Beecee

I really believe that this film has received negative reviews based on its politics. This does start off as quite a realistic film. Elizabeth Banks plays a 1960s housewife who has an ectopic pregnancy and desperately needs an abortion to save her life. Her search is moving and realistic and is the best part of this movie. Although the changes she subsequently undergoes are not totally realistic, this movie is still worth seeing. Sigourney Weaver steals the show as a grizzled veteran of the Jane movement.

The title is accurate - the is really a mish mash of a lot of different types of films. They flash back and forth between alternate universes, but none of them seems real. Michelle Yeoh and Jamie Lee Curtis do what they can, but their characters are not fleshed out and the plot doesn't go much of anywhere.

As usual, this film is labelled as "Inspired by history", so it is likely to not be absolutely the truth. I'm not sure why there is such an outcry against it. The acting is good, the story is compelling, the music and costumes are terrific, the action scenes were awesome. Importantly, there were many women involved in the production of the film. Viola Davis was great!

Keaton and Irons are very good actors, but even they can't save this mess of a film. Two points for them. The plot ridiculously starts with a young woman forcing a man to go skydiving, then they plop down into the middle of a wedding on a lake. Somehow this is enough to qualify her as a wedding planner. Nothing is particularly funny, and everything is pretty nonsensical.

This was actually a very enjoyable film. The production, filmed in Sicily, is dazzling. Of course, the true reason to see this film is Peter Dinklage, who has great charisma and a decent singing voice. Changing Cyrano's attribute from a large nose to short stature makes sense. Most of the music isn't notable, with the exception of a moving number sung by a group of soldiers about to go into battle. But I didn't really see enough chemistry between the actors playing Roxanne and Christian

I was able to qualify for an advance screening of this important film. The true story of a man who was unfairly incarcerated in Guantanamo for circumstantial evidence then coerced into a confession is tightly written. The acting is superb, including the amazing Tahar Rahim in the leading role. The only warning: Some parts of the film are very difficult to watch, but necessary to tell the story. This film really does tell a story that must be told.

This is a truly fascinating story about the origins and impact of the great musical, Fiddler on the roof. From interviews with the creators and actors to excerpts from early (often silent) Sholom Aleichem films to excerpts from various productions (including one from Japan), this takes on all aspects of the musical/movie. We also hear a song that was deleted from the musical during the pre-Broadway tryout in Detroit and learn about the feud between Zero Mostel and the director Jerome Robbins. I was particularly moved by the footage from Ukraine, including a view of the shtetl circa 1905 and a musical performance at the Sholom Aleichem Museum in Kiev. If you love Fiddler on the Roof, see this movie!

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

This film does deserve credit for providing a new interpretation of Emily ****, and does describe the attempt to whitewash **** reputation after her death. And there are readings from **** many letters, previously unavailable. However, the film is not well written, there is little character development and many of the characters are cardboard stereotypes. The attempts at comedy are almost slapstick. Therefore, it is frequently tedious to watch.

Emily Blunt does a good job of portraying Mary Poppins, and Lin-Manuel Miranda is charming. There are perhaps around three good songs. And it is a treat to see **** Van Dyke and Angela Lansbury. However, the plot is a mess. Both the death of the mother and the impending home foreclosure are too much darkness to deal with. They could totally do without the foreclosure subplot, including the absurd effort to change the time on Big Ben. Colin Firth is saddled with playing a one dimensional villain.

This film has lots of charm, as we follow five puppies from birth through the training period to their final placement. The suspense is something like watching a competition, as we try to figure out which puppy will make it as a guide dog for the blind and which puppy will need to have an alternative career. All the people involved in this process are interviewed, from the people who originally socialize the puppies to the trainers to the eventual recipients. We also get to see the final exams that all dogs must pass in order to become a guide dog. This is generally a tribute to dogs and the people who love them.

I've seen several versions of A Midsummer Night's Dream on both film and stage, and this was by far the least successful. The filmmaker was influenced by Baz Luhrmann, and completely modernized the story, including having some of the dialogue shown in text on smart phones. Some of the inventions don't work for me: when Bottom turns into an "ass" his face becomes a person's rear end, and the theatrical group becomes a film crew who do a spoof on Star Wars. The mostly young actors are not up to the task of performing the Shakespearean dialogue. Somehow, making this a totally modern play (except for the language) with modern locations takes much of the magic out of the play for me. The 1999 version with Kevin Kline and Michelle Pfeiffer was much better.

