HealingToolbox1

Again a DC-universe movie I liked much better than professional reviewers. I dreaded seeing this after Thor Ragnarok was so good about--nothing. Justice League engaged me in herding interesting cats into a workable team. I liked each hero and learned something about each one. Henry has never looked better as Supe. Flash as a Jewish kid on the autism spectrum is simply wonderful. His obvious use as comic relief did NOT reduce him as a character for me. Gal Gadot's smile remains extremely healing. Aquaman is a far cry from the orange-scale-suited nice guy of the 1950s. Bruce Wayne's self-sacrifice was played up convincingly for me. I think as good as many of the Marvel films and maybe better than the first Avengers film; as, more focus on character.

What interests me is how the script might have been changed given its strong premise. I'm struck with teh similarities with Damon's Elysium plot set up. Downsizing runs out of dramatic momentum I think because it picks a weak central conflict; and then, does not foreshadow Paul's decision to back out of the tunnel. What I suspect is the stronger script is skip the whole first act. It's smart but leads to no clear conflict. Jump into teh middle more. Set up the conflict between the low wage service workers and the bored-hedonistic smalls. Where does real humanity lie? This would make the plot even more like Elysium. I think a key here. I do honor Matt's and Hong Chau's performances. Matt has again demonstrated his amazing courage.

I agree with the positive US critics. An unusual film about Emotional Intelligence. It starts with look-feel of "based on a true story" but is in fact from a novel. As it proceeds, the narrative opens up in a heartfelt and inclusive way towards larger points about the values of friendship and how one person can "raise the bar" on Emotional Intelligence in a small community. As a writer myself, I want to underline how innovative and thoughtful the script. Thank God the performances do it justice. The many child actors are all wonderful and--I know unheard of and hard to believe--all major minor actors have actual character arcs (run, get the smelling salts; he passed out!)

"For anyone pregnant with a dream" ~ from the film. If you liked the Fame movie (1980) or the best parts of the Step Up series, this is for you. Better than the Step Up installments I've seen. I liked it quite a bit more than La La Land. Where La La narratively adheres to telling a realistic tale of lovers coming together--then coming part in Los Angeles, Showman is burdened with no such reality to conform to. Barnum's life is skillfully made into a series of familiar narrative tropes which give weight and gravity to almost non-stop sing-dance numbers which really fly. "Hit it out of the parK" in a baseball phrase. If you remember Stomp on YouTube or on stage, still playing in NYC ****, some numbers in Showman have the same precise musicality of sound effects; and, random background sounds are always musical. If you thought the directorial challenges of tone etc in La La Land were formidable, I did too. All those challenges plus more and done mostly better here in Showman. I love Hugh Jackman. This is him in top Broadway form. Showman offers a "great moment in cinema," the scene where Zac Efron is introduced to Zendays on ultra-slo-motion ****. Check the stills to see this in its full beauty with the underlighting of her body. For me, Showman revealed two new female stars, Zendaya and Rebecca Ferguson. Hit it out of the park. I watched an hour interview on FX Guide with directory Michael Gracey. I felt he had integrity, another typical introverted genius type I can relate with.

One reviewer said it best for me, the breeziness of the plot is more than made up for by the wit and insight of the production design and sly micro mis-steps. In Deakins' hands you've never seen "breeze" look this good or this beguiling.

At least they got the poster right. At least I found the brother-brother relationship engaging and convincing. On the other hand, the care and creativity put into the arc of each disaster scene of Roland Emmerich's movies is almost completely absent. Here it's imitated only recipe-style.

The creepy real-world resonance here is how Progressives, Cultural Creative Progressives, in the Trump era, may fear being hunted the way young mutants are hunted in this genre. genX-Xmen, hunted mutants on the run. If you like or can see promise in the genre, this is about as good as a TV pilot could be. Has the big talent guns: Bryan Singer, Len Wisemen, Laura Donnaly, Amy Acker (last of my beloved Person of Interest) and a Stan lee cameo.

A trippy, insightful movie about the dark, corrupts underbelly of the Reagan 1980s, how the S. American drug running by the CIA turned into Iron-Contra. Compared with Oliver Stone based-on-fact movies, Doug's vision is more grounded because it skips the snarky attitude; it seems fresher for this. Doug's father was part of the Iran-Contra investigating team. The skull duggery was CIA sponsored and led but apparently by a rogue faction within CIA, linked with Oliver North.

