AxeT

Knowing this was coming for some time but without looking into it being based on the classic novel, imagined an intense thinking man's survival adventure like "The Revenant" and perfect for Harrison Ford as an action swan song of sorts only a rare very few could pull off at that age. Well, it's not that! From the trailer it was instantly clear the dog is not real and it's a problem even if many viewers don't outright realize it, they'll sense it (it does push the envelope technically and soon you won't be able to tell). Ford is as usual completely convincing. As legendary a mega star and great actor as he is, somehow he's still under-rated. This movie would rate slightly lower but for a good classical story, however unoriginal.

The somewhat rare genre bender that works, it is clever and unpredictable up to a point, masterfully crafted, and an overt social commentary on class. It is not this masterpiece classic to be the jackass critics and sheep Academy sing the overpraises of. The casual cursing by a family to each other throughout is oh so typical liberal depravity that artists think is fine but it's not. It debases the culture however subtly over time. The big take away of this film is affirmation there's a reason these crazy goofs can never be allowed to get a nuclear weapon.

Intricate and involving mystery exactly in the Agatha Christie tradition with a great all star cast, but too convoluted in the end. Most critically there's a small but fatal flaw in the plot. And the political commentary injection over family debating is one thing, but the surveillance VHS tape lesson is just too much personal nerd obsession for a discerning audience (and is the exact same luddite nerd move Tarantino made with his little lecture on film gauge formats in "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" which has nothing to do with story and everything to do with filmmaker silly self indulgence).

Conventionally crafted but with today's state-of-the-art VFX, this well acted sweeping true story of racing and the broader auto industry fires on all cylinders. (Unlike the also 1960's period set ridiculous and ridiculously over-rated "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood", this actually has a strong story!) Despite some of the best racing sequences ever filmed it surpasses previous racing film entries because of its human drama and is the rare outing these days that lives up to the praise. Like last year's "Green Book" this is what Hollywood and only Hollywood can deliver so well. Had they cut about 10 minutes in the end to match the pace set in the beginning, it would rate even higher here.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Highly anticipated for years, the re-teaming of Pacino and De Niro orchestrated by Scorsese… yes it's very long and yes yet another epic gangster tale and disappointingly on such a stale subject: Jimmy Hoffa… yet it still plays! Pesci, Keitel and the cast in their element are can't miss. And it's not the amazing and eerie de-aging visual effects that stand out but Bob's wrong blue eyes (which reminded of Robin Williams for some reason). His vile violent thug you side with anyway is nothing new, and neither is Al's bravado but you can't help but take it under Marty's masterful spell.

Compelling, timely, and well acted of course under the sure hand of icon brand Clint Eastwood, it ultimately winds up underwhelming. Both the FBI and the press are in question now like never before, but the parallels of this true story aren't quite enough to raise the suspense stakes in a post 9/11 world. The premiere audience seemed to love it anyway.

For those not familiar with the series, this would be completely confusing. For those that are, it's a been there done that bore directed by a hack for hire bringing nothing of value to the tired proceedings which are smaller in scope than in the past. And nobody really cares to see a foul mouthed return of a haggard old **** who wasn't a big star to begin with.

"The Shining" (10) is the rare classic film formed by the brilliance of three giants: Stephen King, Stanley Kubrick and Jack Nicholson. King's story was a simple original high concept, the best kind to adapt into a movie. Kubrick in his genius wisely constructed ambiguity allowing for interpretation of its events. And Nicholson gave one of the most memorable and since referenced performances in cinema history. This tricky sequel is King at his worst with his penchant for over-the-top supernatural, and it's not really a true sequel but a quasi remake by young dumb Hollywood in the trendy practice of greatest hits reunion tribute antics riffing on everything via reenactments of the original (locations, sets, costumes, props, sound effects, music, dialogue, shots, scenes) rather than a continuation of or new story. That's what these way later sequels do now. They serve as reboots remixing the same old content which taints the original far worse than any attempt at originality would.

