CMC

Painful to watch after an hour, I stayed because of a friend. The Director does not have control of his material, throwing up stuff on the wall to see what sticks. Because he is not sure, the movie is easily 45 minutes to one hour longer than it needs to be to make its points. The Director knows how create cheap jokes that could be confused for wittiness or boldness, but then one realizes that they only were thrown in and do not really help carry the story. In the end the plot seems both pointless and unsatisfying.

Typical Hollywood fare, one long video game, overly sentimental manipulative music that does not even manipulate well, a series of contrived shots art-directed to give the cinematography visual opportunities, deeply unsatisfying underdeveloped characters, lost opportunities for character interactions that could have communicated something deeper, predictable plot. The reviews by the New Yorker, Roger Ebert, New York Times and Los Angeles Times are all spot-on. How could so many other reviewers say those stupid things and award the movie a 100 score? I give it a 6 only because it is more watchable than most movies, but these days that sure is not saying much. Many cite Saying Private Ryan, but that film had much more humanity to it. It does not hold a candle to The Thin Red Line, or possibly more importantly, Paths of Glory.

This is a very watchable long film with very developed and colorful characters, told mostly though the events and perspective of one character. There is a lot well-done of inter-personal drama as is typical for Italian films. The use of titles to drop the viewer into different places and times is clumsy. Despite the enormity of events, the film never achieves any kind of epic quality.

I enjoyed the film and how the elaborate story of discovery of the torture and its cover-up played out. The film is notable for its absence of usual cheap narrative devices to add dramatic interest, like the suggestive presence of ominous characters hanging out in the background or trite tensions with a girlfriend who gets fed up with Adam's obsessive work. The story is indeed difficult to tell as there are not that many dramatic conflicts between characters; it is mostly about Adam doggedly going about his work, with events unfolding. I think someone with less investment in what happened may be less interested in the film. I certainly learned a lot and found it worthwhile.

Very unpleasant movie with Sandler the only attraction. I was with my wife so I laid low but I would have walked out otherwise. The filmmaking is heavy-handed, with really obnoxious aggressive sound. Most of the anxiety that you read in the various User reviews is being strapped into a theater seat while being bombarded with aggressive sound and quick shots. Really, you can miss this one. See the trailer, you will get to enjoy Sandler as much as you can there, and then devote the rest of your 135 minutes to something more edifying.

Powerful and genuine. A dream-like ethereal journey that raises serious questions about how to live ethically, and the bravery and clarity of those who do. The film is typical Malick with voice-overs, humans occupying the landscape, and dreamy liminal long sequences. All of the scenes and acting feel completely authentic. The combination of Austrian and English with subtitles works extremely well. The subtle sound design is also effective. I think that some scenes and situations are bit longer than required to tell the story and not feel rushed. I also did not care for some aspects of the cinematography; many scenes are too wide-angle in a way that slightly diminishes the presence of the actors; the hand-held shakiness imparts a Go-Pro feel that at times seems too modern and too nervous for such a slow-moving and reflective film; and the all-natural lighting is problematic where great light latitude is required, resulting in many dark interior scenes with the outdoors completely white and too-hot. Nevertheless, this is an accomplished and successful film, the best from Malick since The Thin Red Line.

Very good autobiographical movie where Agnès Varda gives an overall survey of all her work, including installations and not just film. Very typical for her style, it moves lightly with intelligence and humor. Thought-provoking and fun.

This is a fun Hollywood movie that I found amusing enough despite its long length. It suffers from typical underbaked dramatic tension with "the wife" and cartoonish villians. Some nice golden light with Kodachrome overlay and good sound. You could do worse if you feel the need to go see something this weekend, but you could also skip it and not miss much...

Very entertaining, unnecessarily too long without quite becoming epic, and a somewhat predictable replay of the boys doing their mafia thing. Great acting, but De Niro is just his usual De Niro. Al Pacino does a great job of acting but the film suffers because I think he was mis-cast; a more bland meathead tough-guy type was needed for that role. Joe Pesci was the surprise. He was allowed to play a more restrained, non-whiny role and he was excellent. For all of the concentration on the Teamsters stuff, I still did not feel like I learned that much new about that world. De Niro has two wives and there is no development of his relationship with either of them. There is also a lot of footage about his daughter rejecting him, but this also seems underdeveloped, forced and not convincing. There are a few cinemagraphic Scorsese "effects" moments like slow-motion crowd shots, but none of these are original in 2019, and none are gripping like some scenes from Goodfellas. While I completely agree with Scorsese's critique of the Marvel Action movies, and this is most definitely a film and not a movie, his extended critique of predictable franchises with safe money actors hits a little too close here as well.