Unlike some of the reviewers, I actually enjoyed the silly, over-the-top aspect of the original. And those infectiously upbeat Abba songs! This one, though , was quite a disappointment. This one goes into the past to show how the young Donna meets all her boyfriends. Although Lily James does a good job as the young Donna, her exploits with the three young men just aren't that interesting. They used all the really good Abba songs in the first film, so they wind up with a lot of B sides here. And the addition of Cher doesn't make up for the absence of Meryl Streep (except for a cameo appearance), Trying to get more serious doesn't work too well. Hopefully, they won't make another sequel.

This film, which covers a little known era of American history, is definitely worth seeing. Although the format of the documentary is fairly conventional, and few filmed narratives of the people involved are available, it lets us know about the progressive political history of places like Indiana (where Debs was born and raised), West Virginia and Oklahoma. The late 19th and early 20th centuries were also times of turmoil. It also gives us a far different view of people like Helen Keller and Warren Harding. The political cartoons are amusing, and Yale Strom (a great Klezmer musician and ethnomusicologist) has written a good score that reflects America's heartland. Yale even got the rights to use Woody Guthrie's version of "This Land Is Your Land".

Catherine Keener does a good and naturalistic job as the sympathetic divorcee Suzanne in New London Connecticut who fights City Hall to keep her house from being turned over to a corporation for urban renewal. The script moves forward at a reasonable pace, and Suzanne's life is lightened by a local romance. The main problem is that there is a lack of economic context. The other side is almost totally demonized, and Jeanne Tripplethorn comes off like Cruella de Vil.

"Finding your Feet" is a film with a lot of charm. The British seem to have a knack for making comedy-drama-romances with actors of a certain age. Here, Imelda Staunton's character goes to live with the sister she hasn't seen in 10 years, after it is revealed that her husband has been having a long term affair with her "best" friend. Although her sister is poorer, she has more fun leading her life. The acting is very good, the dancing is fun to watch, and the themes are "money can't buy happiness" and "you've got to be true to yourself". And although certain parts of the film, particularly the ending, were predictable, I enjoyed myself. It gives the audience hope that it's never too late to change.

So what's so great about this film? Other than having some promising young actors (and being Anton Yelchin's last film), the plot features amoral, self-indulgent characters, none of whom had any redeeming features. There's two morally flawed teenagers, one young drug dealer, a mostly oblivious mother, and a scheming step father. Surely the two bright (but morally challenged)girls could have come up with a better way to get even with the step father. I really didn't see any humor in the story. Other than the interesting sound effects/score, there weren't many other pleasures.

The film is well-paced, the visuals are very striking, and it does keep up the suspense (although we know that Natalie Portman's character Lena survives, since the story is told through flashbacks). Natalie Portman does an expectedly good acting job, and it is good to see this many women and minorities in a major studio release. On the other hand, Jennifer Jason Leigh generally speaks in a monotone, the multiple flashbacks are sometimes confusing and the film's conclusion isn't completely logical or satisfying.

Daniel Day-Lewis does an excellent acting job, as usual, and the sets and costumes are gorgeous. That said, the movie is a study on the relationship between the fashion designer, Reynolds ****, and the two women in his life. It is generally slow moving, and all three main characters are very unpleasant - not the kind of people one would ever want to encounter. The relationship between Cyril and **** initially remains ambiguous, to the detriment of understanding the movie. I would also agree that there is a strong and unpleasant thread of sadomasochism in the relationship between Alma and ****, although there is no physical violence.

This is a very enjoyable film centered around the women's suffrage movement in Switzerland in 1971(!) Although this is a political film, it also emphasizes the individual personalities of both the women and men in a small town in Switzerland, and shows their personal growth. There is both drama and comedy, and although the ending is generally happy, not all relationships survive - making it more true to life.