As concert film laced with doc footage the surprisingly straight forward structure and old school sentimental delivery is nice. As new Springsteen music with western themed content his wisdom, philosophies and learned preaching are welcome.

An independent release yet expensive lavish period production with capable cast the subject is compelling to anyone interested in invention, technological history, and the business of genius.

"Taxi Driver" meets "Batman", dark maudlin origin tale of comic book super villain told eerily real to today's issues. Too bad for some shoddy period flaws (slobs, if you point to 1981 then follow through in every detail)! Joaquin Phoenix is an over-rated actor, but here is worthy as he was playing Johnny Cash.

Admirably realistic physics in space sabotaged by enormous lapses in logic, time and distance. Too bad because elements are beautiful and it's technically well made in trying to walk the line between "2001" and more commercial science fiction but ultimately shows the filmmakers to be too immature to fully realize their ambitious subject with the star not discerning enough on the script level. It works hard to deliver emotion but instead drags.

This starts off surprisingly well and should have been a standalone movie without the Rambo character (the brand recognition was their only reason to make it of course) but degenerates into the awful needless sequel expected. The revenge story is so very tired and the violence so ridiculously gratuitously over-the-top to the point of spoof (even more than the last gruesome shameful entry, "Rambo" of 2008), the makers should all be punished. "First Blood" (10) was truly a great movie, the only serious one. "Rambo: First Blood Part II" (5) was a rousing silly cartoon and enormous hit. The rest all lousy, the third the only even viable.

Typical obscenely over-rated by the jackass critics herd, this is the third less than good movie in a row from Quentin Tarantino. Oh he was a genius no question and that brilliance showed brightly in masterpieces like "Pulp Fiction" and "Inglorious Basterds", but this is an example of the quirk, period kitsch, and style over story craft trend exhibited every time out by hacks like PT Anderson, Wes Anderson and their like while this auteur was always well above in his cinematic narrative prowess... was that is.

The original is my all time favorite Disney animated film. This faithful somewhat unnecessary reboot is not live action but 100% animated contrary to reporting, and its amazing technical feat is the only reason it's a valid remake of an adored classic. It drags but it's impossible to tell if due to having seen it before or would also do so for new viewers.

Wonderfully inventive for a fourth installment it's not the landmark the original was or as great as the third, but worth the effort (in terms of both the story craft and incredible artistic detail of the animation by the makers, and going out to see it).

About as good as the decent but over-rated "Bohemian Rhapsody", predictably delivers on the unconventional fantasy musical creative flair it advertised. Too much emphasis on homosexuality over the music timeline but still entertains all the way.

You sit there waiting for it to start well after the movie begins, shaking your head in disbelief as this unbelievably thin, abominably bad bloated bore ticks on and on! The same creatives have delivered the same padded plodding overlong junk one entry after another. Once upon a time, superhero movies were made by adults for wide general audiences. Now they're made by childish nerds for the dumb illiterate global masses who eat up whatever **** Hollywood shovels out! Marvel, once dramatically clever and incredibly inventive, now puts out uneven unfunny goofy geek comedies. It used to be serious actors balked at comic book fare. Now they can't take it seriously enough. The annoying cast in this ridiculous over-the-top series never question the utter lack of narrative talent of its writers, directors and producers, but instead dutifully drone on yucking it up on talk shows and all the way to the bank. Where's the oversight?! Disney/Marvel and the rest don't care or know how to make good movies anymore. They're bean counters on an auto pilot conveyor belt. There's no restraint whatsoever regarding plausibility. As absurd as the original grouping of superheroes is (but fun and true to the source, not invalid), they go and pile on every Marvel property including large groupings not even part of The Avengers into a smorgasbord of so many freaking characters slapped together in an endless stupid stream of one liners as excuse for story the result is incoherent plotting (despite its infantile simplicity) and really no emotional investment in any of the characters at all. However big the inflation/population driven box office, this is some very underwhelming STUPID ****

