3ebfan511

A somewhat unique mafia film, not really a Sopranos film, and not a great movie in itself. It is however, interesting enough, if you like the genre,and you stick with it, but it lacks a cohesion that brings it together, and feels disjointed at times, but with some worthwhile scenes. Nivolas acting is quite good, and seeing Tony's upbringing and mentor was worth it to see, again, in a far from perfect film, with a number of flaws. Do not expect anything like the Sopranos TV show, as it is not that. It starts off slow and unsure of its point, but there is enough there to watch it, for fans of the genre. Mildly dissapointing, but by no means horrible. Just different.

Great performance by Oscar Isaac in a flawed film. Its just terribly slow, and therefore not very entertaining. It is dark, and mysterious, and does make you want to keep watching, to some degree, but it took me a 2nd viewing to finish it...waiting, hoping...expecting...some kind of payoff at the end. It has an ending. But I wouldn't say it was worth the run time to get there. The biggest issues are the slow pace, and the wierd dialogue and character choices. The film and premise had much potential but what you end up with is a great peformance, an interesting premise, but an under-whelming film. Only watch if you have the patience to see a slow brooding mystery. Isaac's performance is worth seeing for those with the patience, but the film should have been far better.

This movie is co-written by Bernie Sanders speech-writer, a political insider with vast knowledge of how things work in this country, **** the worse. That is why this stings so well, and is quite believable despite the satire. Leftists will love it, but I would imagine conservatives would be somewhere between **** outright animosity. (As the film is very critical of conservatives, but especially of the media and politicans.) As a film its a bit long, and can feel a bit repetitive during one montage about halfway in, but once it hits its stride to continues on to the climax quite well. Consistently funny bits throughout, and likely a satire classic, one of the best I have ever seen. Anyone who is not A. rich or B.a conservative will likely enjoy it, and its worth watching no matter what ones political affiliation. Its a very interesting story, with an amazing cast, a good amount of humor, and hits at real drama as well as it goes along. Pretty much: this film shows better than any film, what it feels like to be a Bernie Sanders supporters, or a climate activist in our wayward political times. So even **** they want to understand what that feels like, should watch this film, and can likely learn something. I would consider it a must watch in these present times, and a satire classic.

Star Wars + Gladiator + Lawrence of Arabia = really good. I never read the book but knew a little about the world from playing one of the video games as a kid. I also could never get into the 1984 film version, and just thought it was OK, and did not have very high hopes for this film either. Definitely was surprised, and it looked great on my widescreen. If you feel safe enough to go to a theater, this would be a movie to see in it (IMAX even better) but if **** will likely still look and sound great on any decent system. Its a strong enough film, that it can work on the small screen imo. The key being...I felt like I could connect with the character, whereas in the 1984 version it just felt like a lot of...information.....there was not much to connect to in the original. This film is beautifully shot, and sets up the story pretty well, and keeps you engaged. Really good acting, sound, music, and the action picks up in the 2nd half. Amazing counter to Star Wars as its a bit more serious, like a DC version of Star Wars, with elements of Lawrence of Arabia, and Gladiator. Easily 8/10 and would be 9/10 except for the fact that it doesn't really complete the story **** is just part 1...therefore...part 2 + 3 would likely also be...8 or 9/10. (if done by the same team etc.) It needs to happen.

One of the most confusing films I have ever seen, and that is even with the subtitles on. The plot is borderline incomprehensible and at some point I just had to let it entertain me, while realizing the "world" it tries to establish is scientifically nonsense. Not only that, but the characters try to explain the world with quick, snippy dialogue with barely any details, while talking way too fast...leaving the viewer completely confused. And perhaps worse of all...there is essentially 0 backstory to the main character who goes by the name..."protagonist". Why should I care about this character ? Who is he ? We have 0 answer to these questions, therefore...I do not care much about the character and found myself wanting to fast forward through most of the film as...there was no emotional connection to a single one of the characters. (Dunkirk also had the same problem, and was fatally flawed as a result.) The 2nd half does have some excellent action sequences and almost made me forget how convoluted the plot was. But the first half was brutally incoherent, and not believable, essentially mindless action, and 0 character development (of most characters in the film except only 2 side-characters)...leaves the best I can give the film about a 5/10, and also fatally flawed and alternating between frustrating for much of it and fairly entertaining for the last 30 minutes, for the spectacle of it.