The coming of age movie has been done many times, so does this movie have anything new to tell us? One thing is that neither Lady Bird nor her mother are terribly sympathetic characters - but they do seem real, based on the good acting. They are a pretty solidly middle-class family - father is a computer programmer, mother is a nurse - but the heroine still needs to lie about where she lives, due to the very wealthy families who send their children to her school - even though she has no problem being assertive around boys. Some of the individual scenes work - such as the one where the father needs to compete against his adopted son for a programming job. One of the funny scenes - where the sports coach takes over the theater program - actually doesn't seem realistic in accordance with the mood of the film. Tracy Letts' character was the most sympathetic, and I'm still not clear where the mother's endless bickering is coming from

Here is another indie movie that I can't say I enjoyed. Although the visuals are very interesting, showing the sleazy underbelly near Disneyworld in Orlando, and there is some good acting, particularly by Willem Dafoe, the movie was seriously flawed. Moonie's unemployed stripper mother was hardly sympathetic. The ending of the film was predictable, the film itself was repetitive and slow moving, and I found myself impatiently waiting for the inevitable conclusion.

I saw the first film, which had a lot of charm and gave me a tour of the lovely English countryside, some views of luscious food, and witty repartee. I was expecting more of the same, but I was disappointed. Outside of some homemade sausage towards the beginning of the film, there wasn't much emphasis on the actual food. I would have liked some emphasis on the chefs as well, but we mainly got to meet one waitress, who spoke with a thick accent. I did get a few good laughs, but there was more emphasis on drama in contrasting the lives of family man Rob and bachelor Steve, and it didn't work for me. Some of the scenery was interesting, but I can't say that I really got to know either Spanish or Spanish cuisine.

This film could be broken into three parts: 1) The prologue, showing a good visual description of how the Detroit riots began, and introducing us to two of the main characters, a singer with the Dramatics and a security guard; 2) The Algiers Motel incident; 3) The trial of the police officers. As a person who was growing up as a resident of Detroit in 1967, I felt that the depiction of the beginnings of the riot was very convincing, and I thought the use of documentary footage was effective. However, I thought that the introductory montage of murals should have been deleted. The scenes in the Algiers Motel were harrowing, and this section did seem long (but partly because it was so hard to watch). Yes, one might ask several questions - why didn't the supervisor immediately remove the mean cop (probably because there was a riot going on, and he felt he needed all the officers on duty). It's easy to say - why didn't the residents mention that the man who had been killed had just shot off a toy pistol? (Would it have made any difference?) Unfortunately, this movie still seems to bring up issues that are still relevant today. State police/National Guard knew that the bad cop was going overboard, yet nobody stopped him. The consequences seem to be similar to those for various current incidents. One other point - the depiction of Motown music and artists was spot on.

A Ghost Story attempts profundity, and there is an A list cast, but I felt that it was ultimately unsuccessful. Casey Affleck is acting without speaking and with a sheet over his body most of the time, so you can't really get much emotion out of it. Couldn't the ghost be portrayed in a fashion that could still show facial features and emotion? I felt that his relationship with his wife, Rooney Mara, should have been the focus of the movie, but she leaves the movie too soon, and she doesn't have any interaction with the ghost. Any potentially interesting avenue to explore (like the relationship with the ghost next door) is given short shrift. No, I didn't expect a horror film with a lot of action, but I still expected more interaction among the characters. As others have said before, it was boring and uninvolving.

This "time loop" theme is familiar - I understand that it was done by the Twilight Zone, but was done to perfection by Groundhog Day. This film seems to pay tribute to its predecessor, in that the shallow teenage heroine wakes up each (same)day at the same time, with the same song playing on her iPhone. The introduction to the heroine and her group of friends in the first 25 minutes was tedious, and I had no interest in any of them - but the film became more interesting with each round. We learn the back stories for the main characters, and the heroine's transformation is believable. The end of the film genuinely surprised me, but it was foreshadowed by the narration. Overall, it was better than I thought it would be, and I'm way older than the film's cast.

I was intrigued enough by the subject matter to see the film and was very glad that I did. Although some of the episodes seemed contrived (particularly running out of gas after getting a flat tire), the emotions and issues were very real and Colm Meaney and Timothy Spall do a fabulous job of portraying the real people on both sides of the Northern Ireland civil war. What does it take for two former enemies to make peace with each other? One answer here is the ability to see each other as human beings.