Incoherent, incomprehensible, intolerable dribble by a senile old master French fraud, this might be his ultimate sham. Not only does the less than novice image look atrocious (and we are to believe this is a great artist of cinema?!), but by today's standards you get better conceptual thought and commentary not to mention visual adeptness on the vast amateur junkyard known as YouTube. Free. Anyone liking or making excuses for this ---- is likely as phony and pretentious as the pompous idiots in the jackass critics herd. If there is some brilliant latent conceptual art premise here requiring discovery, it's so hidden as to be pointless and certainly not worth the trouble nor any good will.

Sensational looking but typical sci-fi fantasy formula driven drivel full of clichés made even worse by practically non-existent 3D! It's unbelievable that both Rodriguez and especially Camaron go light on the 3D. First of all your story **** so you wouldn't be distracting from it by full use of 3D, gimmick perception or not. Secondly, the Z-axis has depth in both directions and is artistically and commercially perfectly valid put to its fullest use as a canvas! GO WITH IT OR DON'T RELEASE IN 3D! Idiots, subtly immersive is something called 2D and without the stupid glasses and 30% up charge! How can you Hollywood drones all be so damn timid and ignorant of this?! To top it off, the terribly designed unfit for market Dolby active shutter glasses are so narrow the field of view is dramatically cropped, which IS incredibly distracting!

Noble high concept technical challenge for the sake of historical document, this plays more as simply that than an involving documentary feature. As is the dumb trend now with anything remotely resembling the documentary form, this thing is a non-stop run on verbal barrage with no sense of cadence or breathing room causing the viewer to glaze over, which is inexcusable given Jackson's stature and experience! Then again this is the moviemaker whose trademark is overblown, way overlong, bloated, more is less flicks ruined by such in their effectiveness and he still doesn't get it. You're better off catching some colorized WWI TV docs on The History Channel. For that matter the touted restored, colorized, speed adjusted image here has a phony digitized compressed look with contours swimming and wavering in digital artifacting throughout. It doesn't even look very good on the big screen.

Hollywood comedy drama at its best! Smart layered rich writing that reminds you of how good movies should be crafted, this actually deserves Oscar praise unlike many other typically pretentious and/or diversity handicap handouts in the field. Both lead actors are exceptional.

With its impressionistic photography and editing via today's usually unwanted annoying sustained handheld camera techniques and over cuttiness, this perhaps puts you there with Van Gogh like never before and yes times were much slower back then. Willem Dafoe, an actor of great integrity, is the artist (as he himself is an artist). The film takes one big misstep in declaring conspiracy theory as fact rather than only alluding to its possibility.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Not a fan of Melissa McCarthy (except in sketch comedy), but she carries this curiously original true story and is terrific. Here's an example of a new movie with no style gimmicks, just straight conventional filmmaking which is as atmospheric and full of feeling as anything and far better to watch as such than all the camera conscious junk much in vogue. Poetic in its comedic pathos, the movie has the soul of great literary aspiration.

A pleasant surprise, the expected dull domestic character drama actually has a compelling story. Glenn Close is fine, as worthy or more of an Oscar than others up for it.

Gorgeous photography, set design, and interesting sound can't lift this from the expected perils of a stuffy period piece. Nor can raunchy content and contemporary dirty dialogue regardless of themes paralleling today's politics and feminist fads, no matter how good the acting.

Earnest visceral and intimate treatment of most important of historical events widely covered in all manner and lodged in the cultural consciousness for 50 years, this does add a stylistically contemporary cinematic updating that puts you there perhaps more than ever before. It's also needlessly prolonged in its annoyingly too tight handheld photography which should have been more measured for effect! Surprisingly it drags even more than epics typically do considering its new look into the real hero's personal life.

