a lie. He was paid 1.5 million for the screenplay, unlike his directorial salary that was paid in advance and there is no evidence that he ever offered to give it back. So worst case, if the USD $200 million movie bombed he still would have made 1.5 million. When it became clear the movie was successful Paramount executives offered him a percentage of royalties (they are on record saying this), to which he made USD $115-150 million (as reported by Forbes). The reason I don't know the exact figure is that there are conflicting reports from Forbes themselves over what it was, and the number doesn't make sense (for a 2hr movie Paramount would have made 60% of the US box office sales and 20th Fox would have made up to 40% of International box office sales, 10% of that is significantly less than 115 million, plus this was a 3hr and 14 minute movie, it needed 1½ x the time allocation so the studios may have made less than those percentages to compensate movie houses).

I don't blame Time Miller for this clusterfuck, though the woke moment is indeed what made me decide absolutely not to see the film. We'll get to that statement shortly.

Alright so I'm going to go through the whole movie now and put the spoilers in spoiler tags. The pre-credits scene I'm not putting in spoilers because it's the first thing in the movie. I will though explain the systemic problems in the series.

So one major problem is jumping the shark. Returning Arnie time, and time again to play the "good Terminator" was a mistake first made in T3, and repeated in Genisys & Dark Fate. Using the same story is stale, predictable, and repetitive - and you usually only get away with it with the first sequel. After that you really are just jumping the shark and it becomes pointless. There are lots of examples of this - Back to the Future, Home Alone, Ghostbusters, Independence Day, Austin Powers, Men In Black, Hostel, Die Hard, Crocodile Dundee, The Nutty Professor, Honey I Shrunk the Kids, Speed, Fortress. Those are just examples where the first sequel is the same story re-made. Sometimes the third entry diverges radically and that can be hit or miss, but if the third is the same story yet again usually it doesn't play well to audiences. That's why there was never a Ghostbusters 3 for example. Another issue is the sequels haven't put in the work to both make the machines a proper menacing villain, like revealing what's inside too early or not allowing them to build a menacing presence. Arnold in Terminator 1 was scary as hell. Re-using ideas that have already run their course, using the exact same formula time and time again, and fucking with the originals.

The pre-credits scene first shows a flashback of Sarah, then T-800 endoskeletons walking out of a beach onto sand and one kills a child, then a flashback to 1998 when a Terminator comes and kills John in Guatemala in front of Sarah. Every part is a mistake and done badly. The endoskeletons are from a future that's irrelevant to the film because the threat now is Legion not Skynet. In Dark Fate there is no Skynet in the future. Secondly the scene with John - this of course was Cameron's bright idea to kill him off at the start of the film. You know the same Jim Cameron who complained for decades that Alien 3 killed off Newt and Hicks and said this:

(About Alien 3 in 2016): “I thought it was dumb [that Hicks and Newt were killed off]. I thought it was a huge slap in the face to the fans. I mean look, [David] Fincher's a friend of mine, and David is an amazing, amazing filmmaker, unquestionably. That was kind of his first big gig, and he was getting vectored around by the studio, and he dropped into the production late and they had a horrible script and they were rewriting it on the fly, and it was just a mess. I think it was a big mistake. So I certainly --- had [producer Gale Anne Hurd and I] been involved, we would not have done that because we felt we earned something with the audience with those characters.”

(About Dark Fate in 2019): “Oh, that was my idea!” “That was my idea.” “People will always go, ‘Oh, it’s predictable. Oh, it’s a retread. Oh, we’ve seen it all before,’” “You’ve not! Because there are five movies based on the idea of John Connor so far. There are five movies based on the idea of this guy, and the mythology of this guy — and we shwack him in the first minute of the movie. So don’t tell me it’s a frickin’ retread!”

Yes he really is that fucking arrogant and stupid. Those comments were made a mere three years apart. Plus it's not even original in the Terminator franchise itself - he's killed off in exactly the same way in Terminator 3 (the only difference is when/how old he is when he's killed and that it's off-screen), he's killed off in almost the same way in Genisys. Plus he thinks people weren't going to expect it - but this leaked online months before the film was even released! Anyway, the Terminator doesn't behave right - he drops his gun and walks away, why doesn't he kill Sarah and everyone else in the scene like a real Terminator?

