Reviews

The script of this movie is absurdly stupid at every turn. The movie ruins the Star Wars franchise. One can only wonder how so much money could be spent without adult supervision.

The character relations in the movie are also absurd. Nearly all the characters act like children pretending to be grown-ups. But then, such must be the immaturity of writer/director Rian Johnson - or, at least, what Johnson thinks of his audience, that people would lap up such juvenile idiocy as decent entertainment.

Visually the movie is well made, and the directing is quite good. The only problem is a terrible script.

This is an okay adventure story with some spots of humor and well-done action scenes. The movie is neither brainless nor mediocre. It's also not especially well-acted or original. Due to the breezy script, the characters are one-dimensional. There is solid proof here that Tom Holland really can't act, though he is fun to watch as the man-child that he plays here and in his Spiderman films. Mark Wahlberg is given nothing to do but spout his lines. There are the typical unbelievable action scenes where back-breaking, lethal damage doesn't hurt the main characters.

The cinematography is good, as is the pace of the movie. Overall, the movie is worth watching if you like this kind of movie and have no expectations.

This is a low-budget time travel puzzle.

The film is packed with sleazy characters. There is a tension in the relationships between characters. There is no character development. Certainly, the film would have been better with the characters better fleshed out.

The direction does not rise above made-for-TV movie. There are no memorable artful shots.

What makes this movie worth watching is the storytelling. You know what is going on out of context, but don't know why it is going on (the context), especially early on. Contextual details fill in that keep you interested while leaving more mystery to be unraveled. By the end, including the coda, you can put all the pieces together to create a coherent comprehension of what you watched.

The movie moves at a good pace, neither rushed nor lingering.

The movie is not so compelling that you'll want to watch it twice. There are no revelations in the film later that add deeper meaning to earlier scenes.

This movie is enjoyable enough if you like mysteries and sci-fi themes. This is definitely not a movie for those with short attention spans or low intelligence.

Marvel has has made a very few good movies: the 1st Guardians of the Galaxy, the 1st Doctor Strange, Eternals (which went largely unappreciated).

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania follows a very tired formula of flash-bang graphic violence with family values tucked in.

What is so odd is that the film is technically well made and well acted, for what little acting is required. Too bad there was no script for a movie. The story told straight would be a 20-minute movie, tops.

Dumb people make dumb movies for dumb people. Marvel fits that bill nicely. It's no wonder that Disney is struggling with its streaming service. Their offerings across the board have gone downhill.

28 Weeks Later follows on thematically from 20 Days Later, which was barely tolerable from a production standpoint. Director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo has the budget and cast he needs, but ruins the film.

28 Weeks Later makes plain that Juan Carlos Fresnadillo has no talent for directing films. He makes all the worst amateur mistakes and then some: needlessly shaky camera, too-close closeups, confusing the action by insensible editing, noise shots galore. Fortunately for movie watchers, Fresnadillo has not inflicted his incompetence on many other productions.

Anyone who thinks this is a movie worth watching knows nothing about what a good film is. There are several good zombie films. Neither this nor its predecessor are worth watching.

Everything Everywhere All At Once is a family movie (not family in the prurient PG sense, but in that the movie is about family).

Creative, zany, brilliant in the 1st act. An hour-and-a-half of ridiculous, laughable, juvenile hi-jinks with solid philosophical backing. The last 45 minutes are a redundant bore.

The best movies are ones you can relish repeatedly, that improve with multiple viewings because of details that enrich the context, and you can appreciate how well the story hangs together (even when it might not seem so on the first viewing). The title Everything Everywhere All At Once fits the content, in that you get it all in a single viewing, and there's no reason to see it again.

Bottom line: if you like action-spy films with women leads, there is much to like in The 355. The story, directing, acting, cinematography, and editing are all decent. Sure, this film, like so many, is laced with implausible cheese.

Reviews are so often misleading nowadays, especially by 'professional' critics, who have their heads full of expectations and don't bother to enjoy movies for what they are. The 355 got 24% on Rotten Tomatoes.