Clint at his best in a smart, poignant, funny tale of humanity and slow burn suspense deserving of Oscar nods. His character and the story are not racist (if you paid attention to such idiotic controversy) but generational colloquial if viewed correctly. Worthless critics pc herd jackasses, dumb diversity handout losers, sheep Academy hypocrites all be damned!

Technically well done, good casting of a fine Emily Blunt and a competent but entirely interchangeable Lin-Manuel Miranda it's nothing new, nothing special and nothing riveting to behold unlike the groundbreaking Disney classic from the sixties was at the time.

This big sprawling dopey bloated mess is what you get from today's Hollywood; in particular the stooge execs, puppet actors, juvenile writers, and hack nerd directors, many of whom either don't understand good narrative craft or care to. Old Aquaman comic fan here, but this is just the latest in the degradation of DC movies since the atrocious "Man of Steel".

Striking breakout animation and hip urban comic book graffiti style nearly lift the also creative break the mold expanded universe narrative from the perils of dull formula.

Some epic unusual visuals (yet no shortage of such in plentiful stream of sci-fi fantasy flicks) entrenched in a mind numbing formulaic bore so typical of the genre. * Notable viewing only for the Dolby HDR Cinema large format auditorium (competition for IMAX) with sound so bold the seats (the most comfortable of recliner leather chairs) literally shake.

Shadow boxing excuse for a movie; it's a soulless, unnecessary, sheer bore that like its affirmative action insanely over-rated predecessor features a no charisma lead character played by an utterly lackluster actor who's in great shape physically but that's it. Points for a semi-clever plot digging back into the Rocky canon as Stallone did so cleverly throughout his series and no doubt had a hand in here (He should have called it quits though after the last one!), but the actual antagonist is nearly non-present. The tone on this spinoff series is wrong and this thing drags badly, one thing Rocky movies never did.

While technically very well made by a veteran director with a standout performance by the lead (not a fan of him in "Mr. Robot" but have to give credit here) and compelling most of the way, it drags in the third act by concentrating on particular events at the overall expense of the band's trajectory and impact. There are curious chronological flaws which must be intended but are not ultimately acceptable, and like other rock band biopics such as "Straight Outta Compton" this liberally rips off Oliver Stone's "The Doors" in formative origin plotting, style and even directly steals an entire scene! All said it's still worth it if you're a fan of the music.

Beyond reboot, beyond chronic sequelitis, beyond unnecessary. Though conventionally well made and competently delivering for its audience it's also exactly the predictable retread of gore and bore anyone of sound mind would expect and avoid including old fans of the classic original, the one that started the whole slasher thriller sub-genre and a clever deservingly praised little movie at that. It feels much longer than it actually is with the only viewers who could possibly be entertained being the young who have not seen this schlock all before and maybe the mentally ****. The makers and marketers are so vapid and lazy they couldn't (or stupidly chose not to) even come up with a variant on the original title which is nonsensical since it's not a remake and will only lead to pointless confusion in the future with the duplicate titles.

Absurdly over-rated and ridiculously praised as a must by the jackass critics herd, media dunces, and the react as they're told audience now, it drags from beginning to end in a cliché laden remake story with the major debut by Gaga coming off like acting class as you watch her trying to act (with good acting you don't notice). Bradley is a very good actor, but he plays a contrived character with the put on voice only distracting. The singing and music are great, but it doesn't make a movie. The whole thing despite decent competent filmmaking rings false, going through the motions only. Staged. Consider a movie with similar subject, "Crazy Heart", a far superior experience that got Jeff Bridges his Oscar (deservedly) but had no such hype because it was a small release without the benefit of huge pop diva presence. That one got to you, more subtly maybe but it had a soul. Bridges was the character. This is a watch check flick.

An intentional throwback to the seventies filmmaking of Robert Redford's heyday both stylistically and story wise, it couldn't be much more of a bore despite the iconic star. Sophisticated special sneak audience laughed and **** rolled on cue though as if they were watching a different movie, as if they'd never seen this kind of soft cliché laden easy trot through before. The audience was smarter back in the time the movie is set in.