Review title: Team Machine vs. Team Human 101 for younger generations I read a bunch of the reviews here. I saw, liked and was confused by the 1995 anime classic. I think Johanson was inevitable AND an Asian actress would have been preferable (the Asian mom in the film is wonderfully refreshing; why not the lead?). I'm still amazed by how many film critics lack the integrity to criticize without coming up with improvements or solutions to the deficiencies they perceive. One of very few ethical ways to review a film in words is to take teh view, "If I were the scriptwriter or in charge of the writers room, what would I have done differently?" The movie made about 1/4 of its money in China. Especially if these themes are new to Chinese audiences, I think this is a good thing. For the rest of us, one reviewer suggested the sights in Ghost are tediously unfamilar. This rings true for me too. Why are there so many hero shots of the gaudy 3D hologram ads? Is this the point of the film? The future is simply--ugly? Another reviewer describes the script as a clotheslines for action scenes to be hung on like wet laundry. I find this striking and accurate. It applies to many films. It's perhaps the perfect structural metaphor for a large fraction of all commerical action movie scripts--asking no more complex question than, "What are the opening grosses?" The "ghost" of the original Bladerunner is apparent, as many reviewers note. This leads into how I would write Ghost in the Shell 2: Identify the conflict of values you wish to target (individuality of the human soul, justice as a choice souls can make... vs. Team Machine, all the forces making humans more machine like and un-feeling). Then imagine how to SHOW not tell this conflict in visual terms. Perhaps even with this structural clarity, it's still challenging to beat or go beyond the script accomplishments of the first Blade Runner movie.

Cinema as mythmaking 101, pay attention. What we have here is a christian and/or metaphysical myth of a LIGHT Tower, A Tower of LIGHT, which keeps the world of waking human beings--and similar worlds--coherent and protected from an outer universe it perceives as monstrous and demonic. Thats one myth-archetype. Next myth is a TV Western gunslinger written only two-dimensionally but brought to life by Idris Elba. That's two myths-archetypes. Next is the Satan-Devil figure, given the 2D writing, done as well as I think Marvel could do him in Matthew's fine performance. That's three myths-archetypes. Then we have the boy-coming-of-age myth, Heroes Journey myth and common sub-myths and tropes. Tried and true mythmaking is what critics get awfully tired of. However, the audience I saw it with cheered and clearly several were seeing it at least a second time. Mythmaking done well is always a crowd pleaser. I liked it. Why? It's done with conviction. Not often do we see a POSITIVE LIGHT Tower as a mythic element in a script. Compare with LOTRings where all the towers and mountains are negative downers. The LOTR Elf kingdom is more hospitable but plays only a minor role. Could this be extended into a series on TV, on film? Hard to say. From skimming the Wikipedia article on the book series, I think making it a young adult film makes more sense than a literal translation of book plot to filmed script. However the film makes little to no attempt to suggest where a sequel to the movie might go. It may be myself and only a few other esoteric-Christian mystics who see in this Dark Tower a LIGHT Tower.

Tremendous mythmaking of the highest order! Having lived thru much of the actual history, I'm aware accuracy is of interest AND composing a Progressive myth, based on accurate history is high art. The script has the good fortune of facts telling a story of the epic struggle of educated blacks to be accepted at NASA against the backdrop of more facts, the epic courage of the early American astronauts and NASA administrators. The high point for me occurs when Kevin Costner takes a metal crowbar to the sign "Colored's Bathroom" with 15 colored women, the "computers" watching. Wow. Priceless mythmaking of the highest order, small personal acts of courage and justice demonstrating and highlighting more truly human values than the norms of mainstream culture. The cast and direction is flawless in my humble opinion.

Another under-rated genre classic. Do you like Matt Damon sci-fi movies? Do you like Chinese fairy tale movies with over-the-top action? This amalgamation is as good as you are gonna get. Great Wall is NOT trying "to marry its Eastern and Western sensibilities." It's clearly trying to make money with a Chinese-USA crossover epic. Fortunately we have Tony Gilroy (Bourne series, Rogue One script and by some accounts much of the direction); and, Ed Zwick of Glory, Defiance, Last Samurai and scores of other intelligent fare, one of my heroes. The result is everything moving along much better than your average bloated fantasy epic. It doesn't sag and everything looks amazing. If you liked any of the Lord of the Rings/Hobbit movies, you'll like this. Granted, unlike the best LOTR movies, no character here has any arc; nobody learns anything meaningful. But, same with Rogue One. If we must have movies which are better as video game scripts than as thoughtful, Progressive dramas, then Rogue One and Great Wall are two model successes of videogame movie genre, one Western, one Chinese.