This movie was a bit dissapointing. The first 30 minutes is OK, but once they are up in the air and the incedence occurs...things fall apart soon after. Basically istead of feeling like you are in the action, while they are struggling to fly the plane, you instead feel as if you are watching two actors sitting on a film set behind a green screen. It takes you out of the action and they likely should have put more money into the **** film it in a proper way to keep the tension properly high. **** get taken out of the action and it becomes funny as you can tell you are watching a movie and pretty much ruins it right there. Between that and the poor dialogue...I had to self-edit the film and fast-forward to get on with it at times. As...there really wasn't anything you would be missing for certain periods. Good premise, and decent actors, who do have some chemistry at times, but the poor writing and dialogue leaves it for a very mediocre viewing, and lack of budget takes you out of the tension as well.

It's a good performance by Affleck, but the dialogue is pretty basic, and it is very, very, slow paced. Its like a sports movie if you took an anti-depressant and got drunk. Its not bad, and anyone who has struggled with alcoholism personally or indirectly could probably appreciate the acting and story, but the pacing and writing leaves it as just a so-so film to watch. Its more of a slow moving drama than an expected sports movie, and a very heavy and somewhat depressing one at that.

This movie starts off with action and goes....pretty much the entire time. But there is definitely a compelling story and it is well acted and well written for a war film. Probably better than a fair amount of war films from the typical US soldiers perspective, and has strong production value. If you want to see an exciting and probably realistic war film from the Iraqi **** will likely enjoy this film.

Good, but not great. There is no context around some of the action, so the film feels like it is missing elements, and most of the side characters are never developed, never say anything interesting at all. This film had potential to be...much better than it was, so while I enjoyed it, I can't say it was as good as the trailer made it out to be. Great performances make it worth watching and the story of course needs to be told, even if done through the lens of the informant, which, while interseting in itself, is not neccesarily a film about Fred Hampton himself. Overall: definitely worth seeing, but I feel like it lacks context and at times, tension, that should have been there.

This is a movie I wanted to like, but is frustratingly bad in many ways. The tone is all over the place between serious and poor attempts at humor, and the stars lack much chemistry, very dull performance by Theo James, but he can only do what is in the script, and that is not very good. It's not the worst movie and is pretty much a derivitave "last job" type of blah blah blah film, so if you have nothing better to do, and love those types of movies, you mind find some enjoyment in a few minutes of it here or there, but **** a good movie. Very banal, and needed better stars and better humor to carry material that is so derivitave. The only "new" thing in the film that was **** the way in which the art is stolen on a few occasions, which is...about 10 minutes of the movie or less.

This seems to have gotten low votes from disgruntled religious **** do not like the content of the film. and I would guess they likely did not even watch all of it. The film does take a somewhat critical look at the issue via one of the subjects, which is revealed towards the **** it is not propaganda and asks questions about the issue, and brings up some valid concerns. But I doubt the people giving low votes watched more than 1 hour to even get to that part. Its a pretty well done documentary, and definitely worth seeing if you are at all interested in the subject. I would say **** 2020.

I liked it, and give it an 8, same as the original. The original was not great, nor is this great, but it is certaintly not as bad as many of these incoherent critiques. The Avengers annoyed me and I found "cheesy", with a flying worm essentially as the bad guy, and wordless dudes that were climbing on buildings that did nothing. There is nothing in this **** more cheesy..than anything in an Avengers film. I have no idea what people are talking about, if they think anything Avengers is remotely **** somehow this is not. Its literally fantasy. Its movies. It isn't real. The comments complaining sound pretty funny as most of these people likely like the Avengers and think its great...when its no more "cheesy" than anything in multiple Super Hero films. It's a good sequel, with the biggest knock, being a long run time at 2:30 mins (I watched it in 2 **** the first 45 minutes or so is kindof slow for a superhero **** that's about it. I was still drawn in by the mystery of the plot, as I wanted to know what would happen, and the last 1/3 builds to a pretty exciting climax, typical of a big Super Hero film. Perhaps people had too high of expectations ? Pretty good sequel, to a flawed original, I enjoyed both. (also great performance by Pasqual and an interesting possible metaphor to his character.)

