Pedulum Media

DreamWorks delivers an excellent live-action film, but only if taken into consideration what Disney has given us over the past decade. However, the film manages a decent takeoff but it fails to fly. The film never truly lifts off or offers a compelling argument of why we never a revision or a life action version other than seeing the adorable Toothless. The narrative lacks the heart and creative daring of its predecessor, and the emotional arc remains largely grounded.

I saw this movie when I was a kid, I am very bias and enjoy every second of it. However, it was confusing what they were trying to do. Were they trying to be more mature? where they trying to be loyal? If so, then why they lose the magic and mysticism of the original like the old lady, and yet the miss the opportunity to expand upon the franchise?

While Disney has given us trashy takes on kid's material that we all grew up with. There are great examples that we can judge things by, just what Warner Brothers gave us with Batman (Both Nolan's and Burton) and The Lord of the Rings. I did enjoy this movie and I watched the movie over fathers day, so it carry some significance. However the emotional connection between the characters was somewhat missing. There was no chemistry.

Gerald Buttler was amazing, and the young actor, Mason Thames, well He is a young actor that has a lot of potential ahead of him. The director, Dean DeBlois, of the first animated movie was the same director for this movie, which was a brilliant move. However, there might have been couple of hiccups along the way in adapting this movie possibly from the studio side. And to be fair, this was a big production and the first of its kind for DeBlois. It is still a beautiful film but I was a little disenamored with it for the inconsistency, the absence of a tone, the phase, and of all things that characters were and looked radically different to their animated selves. So yeah, I am not afraid of saying that the gender and race swapping of some characters did not help at all. If anything only hurt the movie.

Nico Parker is a good and well trained actress. However I did not enjoy her rendition of Astrid. Neither did I enjoy the actors playing Hiccups' friends.

They are brilliant actors, attractive charismatic individuals and I say this as a way of not discouraging their worth or work. The internet can be very racist and mean towards people, and one needs to remember that these are kids. However, I am sick an tired of race swapping specially when it is so inorganically and forced. It took me out of the experience, and I am trying to not take it against the actors as it was not their choice but a corporative effort to mark some boxes and demographics to show up for the movie which feels extremely deceiving. They could have created new characters, or simply respect the fact that it was a viking story - why not have a whole white ensembled or actors that look the part for once, what is wrong with that? This action did make me somewhat upset, but I guess it is what it is and they won't learn until it cost them some bucks. As for minorities, I wish they felt as offended as I did when studios to these type of nauthentic actions rather celebrating it.

6/10 Wes Anderson remains cinema’s most meticulous stylist and a start for production designers and art directors (in those merits alone ths movie will qualify a 8/10), but The Phoenician Scheme felt a little emotionally inert compare to his previous work. The film is well composed and visually sumptuous, the film offers tableaux of clever artifice rather than lived experience. But then it becomes inert and full of gimmicks, wasting its time, its story and his characters.

Its narrative, such as it is, unfolds in fragmented vignettes—charming in form, yet curiously devoid of feeling. The ensemble cast, though distinguished, operates less as characters than as curated figures in a conceptual display.

7/10 or 8/10

Let me begin by acknowledging that I’m deeply biased toward this film for personal reasons I won’t go into here.

That said, I always try to evaluate a film for what it is and what it sets out to be. This isn’t high art, and I wouldn’t compare it to the work of auteurs—it’s a blockbuster, franchise-driven horror film, and on those terms, it delivers. Judged purely as a horror movie, I’d give it an 8/10. Compared to the rest of the Final Destination series, it’s a strong 9/10—very close to a perfect entry.

I attended the premiere, and visually, the film was stunning. The writing and pacing held up well—perhaps a bit rushed in places—but the tone was spot-on. The acting across the board was solid.

Now, the flaws: some of the special effects looked too artificial, which broke immersion at key moments. There were a few inconsistencies with the lore, and I personally disagreed with certain character deaths. Off-screen endings for Alex, Wendy, and (spoiler alert) the protagonist felt like missed opportunities. That said, having Kimberly survive—and now officially canon—is a highlight, and I hope the franchise builds on that. I appreciated that the film took time to explore the mechanics of death more deeply, but it came at the cost of character development. Some deaths felt rushed, and the overall cast felt too small.