Terrific end chariot race probably could not be better. The galley slave rowing sequence probably could not be better. Funny post-show credit animations are a hoot. My main comment is this may be another textbook example of a script with too many hands in in and too many agendas, leading to mediocrity. Not the director but the script seems to be teh villain of this piece. The dialogue while occasionally good, even effective especially seems off the mark. It so clearly lacks a singular vision of characters, what they are learning, or any singular vision of the plot. I found the Christ story, tacked on s it is, still affecting. As other reviewers have asked, "Tell me again, WHY was this re-make necessary?"

Most original, inventive and deep movie I have seen in 2016. Hardly a derivative bone in its body. A boy learns how to resource and make use of his inner parents, a benefit which will stay with him for the rest of his life. A spiritual movie in the same sense as the 1978 Star Wars. The Force is used but not talked about much. Very unusual for adventure stories, the chief villain is not killed at the end. One of the themes is memory. At the end the villain is reformed by giving him new memories by an entire village working together. I'm a VFX and stop=motion nerd and even I cannot fathom this convergence of stop-motion and CGI animation. The facial animation rivals anything we have seen in 2016 from the major effects vendors. Several astonishing character flourishes and responses are attempted--and pulled off. Really remarkable for any animation let alone stop-motion. By far the strongest Laika movie yet, a wonderful convergence of script, voice case, animators and spirit.

The spoken script is about 150 words. A movie about Emotional Intelligence and Empathy. Cutting-edge digital character on a par with the orcs in Warcraft and put to wonderfully humane purposes. Yes, almost the unexpected instant classic the new Jungle Book is. Go see it.

Hmm I see no mention yet of a truth I perceive. The better a super hero movie script is, the more it will be about the wins and losses of choice, as perceived from the viewpoint of the ego. Not the first super hero movie to highlight the sordid choices and recriminations; as well as the heights of victory of egotistical choosing, this movie definitely highlights ego struggles the LONGEST of any such movie in my memory. Without a whiff of transcendent surrender of hardened ego positions, I found it wearying after a time. I also did not see mentioned elsewhere yet the fact of FIVE second unit directors. When this happens you almost always get an over-long movie with too much plot. I first noticed this on some James Bond pics. As film-production it of course spectacular. Let's also note the car chase in the underpasses is one of the most complex chases ever staged as I can recall. What it unfortunately suffers from is lack of clarity in the blocking of the pre-vis. It's not clear the chase changes direction on the highway one or more times, perhaps three times. This was not made clear visually somewhat spoiling a historically ambitious chase sequence.

Wow, another gem perhaps too heartfelt and subtle in its pleasures for critics and audiences. I agree with the user reviewer suggesting this as the best movie if 2016 so far. What none of the critics here mention is this is a movie about honor, honoring the different in another, honoring your own ability to "stretch" beyond your previous comfort zone, honoring the new and unexpected in the world and in your self. Now, if I pitched that to a studio, do you think the movie would be green-lit? Probably not. Still this I think are the highpoints of the film, entirely in keeping with what the critics did like about this. Not a spiritual film in any sense, it still demonstrates many positive, uplifting values. that's why I give it a ten. It's a techno miracle for sure, likely to win the oscar for SFX. However as Harvey Weinstein says, the best special effect is actors showing you human emotions in a way you can connect with. The two leads do this way beyond any other film this year so far. I hear critics harping on plot points when teh real pleasures of this film are heartfelt human values, chief among them, valuing and honoring another being.

Compared to other animation, even Pixar, this is a master class in character animation and what can be done. I'm with the top review on Metacritic: 100 I can't remember the last time I saw a family animation so visually rich, tightly scripted and charmingly performed which was also built on a sound and progressive message. Nick Frost and he Snatcher voice really make their characters live and breathe. Simon Pegg and Eric Idle also contribute to the Terry Gilliam Pythonesque rowdyness.