We flash-forward to Mexico City in 2020 and Grace is introduced. This is the one and only time Grace actually appears feminine in my opinion, which shows precisely why Tim Miller's woke statement was amazingly stupid. He might want to be pegged by a skinny dominatrix, but that isn't my idea of feminine. Much as I expected though, Mackenzie Davis puts in a fantastic performance in this movie (well, given what she has to work with), she's by far the best actor in the film. But the scene where she mineralises into the present isn't very good.

Show ContentSpoiler:

It looks terrible when she falls 20m flat on her chest. Compare that with Reece's materialisation in T1. The fight isn't done very well. The lighting and the camera angles are terrible, pretty much just designed to avoid any frontal full-body nudity, typical American film trope. And even though she's beaten up two cops and could steal their clothes and one of their cop cars, she instead steals the clothes of the man who helped her and his car. Makes absolutely no sense.

Grace as a character doesn't work for me. I never sympathise with her, she's a fucking bitch to everyone (except Dani who she needs to protect). Like seriously, Sarah literally saves her life the first time they meet, and she doesn't want Sarah's help and she's a bitch to her. Speaking of Dani her character is terrible as well - utterly useless. They try to put her through the same story arc as John in T2, but it just doesn't work. In T2 John starts making important decisions early on, for example he instructs the Terminator that he can't kill, that he's not a Terminator any more. Dani does basically nothing all movie that's actually important to driving the plot - she can't even drive a car. She's just a very very weak character.

The threat in Dark Fate is the Rev-9, a Terminator built by Legion (not Skynet) in the future. The design of the Rev-9 is atrocious. The endoskeleton doesn't look like a machine at all, it looks like a hollow shell. Where's it's CPU? Power source? Moving parts? There's also a lack of sound effects for the machines like there is in T1 & T2. The black goo looks stupid. And we've got a major regression - one of the things T3 got right was the fact that a terminator with liquid metal skin should be able to take an armoury of weapons with it through time with no problem, the result was the T-X had on-board weapons. Well despite having the same conditions as the T-X terminator in T3, an endoskeleton with some kind of liquid metal (or in this case black goo) for skin, it brings back no weapons at all. Gabriel Luna doesn't put in a very menacing performance, and the film doesn't put in the work required to make him a credible menacing threat.

Now with all of that said the shot of his materialisation is really well done. It may just be the best materialisation of a Terminator into the present in all of the movies. Whereas Grace's materialisation looked terrible, his looked amazing.

Sarah's entrance clip looks fucking stupid. I first saw it months ago. How the fuck did she drive with a rocket launcher strapped onto her back - and more to the point why? Why would anyone try to drive a car with a rocket launcher strapped to their back? The special effects of the Rev-9 also look terrible, and I'm not a fan of slow motion in action scenes (and there's way too much of that in the film). Aside from the slow motion and the bad CGI, the action scenes for the most part are done well. No shaky-cam nonsense, they do look like action sequences that belong in a Terminator film.

In fact a LOT of the CGI looks terrible in this movie. Especially glass for example. Also the Rev-9's "Terminator vision" looks like shit as well.

Another problem is that having fucked with the originals and the timeline, much of the film makes no sense whatsoever. For example, with no Skynet and Legion in its place - they still call them "Terminators"? They still call the moment Legion gained self awareness and attacked humans "judgement day"? They still look similar, have red eyes, and developed the same technology to send themselves back in time? Like seriously - how did they develop the same time travel technology as Skynet, and why? And also, why did they think of exactly the same strategy as Skynet to win the future war (kill the leader of the resistance in the past)? Dani taught them "there is no fate but what we make for ourselves", the same thing John taught in his timeline with Skynet. Also, why did the make the same mistake that allowed the humans not only to capture their time-travel device but also use it? How is Sarah "hunting Terminators?" I mean yes we know how, but we don't know why all these Terminators keep getting sent back in time only for her to run around and destroy - what are their missions? It just seems like Legion + Dani are a drop-in replacement for Skynet + John Connor with absolutely no meaningful point of difference.

The Future War scenes with Legion actually look great, although they look more like they belong in Starship Troopers rather than Terminator. I really loved the way the Rev-9's have long spiky tentacles in those scenes (made out of their black goo), but, this begs the question why doesn't the one in the present that's on a mission to kill Dani do this? The Rev-9's in the flash-backs sadly looked way better than the one in the present that they're fighting.

Grace's scars are distracting - I'm not sure why they were needed, we didn't need a constant visual clue that she's been cut open and "enhanced".

Linda Hamilton's character is OK, I mean let's face it she isn't in her prime, her performance isn't great - it won't stand alongside T1 & 2 but it's acceptable.

