Never been a massive fan of Snyder anyway, Batman v Superman was virtually unwatchable in my opinion, Sin City 2 was not as good as the original film and Watchmen was basically just okay but lacked any real flare (IMO). However he does have the biggest dosconnect in Hollywood between fans and critics. His films do really well box office wise but often get panned by critics. I doubt I'll ever watch this as I don't subscribe to Netflix but I can see why they would want to put this film out.

Triple 9 - dark and violent action thriller, very good. 

See No Evil - blind woman vs. psycho killer. Giallo-ish and quite silly in the end. 

Curse of the Demon - horror classic. Psychological horror parts works well, supernatural ones much less so. 

Earwig and the Witch - disappointing in both story and animation

The Sword and the Claw - 70s Turkish historical action, absolutely brilliant, a lot like a kung fu or wuxia film, only set in ancient Turkey

From Beyond - body horror classic, slimy and disgusting fun

Count Yorga, Vampire - boring vampire film

Trader Hornee - funny nudie spoof of jungle adventure films. "It's Horn, the e's are silent!"

The Acid Eaters - I couldn't figure out if the trip was good or bad?

American Splendor - brilliant biopic of comics writer Harvey Pekar

Early Man - from the makers of Wallace & Gromit, fun stuff with superb animation

Ridley Scott's utterly inaccurate & unrealistic non-biopic on the French military prodigy is surprisingly entertaining, which is what a two and-a-half hour movie should & needs to be.   Unlike the equally long but lugubrious Oppenheimer, this is a period piece that moves, fascinates, and filled with the little details Scott is so good with---  the two bridled horses used by scouts, the unipods under a sniper's rifle for accuracy & balance, the lettuce in Marie Antoinette's hair before her head comes off and is held up for all to see [and yet just a few years later the French would have another King and be right back where they started].   Joaquin Phoenix's unexpected and quirky performance is appreciated and the limited love scenes with Vanessa Kirby's Josephine welcomed.   Despite its shortcomings and failures, Napoleon must be judged as the film that it means to be, not what the world expects from it.

Interesting, didn't know that even existed but may check it out at some point.

I intended to watch the whole saga again in one go but the first film is near 3 hours long so had to cancel that idea. 

My thoughts (in bullet point format)

Is Marlon Brando really that great in this?

Jimmy Caan tends to be overlooked as 'Sonny' but is as good as Brando and Pacino imo

It still shocks in all the right places and doesn't seem dated.

I laughed at times (this is important as it makes it more 'authentic' in my mind)

The 3 hours pass very quickly!

Thanks, it was trending on Amazon (No 8 in the UK) so I assumed it must be a new film. Also I didn't recognise any of the cast from anything else. 

Apparently it was made for $42,000 which is very impressive in this day and age. As I said it's not bad but I would have liked an ending that was not ambiguous. I felt that a negative ending was appropriate, often those though are shelved after screen tests but would they have even been able to afford screen testing I wonder? It would have been cheaper to do as well. No ending was dissapointing for me.

So low budget they couldn't afford a proper ending it seems. 7 strangers find themselves waking up on a plane with no recollection of how they got there. Sounds crashingly unoriginal but I always get suckered into watching these sort of things. Didn't hate it but can barely recommend it either. Good time passer at 95 minutes and didn't get bored but then that 'ending'... oh dear. 6/10.