I'm with the Metacritic fan who also gave this a 10. Apparently another classic case of jaded critics unable to estimate entertainment value for the average movie goer. IF YOU LIKED ANY OF ROLAND'S MOVIES IN THE PAST, YOU WILL LIKE THIS ONE. It's one of his best. I don't say this lightly and I don't give 10s lightly, only my second 10 rating. I liked this about as much as the first ID. It has much more humor in it. The plot surprised me with how many obstacles it elegantly hurdled. I wonder if critics generally dislike Roland's pattern of using the first 30-50 minutes to introduce and build up a cast of characters to care about. He uses it here again, to good effect.

Pretty amazing. I reserve "10" for movies that are both competent on multiple levels AND contain acknowledgement of the spiritual, aspirational part of human beings. This film meets my criteria for a 10. I do agree with the review saying the film is more a tribute to the book and to those who have loved the book, than a movie OF the book. I also agree if Pixar had made it, it could have been more and unnecessarily sachcarin. What viewers and critics do well to remember is, how would you fill 90 minutes with a story as slight and familiar as Little Prince? Another property presenting a thankless writerly task. The solution here is to gradually seque into a complete fantasy of the litle girl meeting the grown up Little Prince. This fills the time, allows for action in the third act and--very unusually for ANY script in the last ten years I'm ware of--creates space for moment of authentic poignancy, longing, loss and wonder. That the third act is going to sacrifice logical consistency for stronger feelings than most plot-driven third acts allow, is foreshadowed and I think a risk taken boldly and done as well as can be imagined. I thought the character animation in the hospital visit scene went beyond Pixar. Kudos to all. Voices are indeed wonderful; Ricky Gervais and Jeff Bridges stand out to me.

It's not about "who is Tony?" Film asks the question, "How can six days be arranged so that the maximum number of 2,500 attendees, assisted by 100 volunteers and Tony, can transform and have life-changing experiences?" In this the film is fair and balanced and informative. The standout attendee story for me was Dawn, from S. America, right in the middle of the film. She stands up s one of the people thinking about suicide. She clearly hits Tony with a story he was not expecting. The result is magical for many people. Later we learn Dawn sold everything, even her furniture to come to the training. We also learn she was given $50,000 gift from another attendee to further her goals and $40,000 of additional gifts, not including the gift Tony Gives her. The film will tell you zilch about NLP. The level of technique used, the patterns he works are more in the realm of group process, leadership and whole-team support of attendees so as many as possible can arrive at their own Aha!s and breakthrus. Tony does this masterfully and the film documents this masterfully. An interview with Director Joe Berlinger is on July 25th podcast of The Business at **** podcasts.

If you liked either Narnia or the Golden Compass movie, you'll like this too. Beware of all the hate piled on all four of these movies. The latest fantasy epic trying not to imitate LOTR is excellent. this is as good as it gets in this genre. The ILM digital acting is out of this world, a real breakthru in that half the cast are digital. The negative review points I found a bit crazy. I was NOT distracted by plot points set up for sequels, as I am with Batman Vs. Superman. I did NOT find it a mess. The effects are NOT blurry or blobby. These are world class digital talent at the top of their form and technology. If you respect this, go see it. I did NOT find the directing sloppy, inadequate or anything else. It's fine, right up there with Narnia or Golden Compass movies. I agree, Warcraft is not in the league of Jackson's LOTR movies and the first two Hoibbits. These have narrative excellence and intelligence beyond most fantasy movies on top of wonderful production design. I say, go Duncan, make another one.

Except for the one 100 professional review, I'm amazed at the other pro reviews. Wha' hoppen??? This is the most beliveable story of feminine self-empowerment based on character within my memory. This is the most emotionally layered movie since Silver Linings Playbook in my memory and this is better, as other reviewers suggest. These are two or three of the best-written female roles in years. Hmm I notice 95% of the professional reviewers are male. Not all the female reviewers praised it tho. One did: Lawrence is gritty, real and totally genuine. And, after ‘Brooklyn’ and ‘Carol’, here’s another film that passes the Bechdel Test for [authentic] female characters with flying colours.