Very interesting doc on a very mysterious case. The film goes through the story of the hijacking with a lot of new info that I did not know, with plenty of interviews from people who were on the plane that day, who actually, saw and talked, to D.B Cooper. I also really like how it goes into 5 different suspects, in which you may end up thinking any/or all of them may have done it. There is some humor there as well, and the viewer can decide for themselves who they think may have done it. For anyone remotely interested in this **** will likely enjoy the film.

Badly needed Halloween comedy, if you are tired of watching scary **** pretty much a silly Adam Sandler comedy..mixed with a spooky Halloween plot, that makes you want to keep watching. Surprisingly, the plot held its own, adding suspense and lots of interesting sub-plots, and if you happen to like Adam Sandler movies, you will likely like this film.

Preposterous premise, and the female lead character makes very un-believable choices of logic..especially for being a lawyer. The character choices and just not very believable at times, and the film is too heavy-handed on "cops are bad","cops are stupid" trope. It does have beautiful cinematography, excellent acting, especially from the leads, and good music, but the character choices, and premise, as well as its trope-heavy take on its main issue...weakens its validity. It is however, worth seeing, despite the flawed premise and character decisions there-after.

Interesting doc about Darrel Hammond's life, and invariably about his career. It is not a"funny" documentary as you might expect about an SNL cast-member, as it revolves around trauma he endured as a child. **** does have humor as it is 90 minutes..with a former SNL cast-member. Ultimately very interesting, either way.

If you like Adam Devine movies, you will probably be at least amused some of the time by this movie. Its Adam Devine silly comedy, mixed with a dead-pan Alexa-like phone talking to him. The plot has odd plot-holes, and the story follows traditional comedy/romantic comedy style with the story arc, but as a silly comedy, its fine. If this went to Netflix it would have been in the top #10 right now and people would be fawning over it.

This film was a bit of a mess. There are a number of great comedic actors, and a writer and director with comedic experience, **** some reason they tried to make the film "scary", so the tone was just off, through-out the whole film. It wasn't really that funny, thus wasting the comedic actors talents, **** not really that scary **** is not the right group of actors for "scary" material. This movie should have been either a more improvised silly comedy (if they couldn't write enough jokes..) or...a completely different casted more serious film. It did not work trying to do both, and ends up being "nothing" essentially. I got bored after about 15 minutes, and it didn't seem to get much better as I let it play despite barely being able to watch it.

ROS is an entertaining **** you do not have high expectations. I saw the bad reviews, and therefore lowered my expectations a lot. Therefore...I was not super disappointed. There was too much action, which got tiring after a while, and not enough to story, **** was an entertaining film that lots of casual movie-goers will enjoy seeing. Hard-core Star Wars fans are critiquing the plot, and proclaiming the film horrible **** not quite THAT bad. It was just OK for a Star Wars movie, and at least ended well, so...7/10 is a fair score. It could have been better in so many ways, but was still an OK film, and hopefully any future films actually spend more time on originality and story. (I liked TFA, TLJ and Solo quite a bit, was so-so on Rogue One, which was very similar in having too much action and not enough story, but same **** still an OK movie, and worth seeing.) I would rate ROS...below those first 3, and about as good as Rogue one, but with the better main characters and the more important "main story". Made to please casual movie viewers, **** a strong story, nor a great movie. But, not an abomination that deserves a 0 or 1 score either. You can't please everyone. but you should at least make the film what you think it should be, and not just cater to fans **** end up with a jumbled mess of endless action sequences and "chasing" this or that plot item for "action" sake as a result. Just a so-so 7/10, but it has its moments, and is worth seeing as well, even with its flaws.

Den of Banality - It's kindof like Heat (one of my favorite movies ever) but - worse in pretty much every way. Banal writing and cliche dialogue and directing, which had me fast-forwarding to self-edit through some parts, and wanting to for other parts. The final heist is unique and one that hasn't been done before on film, but its nothing amazing either, and not even to save this mediocre film. Also, the twist at the end was atrociously stupid. There are a few heat-like scenes in that the head detective guy is close in periphery to main bad guy, and those are the best scenes of the film, and the ending heist is OK, but nothing **** **** slow and semi boring and very basic which you likely have seen 100 times before. If you want to re-make Heat at least give it good writing and make it worthwhile, this is horrible in comparison.

