Pretty much hit the nail on the head how I felt about the entire film.

Shuri taking the lead was awful, her character motivation and actions brought the film down, and she was a wholly underwhelming lead. Came across like a dislikable, angry child with zero nuance.

Namor was forgettable as a villain. The story was middle of the road, the action was boring and it was too long.

That said, I did enjoy seeing Killmonger, the film looks beautiful, and everyone else in the film outside of Shuri brought their A-game.

6/10, at best.

It's the first comment?

One of the most needlessly dickish comments I've read on here. Get over yourself.

If you like the Mission Impossible movies, I'm sure you'd enjoy the 5 James Bond movies with Daniel Craig in. I'm watching through them for the first time at the minute, I've watched Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall and they're pretty damn great. I'm enjoying them the same way I enjoyed Mission Impossible, though I find these much better.

Oh yeah that's a good one! That 70s show in general was pretty spot on to what a chill sesh is really like.

I find most films really don't get it right. It's far more rare to get an accurate depiction.

The first realistic scene of what it's like to be a pothead is when Seth Rogen goes to pick up from James Franco at the start of Pineapple Express and they smoke the cross joint together. I've had dealers that are literally describing their bud with the same mannerisms as James Franco has during that scene.

The starting sesh in Half Baked is pretty spot on too, even down to the random dude who's too stoned sleeping on the sofa in the background.

And while it's a tv show and not a movie, American Dad has a realistic depiction of being stoned when Stan gets baked and spends 5 minutes in the store with red eyes trying to decide what chips to buy.

Came here to list these two movies too, Pain and Gain probably takes it but man I really enjoy Faster. Never see the latter get mentioned anywhere usually.

Oh the Snyder thing we can agree on, Dawn 2006 is fucking awful and he fundamentally misunderstood everything the original was about.

Yeah they did differ but its still basically a sequel all but officially. Wasn't it that Romero wasn't allowed to use the 'of the Living Dead' fixture when he and Russo had differing ideas for the sequel and it's tone, Russo wanted more comedy and talking zombies so Russo kept that title fixture and created Return of the Living Dead, as in return of the zombies from Night, as his sequel, and Romero removed 'Living' from the title and went with just 'of the Dead' with how he wanted the zombies and series to go, and created Dawn as his sequel. Night is even mentioned in the original Return as a cheeky nod.

The zombies in Night are different from those in both Dawn and Return. They're smarter and know to use weapons etc and overall are much more human like, they're arguably closer to the Return zombies than what Romero ultimately went with going forward.

At least that's how I've always understood it.

Oh, is it? I wasn't aware of that, I thought it followed some time after Day. Always thought it was Night > Dawn > Day > Land, showing the fall of humanity over decades.

Anything you could link me to confirm that?

Edit: damn you changed your entire comment and now I look like a rambling lunatic answering questions that weren't answered haha.

Oh I know it has many, many entries as the series goes on, of insanely varying quality, but I was talking direct sequels, of which there are only 2 as far as I know.

I don't think I mentioned the Day of the Dead remake, I did mention the Night of the Living Dead remake from 1990 by Tom Savini though, which is good.

It already had a sequel, well technically 2, and a good remake.

And whatever is made now isn't going to be nearly as good as Dawn of the Dead or Return of the Living Dead so why bother?