Everest (2015) and In the Heart of the Sea (2016) are both true-life disaster stories from non-fiction books. I believe both have the exact same script problem. It may be easier to see in Everest. We like the characters but we never know much of WHY they do what they do--because it was not in the book. So the miraculous recovery of the Outside reporter played by Josh Brolin lacks the backstory to buttress an amazing acting performance. I agree with Anthony Lane in New Yorker that we don't get to see enuf of a character arc in any character in Heart of the Sea to engage us that much. Not all "inspired by true events" scripts hold water. But in this regard Bridge of Spies (2015) is a master class in how to cobble together true life characters and detail into a story with dramatic meaning. The spectacle of Everest and Heart of Sea are not enuf, probably can never be enuf, to compensate for engaging dramatic construction. This is why do few film scripts exist each year; so few have an authentic or archetypal dramatic story with adequate character arcs to tell.

Hi I think the professional reviews here are misleading and not telling truth as we know it. A "good movie" these days, especially an action movie for an international market is one that makes money. Period. Full stop. So all we can really do is evaluate this one in terms of competence. Is it over all competent enuf to make money? I can't find the budget. It made $72 million; I'm guessing it made money. This means the script, producer and director are competent. Ed Skrein is more than adequate as are the rest of the actors and stuntmen, always a plus in Luc Besson films. What stands out as not competent is the stunt choreography. Transporter 1, 2 especially are famous for their elaborately conceived and rehearsed fight scenes, some of the best ever done. The blocking-rehearsals for the fight scenes in the first Transporter used to be on Youtube and may be on the DVD. Very creative, everyone totally dedicated and camera moves worked out with much thought. Here, the land fights especially are the weakest part of the whole effort. You can see the actors giving it their all; you can see the many good and original stunt ideas someone came up with, usually a group effort, but little attention is paid to camera moves. So there is no "ballet" at all. Nor is there quite the focus and intensity of Fury Road fight scenes. Add to this there is no character develpment by design in this franchise and the overall effect, here in the US is of a movie made in the 1990s. Given all this we can understand why a mostly very competent film received such low scores here in the USA.

Copy of letter to Amy Nicholson, who gave the film 100. I gave it 90. Hi Amy, I read you when you were in LAWeekly. Just saw fourth film. I have to go back to the first Matrix movie for so bold a new angle on heroism. The normal treatment would have been a showdown between Coin and Katniss, where Coin reveals she, not Snow, bombed the children. This scene is missing altogether (thank god) and the possibility of Coin as the new villain is a tossed off line with little weight or credibility given to it. Then Katnis does what no hero ever does in film, she kills deliberately--and it works! Not since Matrix 1 have the rules been broken so wonderfully, in my memory. The end result is the fourth movie becomes a character study of Katnis. The film is impossible to imagine without the landscape of Jennifer's face; especially, if you compare it to the heroine of Divergent, etc, etc. You are right. It's her withholding of emotion and impulsiveness which we learn to love. All in all quite a remarkable and creative achievement unlike most Hollywood fare. I've read none of the books. From a summary of Book three, it appears the movie sharpens the themes admirably.

No fan of action movies or summer blockbusters should miss this. "Epic" in all the best ways for a movie. If you like this and missed Edge of Tommorow (Live, Die, Repeat) definitely consider seeing that too. An amazing synergy of outstandingly coherent script and production values from top to bottom. The script's need for a certain romantic theme programs the choice of the opera used in the opera sequence. It works brilliantly.

For me as good as the best of the Spiderman movies and for the same reason. Both Ant-Man and Spiderman put the viewer into the childhood fantasy of having super powers: this is what it would be like if I had super powers in the real world. I've seen almost ten movies with 3D versions. Ant-Man is he first 3D movie I've seen that made 3D a benefit to me, made 3D an indispensable addition. Thor, Hulk, Captain America, Superman, Batman are much more about costumes and brands. We see and experience them primarily from the outside. Ant-Man and Spiderman we want to and can experience from the inside. Iron Man is somewhere straddling these two approaches. Ant-Man shows the script problems of Iron Man 3 into sharp relief. Where Paul Rudd's Ant-Man is a blank slate with very little personality, the "normal" calm center of an outer hurricane of events, Downey Jr's Tony Stark is a very colorful center of a hurricane of outer events in Iron Man 3. Too much. No healthy contrast. Can't have both the outer world be vibrant and also the inner character's personality as the two compete for our attention and affection. Ant-Man the movie has just the right amount of crazyness without too much crazyness. Criticism of teh director as limp is ridiculous. These critics have never tried writing let alone directing a movie aiming to cover the tonal notes Ant-Man hits dead-on over and over. Critics of Peyton's directing also have not learned the lesson of the the successes of the Tim Story Fantastic Four 1 & 2. The banter of four characters by the director of Barbershop is pitch perfect even if the drama suffered for those with more blood-thirsty tastes and needs. I celebrate Ant-Man as the non-Marvel, Marvel movie. I think this is part of its intent. Guardians of the Galaxy also did a fine job of expanding the tonal palette of the Marvel world. The highest compliment I can make is Ant-Man is as good and as much fun as the original comics were in my memory.