Entertaining, odd, but not very critical, of the major league steroids epidemic. The filmmaker seems to have gotten Bosch's cooperation to make the film **** goes very easy on probably the "mastermind" of the operation. and much of the action is rendered with children acting out the main characters conversations as one or the other narrates. It adds to the comedy, and makes it entertaining, **** the downside it isn't really a hard-hitting piece on any of its subjects. Ultimately, as I used to be pretty upset about A-rod cheating, this film, with the child-like renditions, reminds you that **** just a game. There really aren't many criminal penalties at stake, it is simply..a game. Which is not a way I thought of it, and differs strongly from a more dramatic sports docs about say, Lance Armstrong, or the olympic doping. It is fairly entertaining, and somewhat funny, so it kept my attention and is definitely worth watching if you like humorous or silly documentaries, with...a lot of interesting characters and stories. But I find the light take ..leaves some of the subjects off the hook, as it doesn't really examine the morals of what the subjects did.

"Clue" style film meets Adam Sandler style silly comedy, set in a beautiful location. The writing jokes wise is fairly typical sandler, but toned down a bit during the suspenseful parts. the first 45 minutes or so is quite funny, and the 2nd half is more mystery and some suspense, with still a steady amount of humor. (usually bantering between the two leads, which also worked well in "Just go with It".) If you like Adam Sandler movies you will almost for sure like this movie. I liked it a lot, and enjoyed the silly humor as usual, with a slightly different side plot of mystery and suspense, which kept you guessing **** who did **** who did what... Well done comedy, and an enjoyable watch.

Don't waste your time if you are expecting either a good heist movie, or a unique film with anything new to offer. This film is neither and was quite cliche and boring for much of the 2nd half. I am shocked by some of the critic reviews, probably because the director has a previous Oscar win. But his previous films he has said each had a personal meaning, and it seems clear, this one had no meaning. There is no concise point, and no reason for the film to even exist. I learned nothing new, was not moved, was not excited much, did not laugh, as the script is very droll, very boring, and much of the characters actions are cliche, the type of thing you can see in any mediocre action or TV show anytime. The only interesting parts were the first 5 minutes, the last 15 minutes, and a few rare snippets of side characters such as Colin Farrell's. If the whole film was about Collin Farrell's character, it might have made for an interesting drama. Instead it is pretty much a cliched heist attempt at a movie, but told through a female perspective, which then adds nothing new to the genre, is less exciting, and with the poor dialogue and **** is not worth wasting time watching unless you enjoy mediocre and cliche average action and TV shows. From Steve McQueen and the level of actors and here, and the "positive" reviews, I expected much, much, more, and was disappointed by the end, and quite frankly bored for much of the last hour. Unfortunately, I would have to officially call this a bomb...

This is the most fun I had watching a Star Wars movie, since probably when I was a kid. Many people complaining seem to be stuck in nostalgia and expect every star wars movie ever, to look and feel exactly like the originals in every way. I like the new ones, but they also are a bit formulaic and somewhat boring even at times. (I fell asleep during Rogue One). This film is very creative and reminded me of the imagination and joy of watching the original star wars movies, more so than really any star wars film since. The recent ones all have a kind of heaviness to them, which is great for story and drama, and I like them as well, but this film is more joyous, creative, and more fun to me. If you like Star Wars at all, you should definitely see the movie, and see what you think **** "poor" reviews made me wait this long and I don't even know what such people are looking at. Its a really enjoyable Star Wars films, and one of my favorite's of all time.

OK documentary, but the makers were probably too close to the subject, as it lacks drama, and feels more like an extended Beto for president commercial. It was interesting to see some behind the scenes of his campaign, esp. him driving a bit himself, but there isn't a whole lot else there. It almost never shows him in a negative light, doesn't talk about his psyche much or his past much at all, and in the entire film he only shows very mild frustration about 2 times ..which is supposed to about a 9 month long campaign. It seems hard to believe that he never became frustrated, or doubtful, or tired, or....anything. it pretty much shows him as the same mostly through out the film, w little we learn besides some of his stances from him talking to crowds, and occasional interactions w people. If you like political documentaries you may find it interesting, **** doesn't really dig deep on anything interesting emotionally, and probably is not a truly unbiased look at the man, and the time period depicted. The more interesting parts were actually with his supporters on the ground and an inside look into thier lives, which is only a small portion of the films run time. Therefore it is lacking as a fascinating documentary, instead ...is a bit boring and surface-level.