This film finally came to San Diego, this past weekend, and I had the great pleasure of seeing it with the director in the house. The film is well-made - although most of the film is chronological, it wisely starts out with Coltrane's stint with Miles Davis and his effort to kick the heroin habit. This is not a concert film, but there are many excerpts of Coltrane's music, including in-concert footage. Coltrane did no TV interviews, and I was told that his radio interviews were of poor quality (and therefore not used), but Denzel Washington does a great job of narrating Coltrane's written words. Most of the interviews were enlightening, and the interviews in Japan put Coltrane's last concert (in Japan) into context with his views on life. All jazz fans should see this film, and others should also give it a chance.

I'm not a newbie to this material, having heard members of the Buena Vista Social Club in concert twice. This movie may not be as immediately accessible to people who have never heard of this group. It basically showcases five major performers: Ruben Gonzales, Ibrahim Ferrer, Compay Segundo, Eliades Ochoa and Omara Portuondo. But I felt that, in showing the group members both before and after the first movie, it put their lives in context with their Cuban environment. And there still is that wonderful music.

This is a good summary of the impact of Jane Jacobs, citizen planner, giving us a history of the soulless "Radiant City" theory of planning, the damage it has done , and the damage it may yet do (in places like China). Although we are out of the era of massive U.S. expressway and housing project construction, it is important to know how we got there. I somehow wish there was more biographical detail on Jane herself and an illustration on how her theories worked in New York City neighborhoods. Yet this is a timely illustration on how citizen activism works and how it can change history.

I enjoyed this movie, and five other people who saw it with me also enjoyed it, despite the critics. It is always a pleasure to see Shirley MacLaine, and her character, obnoxious at the beginning, never seems irredemable. Anne Heche, who plays her estranged daughter, does a good job of portraying a woman obviously influenced by her mother. Yes, it is somewhat predictable, but the plot is well structured, there are lots of good one liners and the moral, that you're never too old to change your life, is a good one

There is a germ **** idea here. An African American lesbian, a budding filmmaker who works at a video store, becomes entranced by a minor black actress of the 1930's, known only as "Watermelon Woman". If this had been more of a road movie, it might have worked. But much of the film takes place in a video store. The film suffers from amateur actors, poor cinematography, and a weak plot. There is some resemblance to "Go Fish", which has a lot of the same flaws. Although there is some interest in seeing a community that rarely appears in films, and there is an interesting cameo with Camille Paglia, this film would mainly be of interest to those middle-aged lesbians who are willing to overlook its flaws.

Like most of the viewers, I really enjoyed this picture. Alexander McCall Smith's books increased my interest in Botswana, and I wasn't disappointed. Rosamond Pike and David Oyelowo did an excellent job of portraying the leading couple, and I felt that they did have the necessary chemistry. I would have liked a more rounded view of Seretse's sister and how she eventually came to care for Ruth. A more nuanced view of the Brits would also have been good, since only Tony Benn was portrayed as a sympathetic British politician. Still, this is a great view of the intersection of love and politics and the events leading up to the birth of the country of Botswana.

Having lived most of my life in Southern California, I had heard that McDonald's was started in San Bernardino by someone named McDonald. But I had never heard the full story of Ray Kroc. Michael Keaton was criminally overlooked in the Oscar nominations as the leading character. He starts out sympathetic, a travelling salesman in his 50's who never quite made it, but hears that a restaurant named McDonald's ordered several milk shake making machines (which he sells) and decides to take a look at the restaurant himself. The McDonald brothers are the inventors, who have tried to franchise their restaurant but were unsuccessful. Kroc figures out how to do this, but along the way his determination turns to ambition and greed. This is an interesting look at why the marketers, not the inventors, frequently succeed in our economy. The McDonald brothers are the most sympathetic characters, but McDonald's would never have become what it is today without Kroc. This is also an interesting look at the young Joan Kroc, Ray's second wife, who is known to many San Diegans as the former owner of the Padres, patron of the arts, and philanthropist.

This animated film is a co-production, over two continents, between Japan's Studio Ghibli and a French animator (with some assistance from Hungarians). This is a lovely film, with no dialogue but atmospheric music. As previously stated by others, this film is about a sailor stranded on a tropical island who attempts to leave on a raft but whose path is thwarted by a large red turtle. The film is the story of his life, and I wasn't at all bored. There is a certain magic and quiet artistry typical of Studio Ghibli. It is certainly imaginative and deserving of its Oscar nomination.