They go and find "Carl", the Terminator that killed John in 1998. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 1. they don't know what they're going to find before they get there. 2. they have to put themselves into danger to get there - there's no way that Grace would do that, it would be like Kyle taking Sarah to meet his parents in T1 to see if they have any advice for him. 3. the way that she gets the "coordinates" to Carl also makes no sense.

Show ContentSpoiler:

You can't get GPS for a sender's phone from a text message in your phone. Hell the sender may not even have GPS in their phone at all. Also, Grace has the coordinates tattooed on her, but there's no way for the future people to know about Carl or his location, and even if they did why would they give her the coordinates to a Skynet Terminator they know nothing about that hasn't been reprogrammed and tell her "go there for help if the mission goes awry"?!? Also the mission hasn't gone awry.

Nothing about Carl makes any sense, he goes off on a suicide mission - but he has no way of knowing when the next machine will be sent back in time, isn't that a bigger threat?

They've made the Rev-9 all but indestructible. Again, jumping the shark. It doesn't look indestructible, it doesn't look like it should survive something like taking a rocket launcher to the chest.

There are several times in the film the Rev-9 should have easily killed Dani and completed his mission.

Show ContentSpoiler:

One time he shoots a missile at her from a US drone, Dani saves her narrowly. Shooting a second missile would have almost certainly hit its target - does he shoot another missile? No.

Another time when they're underwater he essentially helps them escape!

Also, when he has the chance to kill Carl underwater he doesn't. Carl is holding onto the Rev-9's arm and won't let go, so the Rev-9 just cuts off Carl's arm instead of killing Carl and removing that threat. He had the full opportunity to do that!

OK now "Carl". Everything about the character is terrible. He's aged, and grown a beard. Since when can Terminators grow facial hair - and why would they be able to in the first place? That's just more unnecessary maintenance work they'd need to perform. Note Arnie's naked scenes in T1 and T2: no body hair. Either he's a professional bodybuilder who's shaved all his body hair so he looks tight, or he's a machine that doesn't have body hair in the first place.

Show ContentSpoiler:

He has a job (his own business in fact), a wife, a child, and remorse. Oh my fucking god talk about betraying the Terminator mythology. Terrible robo-humour as well.

They work out they need to get an EMP to kill the Rev-9. Again making the Rev-9 so indestructible looses its meaning anyway. They get an EMP, and then something happens and they no longer have an EMP. Now they have all the resources they need to just make their own EMP if they want to - hell they could have told Carl to build one and then rendezvous somewhere the next day, nope instead of a sensible plan like that they plan to keep on fighting the Rev-9 without the resources they need.

In one scene the Rev-9's liquid goo completely burns - but it's back again the next time we see the Rev-9. This means the goo is also indestructible, as far as we know. But at one point towards the end of the movie the goo disappears without any explanation for its destruction.

Finally, because they don't have an EMP they think of another way to kill the Rev-9:

Show ContentSpoiler:

Use Grace's power cell. This is exactly how they kill the T-X in T3, completely unimaginative, and in both cases it's ultimately the good Terminator that does it. There's no explanation as to why they had to use her power cell, killing her in the process, instead of Carl's power cell - Grace doesn't even explore what kind of power cell Carl might have.

And before this happens by the way, the Rev-9 has its hand on grace's throat and is choking her. Are you fucking kidding me? Why didn't he just squeeze and rip out her throat? He should have easily been able to rip out her throat in a split second, not be so weak the only pressure he can exert is to "choke"!

The effect showing Carl's skin burn straight off was also terrible. Why not show how skin would actually burn?

Sarah and Carl go through exactly the same arc as Sarah and "Uncle Bob".

Show ContentSpoiler:

Dani visits a playground where she sees Dani as a child. Then they leave and she says to Sarah "I won't let her die for me again". Are you fucking kidding me? Again? Humans don't die twice, she can't possibly die a second time, and she can't undo the death that's already happened. That statement is nonsensical. She should say something like "I won't let her die for nothing" or something like that.

The movie feels pretty damn pointless by the end.

[OakTree500]

Time Bandits

Plot:
Some minions of God himself steal a map which shows all the holes in the universe - They use it to travel space/time to steal stuff and become the best thieves ever. On their travels they pick up a young boy who goes with them on their adventure. Oh, God and Satan are also after them as well.