Hypocrite Hippopotamus is a radical bomb thrower with crackpot politics but also a gifted filmmaker who makes assured entertaining populist docs on important and emotionally charged subjects, which is why it's surprising this outing is so scattered and structurally flawed. His hometown Flint, the base that started his whole career, eats up way too much time and no matter how much it ties into his own artistic legacy or personally compelling he thinks it is it's off topic. His telling here of how Trump got into the presidential race is a completely different story from what venerable PBS documentary series "Frontline" reported, among others presumably, so what's the truth? Alternative facts? The FACT is any story, any complex truth, can have alternative facts because practically no story is ever told in complete totality and from all points of view, which sheds light on the fact this documentary and nearly all news reporting is highly editorial, meaning you get only what they want you to know from the actual whole story. A prime example in this thing is his dumb ignorant gloss over of the Electoral College, which if he had any true understanding of he wouldn't make his shallow foolish point and for that matter he would not be on the far left to begin with! You have to give it to Michael Moore though, he's an equal opportunity offender and doesn't hold back in trashing both sides and leaving scorched earth in his personally large wake which will mostly offend in all directions (Funny, isn't that what he accuses Trump supporters of?) while still delivering more laughs than most silly Hollywood comedies.

In IMAX for the first time upon its 50th anniversary re-release, there is no more fitting title for the large format and there is perhaps no work of cinema with a bigger canvas except maybe "Star Wars". Its visual effects and soundtrack are as realistic, as awesome, and as transcendently artistic as any that came before or have since in its wake. This is science fiction at its loftiest taking on the story of mankind itself with more grandeur and mystery than any motion picture has ever dared. Though known for its experimental nature over conventional narrative form the simple story is actually potently strong in its brilliant minimalism in service of sublime theme. It's Kubrick's greatest masterpiece of many, and like all his work does not readily appeal in typical 'movie movie' ways nor fully divulge itself upon initial viewings.

Spike Lee is at his best as a talented moviemaker delivering for the audience and at his worst as a preachy activist pandering with his tired obsessive skewed overkill agenda, and this no surprise veers heavily toward the latter. Stylistically he lazily goes with his tendency toward self conscious post modern filmmaking here (random insert cuts from other media, actors staring straight into lens, etc.) even though he's quite capable of making the point by more difficult to do narrative craft, or at least he used to be capable of that. Based on a true story that is pretty funny, damn crazy and yes timely again now; but instead of being ripe with its inherent suspense this shoddy effort is full of logic flaws, sloppy period colloquial errors, and cartoony didactic dialogue in a silly heavily re-manipulated plot to tie into perceptions of today's America that all rings anything but true and worse is boring. His best joints: "Do the Right Thing", "Summer of Sam", "Inside Man"

Slightly more serious and well crafted USA/China co-production than the assumed D grade flick advertised, starting off that is, only to start... No surprise this thing rips off "Jaws" taking it to beyond absurd levels (it doesn't just jump the shark, it rocket launches it), but it downright apes scene after scene to the point it's not clear if all an homage or the makers think they can just repackage guilt free and way over-the-top for today's pushover audience (one joke certainly is an obvious nod to fans). Overall you can't be disappointed because you knew what you were in for, yet nonetheless it's too bad because the high concept here is a natural that was inevitable to be made and now that it has a much better version was not.

Finally some hope in the most dreadful summer yet at the movies with this unexpected best in the so-so series and on another level from the last installment which dopey critics at the time gushed over leaving no head room for this far and away better movie. Top craft including an effective no nonsense music score, intense state-of-the-art conventional style photography that puts to shame the stupid shaky handheld cut to ribbons fad, an urgent timely for the world today (if nothing new) plot, solid supporting performances particularly in Henry Cavill (Who knew he could be so good after playing such a dull Superman?), and most of all the never for loss of conviction Cruise who is that very rare movie star who at once is capable of extreme super stunts playing in the most extraordinary fiction scenarios while still believably relating on a down to earth level make this all surprisingly convincing. Had it clocked in 15-30 minutes shorter it would rate a 9 or 10 here, but longer running times are unfortunately the nonsensical in the age of shorter attention spans trend.