This is an ambitious effort to make a serious film, and it is excellent in almost all ways. The cinematography and sound in particular stand out. However, many of us agreed that the actors seemed more like they were acting than actually living their roles. This may be partially due to the somewhat outrageous and extreme lines and roles they had to play, somewhat over the top. Despite the story mostly being portrayed in the first person, you don't really think you get to know anyone. The film clearly aims to be a psychological drama in the vein of Bergman, but keeps getting undercut by the extreme CG flashbacks that signal more intent on horror than psychology. Once again, the film really is ambitious and involving as it plays. I kept wondering all through the film if it will find an large audience. But it fails my "next day" test; I was not left with anything to ponder afterwards, and pretty much forgot the details the next day. So, congrats on a serious effort, particularly in these days of boring and unchallenging movies. Pity it does not really grab me in any way.

Hollywood film, superficial character development, unnecessary occasional conflict to keep things going, derivative art direction, 3dCG props, no cleverNESS or originalITY, predictable bankable stock Hollywood actors, ridiculous events, and possibly the most trite and stupid ending and resolution to the main character's conflict and the movie, a real groaner.

The good: Lack of Hollywood superficiality and trite conventions. This is a film not a movie. There are many situations and moments inserted that are a bit strange and memorable. The unfortunate: There is almost no character development, and no certainly no arc to the story. As the film advances the story of the wife becomes important, but she oddly is left as a peripheral character. You come away without any insight into the main character, she is almost always an onlooker with little revealed. The bad: For a film shot in black and white, it was flat- no deep blacks, and an overly warm grey palette. The cinematography was usually wide angle, which means no close-ups of faces and eyes, contributing to the visual lack of character development. It felt like the Director had a check-list of scenes drawn from mostly Italian and Italian Neo-Realism films. So while the film did not seem superficial, the effort was in the end more of a style exercise than emotional storytelling. I give it an 8 because movies today are so dreadful. This film is worth watching and discussing, but does not rise to be considered a truly great film.

Occasionally some movies have something special that allow them to "transcend" above their genre with something worthy or notable. This is most definitely not that movie. There is nothing exceptional about this movie. Dumb, boring, stupid. The same explosions, special effects, conceits as all of the other Marvel superhero type films. The mumbo jumbo about saving the world was truly terrible. Planet of the Apes, without the possibly redeeming kitsch factor, mixed with Lion King. Racist and clueless without being aware of it.

The movie is a serious effort to make a serious film that addresses big life issues in a creative and artful manner. It largely succeeds, but I was not that engaged while watching it nor did I think about it that much afterwards. I felt no real empathy with any of the characters. The main message is that we are all caught up in fate, life is not necessarily fair, and we have to decide how we manage to live with that reality. A worthy message and effort, just not so rewarding to watch.

This is a wonderful film, deceptively simple but actually carefully crafted, reflecting on the past and present, life, memory, real people, and the role of images in our lives. Fun to watch, life-affirming. I absolutely cannot imagine where any negative reviews might come from, and the critic score is a good indication of the value of this film. Unique, inventive, real.

This film is very entertaining although it feels a bit long. Unlike almost all American films, the characters are very well developed. There are plenty of plot turns that are unlikely, but the overall strangeness and comic undertone are what is important. Unlike La La Land, I woke up the next day thinking about the characters, the different scenes and how they were played.