This is a very enjoyable film about three talented and heroic black women in mathematics who were instrumental in the space program. It is well written, the music by Pharrell Williams is effective and fits the period, and the plot moves forward at a brisk pace. The acting is also very good, particularly Octavia Spencer's turn as an underpaid supervisor. If this influences more young black women into going into the sciences, so much the better. There's nothing wrong with a crowd pleaser.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes (particularly those involving his "adopted" father). However, the cinematography and direction bear resemblance to the average home movie. There is also a huge gap in the story between an incident that happens in high school and Chiron as an adult. What passions does Chiron have other than the fact that he is gay? What does he even do for a living as an adult? Most of these characters are stereotypes rather than well-drawn human beings.

I'm a big theater fan, so I've seen most of August Wilson's Pittsburgh cycle plays, and Fences is his most awarded and arguably best play. It takes place mainly in the 50's and concerns Troy Maxon, former Negro League baseball player now trash collector, his wife Rose, two sons and brain damaged war veteran brother. Denzel does a great job as Troy, who is not a totally sympathetic person, but the movie belongs to Viola Davis as his long-suffering wife. Yes, it is obviously an adaptation of a play, but the dialogue is terrific and all the characters are realistic and well-rounded. Kudos should also be given to the actor portraying his brother. You may not like this film if you are mainly into action movies, but I was thoroughly involved with the plot and the characters, despite my familiarity with the play.

This is a movie about a man with a volatile temper who is haunted by his past (we find out why towards the end of the movie). Since the main character and the teenaged nephew who has the main secondary role are not immediately sympathetic characters, the film needs to keep the filmgoers interested with the plot and the personal growth of the characters. Unfortunately, Casey Affleck never really experiences any personal growth, and ends the film the same as he started. Matthew Broderick is totally wasted in a cameo role. The scenery is beautiful, but the film is way too slow moving.

This is a somewhat low-key film that presents the married life of Richard and Mildred Loving, the interracial Virginia couple who are prevented from living as a married couple in their home state of Virginia in the 1950's and 1960's and who wind up going to the Supreme Court to defend their rights. Their case voided all the miscegenation laws still on the books in the south. The acting of the two main characters was superb, and I was riveted to the screen, even though I knew how it would all turn out. The director could have included more histrionics and drama, but I felt that his presentation was true to the nature of the Lovings. It was fascinating to see that the demure housewife Mildred was really the more courageous of the two in the pursuit of justice.

The film starts off in an interesting way. An alien race lands in 12 places on earth for an unknown reason. Amy Adams is a linguist who is contacted by the military to communicate with the aliens, with a metallic, spider-like appearance, who communicate through circles of ink. The effort to communicate with the aliens is the most interesting part of this film. However, there is a major digression into the private life of Adams' character, and the film goes back and forth over time regarding the daughter's life (who is in the hospital in one scene) - her husband barely appears. The movie is basically unsatisfying and confusing - you never really understand why the aliens came to earth in the first place and why they landed in 12 locations. With the exception of Adams' character, you never really get to know anyone else. There also doesn't seem to be any interactions with people at the other locations. "Contact" was a much better and coherent movie on a similar subject.

I agree with the users rather than the critics. This is very much in the tradition of "Cinema Verite", and it looks at the lives of four women who loosely intersect in a small town in Montana. The film does manage to create a mood, and there are some good actors and performances. Yet it is a very slow-moving, tedious and rather depressing film which focusses on the inability of the characters to make (or keep) connections with other people. The first segment, with Laura Dern as an attorney who has a prospective client who was injured on his former job, initially holds some promise, yet this story doesn't go much of anywhere. The point to the second story seems to be that the audience knows something about her husband that she doesn't. The young actress who plays the ranch hand in the third segment is sympathetic, yet the story is undeveloped. I saw this film because I like to support women filmmakers, but there are too many long, drawn out shots - and, again, no compelling story.