The lame generic lacking in creativity title tells you everything you need about this dopey "Die Hard" meets "The Towering Inferno" (both good titles) auto assemble. The highest paid star now in Hollywood is indicative of the state of the industry since not only has he never made a single good movie (even Arnold made some good ones) and an awful lot of atrocious ones including roles beneath even a former wrestler, but his box office doesn't even back it up and that's taking into account it's all based on international sales not his poor domestic openings. It simply must be his larger than life cartoon persona that stooge execs fall for. This particular cartoon comes off as written by an eight year old with say King Kong being a far more realistic character than The Rock portrays here or anywhere.

All I could think about sitting through this conveyor belt cookie cutter nonsense was how inappropriate a use of my time and lack of priorities to allow myself to be subjected to it. That and Disney having bought Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm (all of which show premature strain) and in the process of swallowing Twentieth Century Fox; is now the biggest threat to new Hollywood movies with its more than ever overly safe, formulaic, and politically correct output. Michael Douglas never should have signed on to begin with, while it's perfect for Paul Rudd.

The original was a clever inventive highly amusing sendup of superheroes and spy thrillers at a level only Pixar could do and one of their best in a long run of out of the park home runs. This along with almost everything they've put out since 2011 is lackluster, strained, tired retread and suffers from the same overlong, seen it all before, cliché laden action fare it's supposed to spoof. Sure same high production and artistic standards, but what's fresh here? Maybe the novelty of computer animation has worn off, or more likely it seems for Pixar it used to be: "We have a good idea!" whereas now it's "How can we best do another of these?" and sadly the result is the magic is mostly gone.

Comes in as expected which is big spectacle overlong formulaic tent pole action that drags like they all do now, but somehow the effects are even slightly better than the given spectacular with the story about as inventive as can be reasonably demanded though not the all out breakout progression that's been teased then retreated upon since the first sequel in 1997. They milk as much as possible of course.

High marks for steady consistent truly scary and disturbing sustained tone of dread. Low marks for blatant ripoff of "The Shining" in mood and style and "Rosemary's Baby" regarding concept/story, with heavy helpings of "The Exorcist" and "The Sixth Sense". Those are all classics but this will not be as some in the jackass critics herd foolishly and incompetently promote, because as with nearly all horror movies of the present era there is an over reliance on way too easy supernatural nonsense in sacrifice of superior story craft.

This suffers from the same connect the dots checklist thinking and wink wink fan references that all Star Wars movies have been plagued by since 1983 with the new ones this decade under Disney worse than ever regarding and it makes the galaxy far, far away seem so very small. It also inherently mars our own imaginations of the origins of these iconic characters whereby dictating into concrete such it inevitably fails to live up to the previous hinted back story (as is of course the nature of prequels and sequels for that matter, but they can be worthy if the story is smart and called for as opposed to lazy short hand completeness). The lead actor is functional and not bad, but he's not a standout as Ford was and his performance is indeed just that in that it is mostly an impersonation instead of genuine acting. The movie drags due to the oh so typical formulaic boring non-stop action recipe that the supreme owners think most commercially apt in this day and age. note: There seems to be a major chronological flaw (attributable to the silly connect the dots mindset) that even if later explained by some stupidity the incompetent chaperones at Lucasfilm should be held accountable for. Kasdan proves once and for all a hack as shown by his last three screenplay efforts compared to the one great one. Howard stepping in is proof the franchise has no directorial authorship whatsoever. And Kennedy who seems to have been chosen to run Lucasfilm purely because she is a likable able business woman and not for her lack of creative clout has got to be Lucas's last worst decision of all.