SPOILERS FOR AVENGERS ENDGAME
I rewatched Avengers Endgame with some friends last night for the first time since seeing it at the cinema. I was worried my opinion of it would sour on second viewing, but fortunately it didn't and I enjoyed it just as much.
The film isn't perfect, but my main gripe with it is what's happened off-screen. Namely, the Russo brothers both being able to keep their mouths shut and constantly confirming or denying fan theories. I had a fairly solid idea in my head of how the time travel worked and what that meant for previous films that had been revisited in this one. But nope, the Russos came out and denied it all. I loved the idea, for example, that Captain America was present twice at Peggy Carter's funeral, and that he was in fact the husband she had mentioned in Winter Soldier. I got Russo'd though. For no reason other than just because, they've decided that Steve's life in the past is actually on an alternate timeline, and that he somehow gets back to the main one to deliver his shield to Sam.
This is just personal taste, but I'm not a fan at all of split branch timeline media. The only one that I've seen do it to any beneficial effect is Steins;Gate, and even that left the philosophical quandary of what about the versions of characters being left behind unanswered.
I would have much preferred the timeline to be one solid branch, with the characters venturing into their own past and ensuring history remained unchanged rather than changing it in small unneeded ways (Loki escaping with the Tesseract) and having to go with split branches as a result.
My ideal representation of time travel in films is if you travel back from the present to the past, you ultimately cannot change the present. What you do in the past has already happened and has directly influenced your present already. This is what I thought they were going for with the whole "The stones need to be returned to the exact moment they're taken" shtick but apparently not.
I feel death of the author needs to be adopted more in Hollywood. Once your film is out, it's up to the film and the film alone to confirm or deny theories. If you decide to keep adding more to your universe via interviews, tweets and fan interactions then you haven't done a good enough job of building your interpretation of that universe on screen in my opinion. As a viewer, once I've viewed the film it is my experience and should remain mine rather than being altered post-fact by the directors.
Otherwise, 8/10 from me. It's cheesy, it's corny, but it had some genuinely touching character moments and seeing some arcs develop as they have over the last 10 years has been a treat. The action is phenomenal, the actors themselves all cared enough to deliver good performances and the CGI is excellent quality.
I recently rewatched Hitch, the Will Smith 2005 film. Although I still have fun with it, I didn't enjoy it as much this time as I did when I first saw it.
Although there's some funny moments I felt like most of them were derived from Will Smith's mannerisms or Kevin James goofiness. I was never really wowed by some clever dialogue and the plot itself was fairly point by point.
I'll throw a 6/10 at it. I don't feel compelled to watch it again now but it did garner some chuckles. As such, story simplicity aside, it was successful in some ways.