Beautifully done film on subjects such as loneliness, loss, and the struggle of people trying to find connection to one another. (and probably allegory to Russian culture, and possibly the government.) Its a "heavy" kind-of film but also makes you want to keep watching as there is a mysterious element as you are trying to solve a mystery which keeps you wanting to see what happens. So for entertainment value its a bit bleak, but artistically is beautifully done, and well worth watching if you want to see a film for arts sake, or anything exploring those themes.

Its like a typical Kevin Hart movie...with some Tiffany **** some weird night-school colleagues. Some of the jokes from the classmates fall flat, but most of the humor involving Hart is pretty funny throughout. (As well as Taran Killam as the "villian".) Not a great film, but it entertains for the most part, and if you like Kevin Hart movies and just want to see something silly, it works fine in that way.

It was a silly, odd, comedy/drama, that never really settled on a definite tone, and didn't have a coherent theme. So, while maybe being a directoral, or writing "failure" by the critics, it was still decently enjoyable to watch with such a large and talented cast, occasionally saying funny things, with some occasionally decent moments. I really liked the setting and the premise, and while the tone shifting was odd, I still enjoyed both the silly and the serious. If you like Judy Greer's sense of humor, and odd comedy/drama's you may find some slight enjoyment as a viewer. I wouldn't say it was as bad as the critics have it at. But as a piece of art it certainly is not Oscar worthy.

For a fan of the **** was pretty bad. The main issue is the dialogue is pretty banal, and the jokes aren't that funny, and the plot is also slow early on, and the characters are all pretty generic. So....a lot. The 2nd half or so, at least parts of the 2nd half, gets to be more "exciting", but...still bad dialogue, weird directing, and the music also comes in at the worst times, like the iconic music plays a few times in the film, and doesn't even really fit when it plays, and then when it should play, some other generic music plays. Just poorly done from the director and I was shocked to see Shane Black directed it. **** you really, really, like Predator movies you might like, semi enjoy parts of it and to follow the Predator storyline. My advice: skip ahead to the last 30 minutes or so for a semblance of a Predator movie. (and not a good one either.) 6/10 and thats coming from a fan of the franchise.

This is a modern film noir classic, set in San Francisco in the 1970's. The debut of the iconic character from Clint Eastwood, but even better, I loved the plot and feeling of the film as it was pretty much about the "Zodiac" Killer, and was made while that case was still fresh in the public consciousness a few years after it happened. It felt much like another film I liked, "Zodiac" and is almost a companion piece to that, as that one is more investigative, and this one is more atmospheric, has more action, and of course the 70's milieu. So if you like action films, you will probably like it, and if you like thrillers, mysteries, and similar genres, you would probably like it as well. And the character Clint Eastwood creates is always interesting on screen. Surprisingly it was way better than I thought it would be, and ends up as one of my favorite movies from the 70's.

No idea why anyone would hate the movie. (beyond not wanting to see any **** a comedy about **** is likely to have nudity...) Now maybe some people did not know what movie they were going to see, but I liked it, and it was one of the better-written comedies of 2018. It had heart and a decent story, and was definitely funny, and maintained a good balance through-out. Highly recommend if you in any way like silly comedies. It was actually a really good movie for the comedy genre.

The film tells the story of a known serial killer...mostly from his "masked" public persona. Is it possible a killer can delude themselves into thinking they did nothing wrong ? Or to simply not think about such things in order to blend in with people ? It is interesting that the film does something no other film has done quite in that way, and Effron is surprisingly decent as the facade of Bundy. The only bad thing is that the film doesn't really explore the "dark side" of Bundy's inner workings - but that's the point. Perhaps a killer can decompartmentalize their killing, and feel "normal" the rest of the time. Bundy was certainly one of the best at blending in, so if it applies to any killer, it would most aptly apply to him.

Its a good, but not great, movie whose signature is combining narrative with shots of the real life individuals occasionally speaking about the incidents. Its much like what is done in a true-crime show, so it is nothing revolutionary or anything, and more impact could be had by just waiting to show the real people until the end. But the film was enjoyable for the most part, until towards the end when imo the drama of their heist did not match the serious tone, and felt over-done and overly dramatic at that point. It was not quite a life-or-death experience which rendered it less impactful, although it was still enjoyable to watch, especially if you enjoy heist films, and the planning and such.

