All User Reviews

I enjoyed this movie and the old cast.
I don't know where some see a lesbian involvement.
To me, the seemed like two 16 yo's who were becoming friends.
I guess you can see anything if you choose to.

It took my breath away

I had heard this film was great, but I just got around to seeing it, and it far surpassed expectations. The style is a bit retro, harkening back to the first Top Gun. That film was good, but Top Gun: Maverick is an order of magnitude better! Maverick stretches credibility beyond the point of breaking, but mostly in a fun way that you would expect from an action blockbuster. Nothing woke.

I watched Top Gun: Maverick a day after rewatching the 1986 Top Gun. The plots are intertwined, and the emotional impact was significant given the fresh memory of the first.

50 year old Jennifer Connelly is hotter than 28 year old Kelly McGillis. (Jennifer played Penny in Top Gun: Maverick, while Kelly played Charlie in the 1986 Top Gun.) Legendary.

Take a nostalgic trip by watching both Top Gun movies.

Rasczak's Roughnecks! Oorah!

This 80's action-n-romance flick appeals to both men and women. I appreciated the look of 35mm film in 4K. Nothing woke.

Very woke.

I was expecting this to be a fun cartoon to watch with my kids, but 5 episodes in, there was instant trans propaganda of a boy dressing up as a woman in order to learn “how it feels to be a woman”.

Looks like wokeness started earlier then I thought.

Great show whit old family values

I sensed mild feminism in the show. Mandy was annoying. But no transgender or gay roles. A conservative family model. The mother Mary is religious. The story is in Texas so there are jokes about democrats, etc. I really enjoyed the show! I reccommend it!

You paint some flames on the side, maybe like a rainbow unicorn, you got something.

Seth MacFarlane created this show as an homage to Star Trek: The Next Generation. Seth has been a vocal supporter of the Democrat Party, including the campaigns of Obama, Sanders, Clinton, and Biden in 2020 and 2024. Sigh. Despite that, utilizing The Orville he criticizes the insanity of progressives from his more moderate liberal viewpoint.

For example, the trans arc targets the immorality of sex reassignments on children. In Star Trek style, they show an alien society that has taken this to an extreme that everyone would agree is unethical. This may make progressives reexamine their stance. I appreciate this attempt to protect children from progressives.

Still, the trans arc results in multiple "gay" and trans characters in the main cast. Furthermore, in season 3 they added a lesbian. This overrepresentation feels like an agenda.

The Orville has the Commie utopia vibes of TNG:
“Human ambition didn’t vanish. The only thing that changed is how we quantify wealth. People still want to be rich. Only now, rich means being the best at what you do.” --Commander Grayson

Simultaneously, the show tries to be rational in its morality:
“The universe is not governed by individual perception. It matters what’s true.” --Captain Ed Mercer

Seasons 1 and 2 were comedic gold, and I thought comedy was how they avoided getting sued for copyright infringement due to similarity to TNG. However, season 3 dropped the comedy and became pure TNG at its darkest and most Borgified.

For fans of Star Trek, especially TNG, I highly recommend The Orville. Despite liberal themes, it will make you think and laugh. The Orville was officially cancelled after season 3. RIP.

Agree with Other Reviews

I watched this movie with one eye open, so most of the girl-power and DEI casting escapes me. I'm kind of cool with girl power, though. Like, Death Proof style revenge girl power, despite being a drawn-out, ridiculous movie that Death Proof is. Anyhow, I can see why this film kind of caters to the leftist world. It's not terrible. Creds for writing the awful, "I hate you" bad white guys who I'm happy to see Abagail disembowel into the script. Kudos for that.

You shall not pass!

Peter Jackson's World War I documentary provided me a different feel for the horrors of that war compared to all the documentaries that came before. That is no small accomplishment! Nothing woke.

Wasted Potential

No woke. This had a lot of potential but turned out not so great. The acting is generally good. The problem is with the writing. Why make the 2 boys so stupid at the beginning but turn them into bad ass survivalists at the end. There are so many plot and story problems. How did they survive for 15 years without finale happening until just now? Why is one farm boarded up like fort Knox at night and constantly attacked but the other one has no boards on the windows at night and livestock
roaming around freely? What happened? What are the creatures? What do they want or what is their purpose? Not addressed at all. Speaking of the creatures...wow. They look like bad 80's horrror movie rejects. Just hilariously bad looking. It can still be stupid fun and it's not all bad. If you like post apocalypse type movie you may find it worth watching. At least it's not woke.