This is a moving story about morality during wartime. Immediately after the end of World War II, a female Red Cross French doctor (Mathilde) is approached by a local nun. One nun is about to give birth due to her **** by the conquering Russian soldiers, and several others are pregnant. The sense of fear is palpable, particularly when Mathilde herself is threatened by a group of Russian soldiers. There are many issues here regarding faith, moral decisions and duty. There is a happy ending of sorts, which connects the convent to the outside community. In French and Polish, with a little Russian.

This movie reverts to the old odd numbered/ even numbered theory of Star Trek films. As the 13th film, it is definitely not as good as the J.J. Abrams' first two reboots. Yes, the CGI is terrific, and the scenery of Dubai provides an effective futuristic backdrop. There is an interesting female alien in this story, and the main Star Trek cast is a pleasure to see. Yet the plot doesn't really hold water. This seems more like a generic action movie, rather than a real Star Trek film. The best of Star Trek provided good characters with even the villains having realistic motivation, and maybe even a moral to the story. In this film, the rationale for the Enterprise to rescue the crew of the damsel in distress doesn't seem right. The motivation for the lead villain isn't revealed until the last 1/4 of the film, when it seems like too little too late.

I don't understand most of the low scores here. This was a riveting movie that kept me interested throughout, as it looks at Newton Knight's life as a Confederate deserter, leader of a militia that controlled a portion of Mississippi, and a civil rights supporter during Reconstruction. It then flashes forward to the miscegenation court case involving his great-grandson in 1948. Matthew McConaughey does a terrific job as Knight, and makes us understand his transformation. Keri Russell, Gugu Mbatha-Raw and the actor portraying Moses also turn in stellar performances. Yes, there is considerable graphic violence, but it does not seem gratuitous. The reconstruction part of the film is also quite difficult to watch (and somewhat long). The film is not at all sympathetic to the Confederate army, particularly the officers, since it is told from Knight's perspective. I actually found the flash forward to 1948 to be a valuable part of the film (at times, it was a break from the Civil War/ Reconstruction action). This film has a lot of interesting things to say about race and class in America, and it should be seen by more people.

The idea - to have a vampire analyzed by Sigmund Freud due to the breakdown of his marriage - is inspired. The post WWI setting creates the appropriate mood. The actor who plays Count Viktor is well cast. However, there just isn't enough to the plot. They don't use the Sigmund Freud character to full effect. It is very difficult to strike the right balance between humor and horror, and this film doesn't quite get it.

Jeremy Irons and Dev Patel do a good job of portraying a relatively uneducated math genius from India and his mentor at Cambridge during World War I. Although the math is hard to understand, the passion is clearly conveyed. So is the racism the Indian mathematician encounters in England. Although the ending is predictable and the movie drags a bit towards the end, this movie is still well worth seeing.

I'm also disappointed in the reviews that this film is getting. I felt that the roles of Ernest and Mary Hemingway were well portrayed by Adrian Sparks and Joely Richardson, although Giovanni Ribisi didn't have much charisma. The plot was interesting enough, particularly regarding the conflicts that the characters had with the FBI and the scene with the Coast Guard. The authentic locales in the Havana area are also a big plus.

This movie is a change of pace for Michael Moore, with a much more optimistic point of view. An improvement over his last two films, this film starts with a conceit that he is authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to visit other countries and take the good ideas they have to bring back to America. MM visits nine countries in total, some of them expected (France and Norway) and some not expected at all (like Slovenia and Tunisia). I found myself wanting to know more about some things, like exactly how the Finnish educational system works. I also wanted to visit the French elementary school that serves these wonderful gourmet meals! (In one of the funniest scenes of the film, MM shows students what a typical American school lunch looks like.) The final point - most of these countries got the idea for their innovations from the U.S. This film manages to be both entertaining and thought provoking.

As has been described, the film takes place during the week leading up to the couple's 45th wedding anniversary, when Tom Courtenay's character finds out that his previous lover Katya's remains were found on a mountain in Switzerland. The movie is basically about the couple's reaction to this news. Both Courtenay and Rampling give naturalistic perrmances, but the film is very slow moving. Charlotte Rampling never really discusses her discoveries or her feelings with her husband, so the audience does get the anticipated payoff. Somehow there doesn't seem to be enough plot for a full length movie, and I was frankly bored.