The 355 is better than any of the Bond or John Wick films, and as good as any of the Bourne films (the Bourne Legacy excepted).

If you liked (any of) these spy-action films, you'll likely like The 355: Atomic Blonde, Anna, Haywire, Salt, Columbiana, The Protégé, Eagle Eye.

Alas, director Marcus Nispel ruins a promising film. The action scenes are consistently confusing, the lighting is poor, and the characters don't come to life like they should because of the way the film was shot and edited. The actors themselves perform well.

The dialogue is often juvenile and stupid when something intelligent might have been said. So much for the randomness of the screenwriters.

This film is worth watching only if you are fond of the genre. The earlier Conan the Barbarian film, with Arnold Schwarzenegger, wasn't any better - it just had different defects.

Most Marvel movies are juvenile cinematic comic books. Eternals is more a graphic novel, with a complex tale to tell. There is more character development, and meaningful interplay between characters, in Eternals than in most Marvel movies. The direction by Chloé Zhao was apt. Recommended. Among my other marvel favorites is Doctor Strange (2016), for the mystical bit, and Guardians of the Galaxy 1, for being a rollicking adventure.

It's well directed, well acted, and redundantly boring due to a bad script, courtesy of Nicole Holofcener, Ben Affleck & Matt Damon. What should have been a character study, with Marguerite de Carrouges (Jodie Comer) in the center, bookended by Jean de Carrouges (Matt Damon) and Jacques Le Gri (Adam Driver) as contrasts, turns into a he said/she said, with only superficial characters. As it is, you don't care about any of the characters.

The 3-part redundant retelling is just bad storytelling in this instance, which could have been better done with brief flashbacks. The bits about life in the 14th century don't merit 2 1/2 hours. The duel is predictably grueling and close fought, with a predictable conclusion.

There just isn't enough story presented to merit more than 90 minutes, and that would have been stretching it. This is thin gruel in the 14th century.

Ridley Scott has made a lot of good films. This isn't one of them.

The series has no story arc, simply dragging on with thematically repetitive situations. The show is terribly inconsistent in its quality. Moreover, the show is often infuriately stupid: in what characters do, how scenes develop, and what is put in versus left out in the story.

The first 2 seasons are pretty good, as the show gets started with introducing and sketching out characters. The series slides downhill from there, descending into sheer dumb dross by season 7, from which the series never recovers.

The storytelling is typically disjointed. The cinematography is often bad. Scenes are arbitrarily cut in a dumb attempt to build suspense.

Only about half of the actors are decent at their jobs. It's not so much bad acting as bad direction of 3rd-rate actors.

The lead character for much of the series, Rick, is only consistent in displaying erratic, and mostly bad, judgment. Almost all characters in the series display no character development, only mental instability. The only truly sympathetic character is Darryl, though that is not apparent until season 4. Most everyone else in the series is flawed in psychologically self-contradictory ways. Considering that this series is about relationships and psychology, that's damning the scriptwriters who don't understand what they are writing about.

There are so many TV series so much better than the Walking Dead. Don't start. Until you are an idiot, you'll be disappointed.

The Counselor is decidedly for intelligent people. Which means that the film suffers bad reviews from "mental defectives," as the character Westray said to the Counselor. As you can see on IMDB, there are a lot of them.

The Counselor is a contemplation on motivation, values, and decision-making, set in a mobster/thriller/horror film.

Ridley Scott helms another film impressively well. The story moves at a good clip. The cinematography has an apt photojournalistic style. The dialogue is superb.

There is a quite a contrast between the colorful and colorless characters - Laura and the The Counselor being the poles on this spectrum.

The extended cut, with an extra 20 minutes over the theatrical release, fills out the story and characters portrayals. This longer version is recommended.

The Counselor emphasizes how people mentally create the world they live in, and suffer consequences for not seeing things as they are, especially with regard to what you want and the risks in who you associate with.

If you like your Nietzsche marinated with sex and grilled in gritty violence, this film is highly recommended.

The Green Knight is shot mostly dark, making its viewing a drudgery. The story eventually hangs together, but the journey is the reward, and The Green Knight offers little that is rewarding.