I enjoyed the film, although I suspect I will like Free Solo better, as it felt like the stakes were not really life and death for these guys for most of the film. They are hooked into the wall with ropes pretty much the entire time, so while its an incredible feat, the life-and-death aspect is not really there for a more common viewer who might not be into climbing so much. (As opposed to some other climbing docs where the peoples lives were very much at stake.) So..while I found it a little slow in some parts, it was still definitely an enjoyable watch.

It was a good movie, but not what I expected based on the previews. It was more like a slow-ish paced art-house film, than a big budget wide-release film. **** was still good, but more depressing than I was anticipating. Good acting from everyone esp McConaughey, and the newcomer kid, who has never acted before. But again I was hoping for more humor or excitement from a wide-release film, and it was much darker than I expected, but still worth seeing if you are in the right mood.

I wasn't expecting much from mediocre reviews, so I was pleasantly surprised. There is nothing wrong with the movie besides being somewhat "slow". I actually found it really interesting, as its a strangely true story so I wanted to see what would happen next. It also has a really nice performance by Rudd in the lead, and a slew of excellent supporting actors who are all fine in their roles as well. Its not a pulse pounding action movie, or a total thrilling spy movie for the majority of it either, but an interesting journey about an interesting man. If you like the ww2 genre, you will most likely enjoy the film to some degree. I have seen worse films, and way more boring films, get better reviews than this film. It was decent.

It's a good action film with a slightly unique take on the genre. It's not 2 hours of pure action, the writing could have been a little better, but the great cast and interesting plot keep it going and made me want to keep watching.

Sometimes movie reviewers are just dead-wrong on comedies. They seem to love when genres are combined in horror films and dramas - but do that with a silly comedy, and they proclaim it the worst thing ever. Anyway, I waited a year to see the film because of the poor **** it was one of the better comedies of the last year. Its a feel good film, with a lot of heart, and was more enjoyable to watch than many many films in the last year. Is it an amazing film for arts sake ? No, of course not, most comedies are not. But it made me laugh, and it also made me feel something, and was a very well done silly comedy, with heart. Definitely recommend if you like any of Ed Helms or Owen Wilsons other work, or any of Todd Phillips stuff (I think he was the producer.)

This film is hard to quantify, and I would imagine it is not as good as his other films(which I have not seen) but it had enough there to keep me interested, despite a very...slow pace. The story however is a struggle to find a coherent meaning at times, and even at the end, but I believe just enough was there, and there were a number of strong scenes, that make it a quality film. However the first 10 minutes are quite galacially slow... Not knowing the director, I thought it was a good film, but some may find it dissapointing comparing it to his apparently more impactful previous films. Still a good film however, and worth seeing.

Decent film, that seems to be getting poor reviews because it is too "pro-hijackers" or "isreal negative" by some, and by others annoying by the inter cutting of an interpretative dance routine. I found issue with neither area, but the film did lack the explosive pacing that viewers come to expect from plane hostage films, and it also had some mediocre dialogue at times, and did not really shed much new insight onto the genre, except maybe examining the conflicting reasons some of the hijackers may have had, which was one of the more interest aspects of the film. The film is really told from the hijackers perspective, and I think it is pretty neutral, doesn't take sides, which keeps it cool, and detached to some degree. It is fairly procedural, which slows down the pace for much of it as well. Munich was a superior film about a similar subject matter, but this film explores more of the hijackers emotions, and adds a slight element. The actors were also pretty good, despite a so-so script, and the compelling subject matter, and interpretive dance stuff, while over-handed, worked as well. Good, but not great, film, especially worth seeing if you are not familiar with the events that occurred. Just don't expect a riveting action packed hijack film for the duration, nor an Oscar type moral quandry such as Munich. It is a decent film that balances things from the hijackers perspective mixed with the procedural response by the Isrealis.

Going in, I thought the guy was an idiot for going into a war zone for a 2nd **** the doc was better than I thought, and showed me a different side to him. Between actual footage he shot and actual accounts from people he was kidnapped **** was pretty interesting, and emotional towards the end.

This gets a 7 more form the source material being compelling, rather than the writing or directing. Also a very good cast who mostly do OK with each role, just a matter of mediocre, sortof trite by the book directing and writing that never really examines any of the characters with much depth like better quality films would. It is however..such an interesting true story, with a very good cast that it makes it watchable, although a mediocre film artistically. I was entertained as someone who did not know anything about the story, so if you enjoy films about that genre you may enjoy it, just don't expect too much.