More Woke Modern 'Horror"

DEI casting and the usual strong, good female characters to the male bad incompetent ones. The ending is right out of the leftist girl power feminist handbook. Calling this a horror movie is a stretch. It's more like a comedy or a bad parody of vampire movies. The characters are idiots and all unlikable. They make the dumbest decisions and do the stupidest things possible. The acting is pretty bad all around but especially by the Dean character. How he ever made it on screen is incredible.
It's painfully obvious he's bombed out of his mind during this and can barely stand up in several scenes. It's almost impossible to understand anything he says as it's badly slurred and mumbled. It's like trying to make sense of a Biden speech. For those that don't know the actor OD'd and passed shortly after this. How this did well in theaters is
unbelievable and a setback for horror movies in general.

Just like the old man in that book by Nabokov

I watched Submission, because I loved the film Miller's Girl, and one reviewer criticized Miller's Girl as having the exact same plot as Submission. I wanted to know: would I agree? And would this film be as stellar as Miller's Girl?

But first, let's deal with the question of whether Submission is woke. The setting is a liberal university in Vermont. There is an obviously homosexual professor and an obviously homosexual student, plus a feminist faculty member. This is representative of that community, and none of these characters are presented sympathetically, so I rule not woke. The lead girl makes a passing comment about the "patriarchy", but if I heard correctly she was ridiculing that feminist concept. The film is subtly anti-woke.

Note: stop reading here and go watch Miller's Girl.

Spoilers follow for both Submission and Miller's Girl.

Now let's discuss whether Submission is similar to Miller's Girl, which came 7 years later. Yes, it is. A middle-aged married man is a talented writer with one book, but, in a writing slump, he had taken an unrewarding teaching position to pay the bills. One of his students is a young, hot girl who is an excellent writer and an even better manipulator. He is flattered that she has read his book. She starts writing sexually charged stories for him that are obviously about them, and he jerks off. He can't resist her advances. He loses his wife, understandably, but the girl distorts the truth while playing the #MeToo card to make sure he loses his job, which hurts him. There is a silver lining: after losing everything, the man has the motivation to reboot his writing career. Can you believe I just described two different movies?!

There may be no direct rip-off here. The writer of Submission said he based it on a 2000 novel, Blue Angel, which is based on the 1930 movie The Blue Angel and the 1905 novel Professor Unrat aka The Blue Angel, which are referenced in Submission. The writer of Miller's Girl said she based it off of a 2011 play she wrote and perhaps she was influenced by Blue Angel or The Blue Angel as well.

Both Submission and Miller's Girl show how #MeToo can be abused. On IMDB, some Leftist reviewers criticized the films for casting doubt on #MeToo accusations. 5/10 average scores resulted for both films, unfair to both.

So which film is better? Miller's Girl wins by a mile. It's just so well written, dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's, and even adding some subtle details for the careful viewer. The tension is higher in Miller's Girl, because it's in high school instead of university, and because most of the action is mental, in the eyes and words of the actors. Acting in both is great, except for the parents of the girl in Submission. The one thing done better in Submission is that several other students have speaking roles rather than just being part of the set.

Submission is a decent film, but life is short, so watch Miller's Girl. It is the much better version of essentially the same story.

Ghostbusters

Spectral is a far-out sci-fi war movie. Nothing overtly woke.

Despite being labeled as a "Netflix original," Spectral was actually a completed film that the owning studio deemed a dud and subsequently sold to Netflix. So, it does not suffer from Netflix's wokeism. However, your suspension of disbelief will be challenged by absurdities.

(Vague spoilers follow.)

A female CIA officer commands Delta Force. That's ridiculous on multiple levels. The CIA does not have command control over the military. Also, putting someone with presumably no combat experience in charge of a combat operation would be suicidal.

The film gets far more outlandish in its abuse of science and common sense. The film's scientific explanations will lose most of the audience while upsetting scientists. Moldova being advanced in science in any way is unbelievable. The quick improvisation of new "Ghostbusters" weapons also insults the audience's intelligence.

Many reviews compare it to Aliens. I would say it's more like Pitch Black, if it were set in Moldova.

If you're good at suspending disbelief, then you might enjoy Spectral as popcorn entertainment. Otherwise, steer clear.