This is an entertaining film worth seeing. So go see it. That said, I am not happy to report that the movie comes up way short to its Hollywood and French musical antecedents; the gap between what the film aspires to and what it achieves is too great to ignore. The wide-screen Hollywood musicals were a tour-de-force of great singing talent, great dancing talent, flawless staging, studio lighting and cinematography. The actors just are not up to the task of singing and dancing, and I would argue that Ryan Gosling did not even act that well and served as a bit of a downer when exuberance is what was called for. The steadicam camerawork is really sloppy, frequently mis-framing and not using the wide-screen effectively, with many blurry portrait shots. There is occasional and shocking dark vignetting at the corners, and oftentimes mediocre to terrible lighting. The story line, dialogue and plot turns are as trivial as the movies of the past. It seems that the main virtue of the movie is that it is a contemporary attempt at the genre, but really does not offer a great critique or insightful iteration to those movies, it just is not as good. The insertion of the fake super-8 "memory" footage is one of the few attempts to change up the format, but it is a horrible and cheap conceit in any movie. The first scene promises what the rest of the movie does not offer, where the entire world breaks into song and dance. The romantic sparks between the two main characters for the rest of the film are not very emotional.

Very disappointing. I am not pleased to report that Rex Reed nails it pretty well. I like movies that are slow, unusual, and that strive to define personalities and moods. The performances were good and the movie is generally technically adequate, but for all the time allotted to the three women their true personalities don't emerge much and it all seems pointless and unfocussed. I kept wanting it to all come together, and it just does not. Sorry, don't waste your time on this one.

Yes! Entertaining. The depiction of the Florida airhead loan guys, and the Florida scenes in general, are priceless. And then you remember that it is all real, it all went down this way. Great use of humor.

Bravo. Really good in every way. Intelligent. Restores my faith in American movie making. A Ron Howard or Clint Eastwood would have "juiced it up" with silly manipulative plot turns, overdrawn characters or predictable conceits. All of the actors seemed like they were chosen for their potential contribution rather than box-office appeal, and they were very good. The depiction of Boston is spot-on, for anybody who has lived there and knows the place. I think it is better than All the President's men. How could it have been better? I think slightly more development of some characters where you felt a bit more personal investment in them, and where you believed even more that they were personally affected by the unfolding events. Possibly a touch more exposition of the actual victims- the one interviewed guy was very working class and accurately depicted, but there could have been more. Mark Ruffalo works the hardest and is the best.

Better than average "movie". Visually beautiful. Engaging enough. But like most big-budget Hollywood stuff, bloated, predictable, and ultimately unsatisfying and completely unmemorable.

Good movie for the genre, with better than average dialogue, cinematography. Involving and suspenseful, entirely predictable. So for what it is and tries to be, I give it a 7. In the pantheon of films, it is more like a 3.

Joaquin Phoenix and Josh Brolin are good fun to watch. Almost sufficiently Pynchon-esque, references to Philip Lorca Decorcia, Tarantino and south-bay jackie Brown. Some Kubrick-like absurdity. I think the drug confusion could have been expressed better, wish Owen Wilson and his baggage had not been dropped in. I wonder if PT can make a film relying on caricatures a little less, Magnolia comes close. Perhaps 15 minutes could have cut out with no damage. All these comments are trifles; there is just so much more here than you get these days. The film is not for everyone. Not for a lot of people, actually. I had a great time.

As is usual, highly stylistic films like this will draw a range of reactions. I got off to a slow start because I think too much style usually gets in the way and is considered sufficient; flowy kinetic tracking shots accompanied by surreal time changes and aggressive sound design. However, the story takes enough turns and the acting is mostly excellent. As the film progressed, I increasingly enjoyed being along for the ride. In its terms, it was mostly successful. In fairness, it is hard to reach the highest levels of profundity in black comedy, but it is certainly possible to be more edgy or more dark. I think the film is unique and worth seeing.

I found the film enjoyable and informative. It mostly lacks the formulaic talking head interviews and other tired doc format stuff, and there is quite a bit of original footage of Fela, all good. The intercutting to the Broadway show became increasingly annoying and embarrassing, sort of like interposing "The Lion King". Like most docs, this can wait until you get it online. But worth it.