Thoughts:
This is a Terry Gilliam movie, and as expected it's bonkers - in a good way mind you. It has an all star cast as well, [Jim Broadbent, Michael Palin, John Cleese, Sean Connery, Ian Holm, Shelly Duvall, Kenny Baker and many more], and is a childhood favourite of mine. Not alot can be said other than it's bonkers and worth a watch.

[Dancefortwo]

Time Bandits

Plot:
Some minions of God himself steal a map which shows all the holes in the universe - They use it to travel space/time to steal stuff and become the best thieves ever. On their travels they pick up a young boy who goes with them on their adventure. Oh, God and Satan are also after them as well.

Thoughts:
This is a Terry Gilliam movie, and as expected it's bonkers - in a good way mind you. It has an all star cast as well, [Jim Broadbent, Michael Palin, John Cleese, Sean Connery, Ian Holm, Shelly Duvall, Kenny Baker and many more], and is a childhood favourite of mine. Not alot can be said other than it's bonkers and worth a watch.

That was the first Monty Python movie I had my kids see. Well, I guess it's not truly an Monty Python movie but close enough.  We rented it from Blockbuster.  They were 7 and 9 years old and they loved it!  Still one of my favorite flms.

[OakTree500]

Time Bandits

Plot:
Some minions of God himself steal a map which shows all the holes in the universe - They use it to travel space/time to steal stuff and become the best thieves ever. On their travels they pick up a young boy who goes with them on their adventure. Oh, God and Satan are also after them as well.

Thoughts:
This is a Terry Gilliam movie, and as expected it's bonkers - in a good way mind you. It has an all star cast as well, [Jim Broadbent, Michael Palin, John Cleese, Sean Connery, Ian Holm, Shelly Duvall, Kenny Baker and many more], and is a childhood favourite of mine. Not alot can be said other than it's bonkers and worth a watch.

That was the first Monty Python movie I had my kids see. Well, I guess it's not truly an Monty Python movie but close enough.  We rented it from Blockbuster.  They were 7 and 9 years old and they loved it!  Still one of my favorite flms.

Technically it almost is, written by Gilliam & Palin, starring Cleese as well AND made my Hand Made Pictures who helped produce "The Life of Brian" [Who are/were owned in part by George Harrison of The beetles fame] so it has the spirit of Python at the very least.

My nan got me onto this movie when I was a wee one, along with Labyrinth and all that good stuff from the 80's. Something I've always remembered and was happy to share it with my 9 year old daughter this weekend just gone

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Meh, too much CGI.

[OakTree500]

IT Chapter 2

Plot:

27 years later, and 'IT' is back. The losers club reunite to take the monster down once and for all. Spooky shenanigans ensue.

Thoughts:

Overall, not as good as the first but way more "WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT" in this one. Maybe even more scary than the first, and if anything it's not a knock on the adult cast, but rather to say how good the younger cast were in the first one. Otherwise I really enjoyed it. Ended was a bit "meh" but the ending in the book is batshit insane so you can't really do that....Space Turtles and metaphysical parts of the universe and all that. But it sort of made sense in the context of the movie/it's world, plus the rest was great so not all that bad.

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

dark fate, check it out. worth the 7 dollars within 5 minutes.

[Chas]

Time Bandits

Plot:
Some minions of God himself steal a map which shows all the holes in the universe - They use it to travel space/time to steal stuff and become the best thieves ever. On their travels they pick up a young boy who goes with them on their adventure. Oh, God and Satan are also after them as well.

Thoughts:
This is a Terry Gilliam movie, and as expected it's bonkers - in a good way mind you. It has an all star cast as well, [Jim Broadbent, Michael Palin, John Cleese, Sean Connery, Ian Holm, Shelly Duvall, Kenny Baker and many more], and is a childhood favourite of mine. Not alot can be said other than it's bonkers and worth a watch.

My favorite exchange from it:

Kevin:
Yes, why do we have to have evil?
Supreme Being:
Ah... I think it's something to do with free will.

[Phaedrus]

Finally watching Midsommar

A couple travels to Sweden to visit a rural hometown's fabled mid-summer festival. What begins as an idyllic retreat quickly devolves into an increasingly violent and bizarre competition at the hands of a pagan cult.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Not the bees!!!

[Dānu]

Mortal Engines

Hundreds of years after civilization was destroyed by a cataclysmic event, a mysterious young woman, Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), emerges as the only one who can stop London -- now a giant, predator city on wheels -- from devouring everything in its path.

[Chas]

Spider-Man (2002)

[Dānu]

Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)