I’ve seen criticisms from certain circles—mostly low-effort commentary suggesting that men are no longer portrayed as strong protagonists. While I completely reject that reductive argument, I do think the film could have benefited from a broader range of masculine archetypes. Still, the half-brother character added an emotional and comedic dimension that gave the story weight. The film doesn’t carry the gritty horror edge of the early 2000s entries, but that’s fine—it has its own tone and rhythm. I also heard a stupid racist comment on why they did not show Tony Todd's character dying, saying things like "they did not killing because He is black and blacks can't die now in movies" . . . that is silly and hurtful because the reason they did not film such Scene was out of respect to Todd who actually passed away while shooting this film. He was battling cancer and he loved this franchise.

PERSPECTIVE:

I love the cast, they seem very sweet new faces. They were all incredibly talented and they are now part of the final destination family.

In the end, it was fun. I’m rooting for it to cross the $300 million mark, though it may close closer to $200 million. Still, it’s an extremely worthy entry. (It currently sits at 233$ Million. )

6/10 or 7/10

Positives

Let me start with the positives, as I had been looking forward to seeing this film.

I think the movie is beautiful—remarkably well shot. If it were judged solely on its cinematography, production design, and art direction, it would be a 10/10. The cast was strong. I appreciated the use of unfamiliar faces; Miles Caton was excellent, and Hailee Steinfeld delivered a solid performance (though I’m admittedly biased—she’s incredibly beautiful). I've been a fan of Jack O’Connell since Skins; he’s an exceptional actor.

The vampire concept set in the American South is compelling, and I also appreciated the film's decision to begin with its ending—a bold chronological choice.

The editing was incredible—an electrifying start to the film. It set the tone with precision and energy, immediately pulling me into the world. Bold, confident cuts and dynamic pacing made the opening genuinely exciting. A great fucking start, no other way to put it.

What I didn’t like:

Despite its striking aesthetic and laudable ambition, the film is, quite simply, vastly overhyped.

Much like its characters, the film begins to wither as it unfolds—losing momentum, clarity, and emotional impact with each passing scene.

The concept—vampires in the American South—holds undeniable potential, but misses the mark. And while the film skirts issues of race and history, it does so with a degree of restraint I respect, even if I don't entirely align with its perspective. (It’s not exactly woke or racially heavy—though it flirts with both. I respect the director’s voice, even if I don’t fully share the perspective, and even if it had gone there which would have been his choice.)

That said, the execution falters. The narrative feels underdeveloped, attempting to weave together themes of racial oppression, entrepreneurship, religion, and solidarity across marginalized groups. Yet none are explored with sufficient depth to yield a coherent or meaningful statement. Michael B. Jordan is undeniably magnetic—delicious to look at—but his performance lacked the emotional depth and control required for a dual role. It wasn’t bad, but it never quite met the weight the film placed on him.

It is, at best, a visually stunning but middling film. The story lacks emotional gravity; its characters, though played by a capable cast, are woefully underused. The vampires appear with little weight or menace, and intriguing elements—such as music as a supernatural lure—are introduced but left unexplored.

Pacing is weak, sluggish and poorly composed, and the film struggles to sustain momentum. I remained engaged, as I champion original takes and support bold creative moves—but I cannot overlook the disappointment or lazy work. The film is not terrible; it simply falls short of the acclaim it has received.

NOW, SOME PERSPECTIVE

I’m genuinely glad to see an original film with fresh faces cross the $300 million mark. Hopefully, this pushes Warner Bros. to keep investing in new ideas, new talent, and diverse voices—not for the sake of being woke, but because there are countless untold stories that deserve to be seen through different lenses.

Warner just had two hits over $200 million—Final Destination: Bloodlines and Sinners—both with diverse casts and original storytelling. I love that Ryan Coogler, the director, was given room to experiment and evolve. That said, I’m growing weary of the constant racial fixation on oppression in film and media. Specially if it is very generic, shallow and cliche. I don’t know how much studio's influence shaped the final edit, but Sinners feels like there are some parts missing.

I still think it will become a classic. It may also open doors for many overlooked actors. And the cinematography? Absolutely stunning.

As centrists, we have long struggled to find a space where balanced, intellectually honest perspectives are afforded the seriousness they merit. In journalism, cultural commentary, and public discourse, dialogue is too often reduced to opposing extremes—each side entrenched, speaking past the other, leaving little room for nuance, reflection, or genuine inquiry. This is particularly true in the realm of culture and entertainment, where ideological filters frequently overshadow aesthetic value and critical rigor.

Pendulum Media arises in response to that void—a modest but intentional platform for those fatigued by binary thinking. Our focus lies in engaging with culture not as a battlefield of identities or ideologies, but as a reflective and imaginative space where contradiction is not weakness and complexity is embraced rather than flattened.