The near-future depicted is clever, and the movie is easy enough to watch, but is not memorable in any way. The main characters do not seem credible, which may be due to the movie's uneasy relationship to comedy. It is indeed possible for comedic characters to be memorable, like Peter Sellers so often demonstrated, but in this case everyone is just flat and not interesting. There is absolutely no arc to the story or to the experience of the main character; he has the same flat inflection in the beginning, middle and end. The Saturday Night Live parody is perfect, because it demonstrates how much the movie depends on a surface gloss of slowly moving cameras, an intrusive score, high saturation imagery, etc. If they had cut out 40 million of Hollywood gloss it might have helped force the characters to carry more. Once again the Metascore is so out of sync with my own perceptions, I am afraid that Metacritic is no long the semi-reliable barometer it used to be.

All of the 4 and 5 ranked reviews are accurate: Great CG and 3-D, dumb story, no character development, completely unedifying. I have come to mistrust metacritic user reviews, and it seems there are fake reviews for this move, but I have never seen such a mismatch between critic reviews and and the high metascore as this. So far off! This is what really gets me: the gap between the slow and quiet times in space, and the complete lack of any psychological development. Sure it is a problem to get to know a character when they have a glass bubble on their head. But Malick or Kubrick could have done almost the same film, same shots and events, and it would have been moving and disturbing. This is indeed a popcorn movie and nothing more.

This film is weak and feels like a TV production. Fast cutting and shaky cameras will only get you so far. Central casting did a good job, but all of the good acting is compromised by ridiculous overlays of attempted emotional depth. Do we really believe that the super-bad guys all have guilt, babies, and life-plans underneath all their badness? Not in this film for sure. The number of high reviews must point to the paucity of good films out there. The Talented Mr. Ripley this is not, although it wanted to be.

Short review: Commendable idea and effort that is in the end disappointing and tedious. Longer review: This film is an attempt to capture in film *something* from a painting. This is the problem: it never figure out what it is trying to do, or how to do it. There are many hints of possible approaches, and some are very interesting. The least interesting is the use of the painter doing first-person narration, explaining the painting (and some of the elements of the movie.) It get worse when it is a weak dialogue between the painter and one other person inquiring about the painting. As for the interesting stuff, many scenes have a visual flatness that very successfully look like a painting. A few don't work well and look like badly registered 90's green-screen, but many are interesting. There are slow pans, with some people moving and others frozen, all with a strange light. This all looks good, but cannot hold interest long and does not a movie make. Then there a few "scenes" that are really good; in particular one with evocative light where kids are pillow-fighting in some dingy farm room. The sound is good here- kids yelling, but no real coherence, no discernible word spoken. Another great scene that suggests a very different direction the film could have taken occurs at the end of the film, where all the people dance in a strange way that is suggested by a Bruegal painting. There are other parts of the film where people move and act strangely, and this all works well. Another successful aspect is how characters seem to perform their roles with a sense of inevitability. This mimics well the sense of these paintings that a drama is unfolding and that everyone is performing a role, without much individual personality. I easily imagine that the filmmaker did not know what to expect, and when the edit was done it was too late to go back and do it right. Too bad. I give it a rating of seven because it is an admirable pursuit, far from conventional filmmaking. As entertainment, it is a 1. Unfortunately, it is hard to watch to the end, and this is not in a good way that I say this. Most people will not like this film.

If you really like most all Woody Allen films, you will probably like this one. Considered as breezy entertainment, it is as you might expect better than most Hollywood fare, but that bar is not too high. Owen Wilson becomes boring as he is given few good lines, portraying a perpetually confused and boring person, and the occasional Woody Allen quip seems out of character for the goy Texas boy. Adrian Brody as Dali is by far the best, and I suspect it is because he did an improv on his role and everyone liked it, while the others are too submissive to Alen's uninspired direction. Perhaps the most disappointing feature is how un-emotive Paris is; how hard is it to miss when combining Paris and nostalgia? A big problem is that even the "real" characters are such extreme caricatures, you just can get too interested. I became bored by Allen's latest sleepwalking exercise.

The movie is a very interesting story that is the natural result of the facebook phenomena. It is thoroughly entertaining in a casual and breezy way, has inventive and fun graphic sequences using google and internet graphics, and the main protagonist is compelling. When I find myself thinking about a movie the next day, then I know it was as good as I thought. The middling critic's scores are baffling to me. It does not need to be "an indictment of our times"; it is light-hearted but not cute. It reminds me a lot of "Crumb" by Terry Zwigoff.