Pretty good coming of age comedy-drama starring Nat and Alex Wolff. The fact that they are actual siblings probably helped the improvisational nature of the humor and bantering between them, which made the film very enjoyable to watch. But it also has a nice story and kept me interested throughout, with some very nice moments involving both storylines. (won't give it away.) Very good film for its genre, which I enjoyed quite a bit.

A better than expected modern war **** the commercials made it seem it would be the same kindof dumb patriotic fare that most US war films suffer from. It does have a little of that, but less than I expected, as it actually does show the afghan side of the conflict and spends considerable time developing the afghan leaders character, which was probably the strength of the film. Pretty solid modern war film, and better than I thought it would be.

Like a Disney movie meets David Lynch. Lacks the depth, darkness, and subtle mystery of a Lynch film or any solid thriller, instead has a bunch of slow, long...somewhat boring scenes...then an also predictable twist halfway through the film also lacking compared to most contemporary thrillers. Felt like a lifetime movie as a result and was inferior to any quality film of that genre as a result. Pretty much the most mediocre "thriller" I can remember, a film that took no chances, and seemed to be trying so **** be "liked" and appeal to the masses..that they ended up with something that never pushes the envelope, and does pretty much nothing exceptional, new, or interesting. 5/10 quite mediocre.

No idea how this had some of the reviews it **** I had to waste my time watching at least some of it. It is not a good film, and if you want to watch a truly good movie about the music industry, watch the Doors, or Almost Famous, both superior to this film in every way, and well done. This film was mediocre, the writing was very banal, kindof low production value, acting just OK but not great, and just mediocre directing, everything. I had to skip through the first half of the time and watched the "incredible" ending that was written in the **** see it was nothing special. Premise had promise but it was done in a low-budget way, completely mediocre and not a very good film. Not the worst film either though, maybe watch it if literally nothing else is on at **** be bored with its mediocrity. 5/10 is generous.

A mediocre Hess film is still...quite enjoyable. I would say its probably his worst film (have not seen Nacho Libre). The acting is good and the premise is **** it has some of the silly humor of his films to make it very watchable, **** also is a bit more serious than other Hess films at times, there aren't as many jokes, and mainly, it was like the story was not as well written as his other films, particularly character and their backstories. Napolean Dynamite is such an interesting character, with so much detail and backstory that it makes the film really shine. Wheras in this film we know very very little about Don Verdean, or really any of the characters. Very shallow kindof characters that just serve their purpose so it would have been better if it was better written, as it seems to have been sortof hastily written and done compared to his other more enjoyable films. (Gentleman Broncos being my favorite..also much detail in that film..with a story within a story...) Bottom line if you like Jared Hess's other films you will probably at least somewhat enjoy this film, but its not his best work. I enjoyed it for the silly humor and story premise, but a lot was left unfulfilled.

Somewhat bland writing and dialogue takes a promising premise, and makes it progressively predictable and cheesy as it goes on. The first 15 minutes were interesting, and then a bit more as they struggle, but then it falls into cliche territory, and without excellent writing and dialogue...just becomes OK and rather bland. Worth seeing if you like survival films though, but, nothing special.

Dark, boring, predictable, and pretty much pointless. It wasn't horrible, **** was by no means "good". Just because you get some CGI creatures to do some acting via real actors, does not mean your film is good. This film is far from the original planet of the apes, and honestly...resembles it in 0 ways. It was the most boring film I have seen in a while, esp for an "action" movie, and even yet, I enjoy some boring movies if they actually teach me something about life or the world, this film did none of those things. It was boring and pointless and just meandered thinking of Ceasar mostly, not much happening, and a pretty stupid movie full of a bunch of predictable movie cliches as well. Mediocre film, and not even worth the title of "planet of the apes" More like a disney version that was dark, boring, but yet had no blood and is a sanitized pile of poor "entertainment". 5/10.

Unique film that shows a serial killer as a person, and not a "bad guy" that just terrorizes people like in most films. As a kid Dahmer was seen as at times funny, possibly even slightly popular, while also troubled, odd, a loner, and a bunch of other things. I found it really interesting, and well done, although it is slow paced at least early on so..watch it late at night. Very mesmerizing for a late-night watch, and a unique take on a serial killer that actually made me feel kindof sorry for the guy. Unique take on the genre, and a well done film.