In my opinion, works of art, such as a film, stand on their own. Whatever legacy this film represents does not justify its boring presentation here.

There was a a good story to be told, but Derek Kolstad, the scriptwriter, apparently did not know how to tell it. The first rule is establish a sympathetic character - in this instance, Mr. Nobody (Hutch Mansell). That essential backstory was not done. The sketch provided was ineptly done.

Kolstad wrote the John Wick movies, which were okay, but could have been much better. Mr. Nobody is a 3rd-rate rehash of the Wick saga.

The multiple logical plot holes in the script means that only stupid people wanting a mindless shoot-'em-up movie could possibly give this a high score - and so it goes (as usual).

There's lots of shooting, and much senselessly pseudo-cryptic dialogue, but little acting in this movie. If Bob Odenkirk can actually act is unknowable from this film. He's not necessarily miscast, just a non-actor playing a nobody. The deficits are compounded by directorial incompetence.

Director Ilya Naishuller makes a lot of amateur mistakes, most poignantly relying upon iconic imagery rather than fluid action. The action sequences are rather poorly done, with the all-too-typical choppy editing rather than artful shooting that more talented directors know to employ.

This is supposedly a spiritual film. But the supposed spirituality is a spouting of trite ignorance. If you want to understand spirituality, read Ishi Nobu.

The distinct stories in different time periods never come together. The ending does not weave the threads together in any meaningful way. The movie just ends with a few more thematic bits thrown on the pile.

The cinematography is often terrible. Many scenes are poorly lit. The repeated use of "nose-hair" closeups is amateurish to the point of ridiculous.

The supposed science in this science fiction is trivial: a plant that cures tumors. Almost all medicines are plant and fungi based (mostly plants).

There was the seed of a good story in this film, but the director/writer, Darren Aronofsky, wasn't savvy enough to do a decent job of it. Quite a few of Aronofsky's films are crap, though Black Swan and The Wrestler are good (though could have been better under a more intelligent director).

Ultimately, this is a stupid film posing as smart. Those who think it's smart aren't.

Certainly an interesting concept. Good, but by no means great, movie. The way the story was told was somewhat annoying (via flashbacks), but tolerable. The direction/cinematograrphy was mediocre. The movie would have been considerably better with more creative (rather than made-for-TV) cinematography. The rave reviews are ridiculous.

The first Hitman's Bodyguard movie worked because it was somewhat fresh. There is ostensibly little to complain about in the sequel, beginning with the script, which probably looked good on paper. The movie is well-shot, the pace is good, the acting passable. There are a few smiles to be had. But the film falls flat for doing nothing more than going through the motions. The utter lack of character development (unlike the 1st film) and lack of emotional involvement in the characters (as a viewer) are critical to this being an unrewarding experience.

Here is another example where you cannot tell how good a movie is by reviews. Chaos Walking has an interesting premise that plays out well. There is genuine suspense, even as the underlying evil is predictable. The story moves along at a good pace, feeling neither rushed nor drawn out.

The acting and directing are both quite good. Character exposition and development occurs. The conclusion is satisfying and there are no loose ends. The glaring cosmetic continuity error is a blond Daisy Ridley with unnaturally dark eyebrows given her hair.

A common stupidity is to compare a movie to its written originating source material (typically a novel). Movies should be enjoyable in their own right as well as stand on their own without external reference. On this score, Chaos Walking succeeds.

The original Predator was a slow-moving, stilted but a decent parade of militaristic cliches in a simplistic storyline, though perhaps few viewers appreciated the spoofery inherent in the macho posturing which that movie was stuffed with.

This movie, The Predator, is fast-paced, entertaining parody of the Predator ethos - richer in the spirit of what underlaid the original Predator. The Predator has a more involved story than any of the previous Predator movies. The gore is what you'd expect. What's surprising is that the comedy keeps pace and holds up throughout. Thoroughly recommended for those who are up for grisly comedy. (Much better than, say, Zombieland, which was enjoyable enough.)