To me, what this movies suffers from is jaded audiences. What's the standard now for summer blockbusters? If the script is good, usually meaning a team of collaborative writers as with Pixar's best movies, and the production values above average, the movie is pretty enjoyable or perhaps near-great. This certainly describes the Marvel movies of the last five years and Jurrassic World as well. How can people LOVE Jurrassic World but hate T-Genisys? Jaded audiences? T-5 is not quite as good as the under-rated T-4, the fable of a Terminator who wished to become a human being. Wonderful storytelling. T-5 is almost this good. Its virtues for me are the tender care and consideration given to Terminator lore and to Arnold in his role. If you liked T-2, you probably liked how the two Terminators crash up a shopping mall. That same wonderful energy of casual destruction of cultural places is duplicated--not imitated--in T-5 when they casually crash up a hospital and police station. Duplicating the look, feel and energy of one of the strongest images of Cameron's T-2 is no small feat. You'd think the excitement of Cameron's original liquid metal Terminator in T-2 would be hard to duplicate. Allen Taylor's oriental cool and deadly liquid T-2 equals or surpasses the original, again, no mean feat. So what's not to like? If you liked T1 and T-2, I suspect you'll really like T-5; unless of course, being jaded is a value to you.

Think of it more like a poem or an essay. It's adequate but not remarkable three act structure is most thrown away in favor of many, many wonderful moments, perfectly captured by a masterful director on a labor of love. I liked it much more than most critics. The most optimistic movie I can think of since Field of Dreams 25 years ago. Nlot quite a visionary movie, not quite a spiritual movie, however if you like Brad Bird, see it. This is great directing in so many ways. He gets uncanny performances out of Clooney and Raffey Cassidy. Cassidy is likely to become a star based on the performance Bird gets out of her here. The plot features many ironic turns and meta-comments that keep it alive thru most of its run. At the end the villain delivers what is usually the hero's or heroine's speech and this worked well for me. The effects are amazing and top-level all around. At $190 million, much of that is up on the screen for sure.

Another genre movie made very professionally viewers expect too much from. Insurgent is almost twice the filmmaking of the first Divergent film. The directing has gone from "after school special" in too many places to very close to the production values and acting of recent Marvel movies. With better direction, teh two leads shine even more brightly and the supporting cast is handled with unusallly deft sensitivity for a genre outing. The Dauntless sim that is in the trailer is longer. For me it's the most memorable piece of action sci-fi filmmaking since the end of Doug Limon's Edge of Tomorrow, probably better known as Live, Die Repeat. What sets Insurgent apart from marvel movies is the greater emotionality/ I liked it. I know it's there because of the young female audience; still, it's well done. Compare the emotional integrity of Insurgent with the lack of emotional integrity in Captain America Winter Soldier, and you see Insurgent measures up well to Marvel movies generally.

Final Fantasy, the Movie, this is it. This has three times the filmmaking talent, skill and panache of Guardians of he Galaxy, three times as good. The plots are very comparable in emotional affect, not in storyline. If you liked the original Star Wars or Guardians... you'll find that style of moviemaking updated and done better here. It is indeed the sci-fi portion of Cloud Atlas made longer with much better writing and better acting. The two male villains leads are wonderful and effective. Mila Kunis is more than adequate. I read all the Metacritic review thumbnails before writing this. I've re-read them again now. I think we have again the Steven Spielberg critical backlash effect here that arises when directors make movies the public wants and loves but offer no red meat for film critics.

Another step forward in the history of imagination as manifested in cinema. From the first Transformers movie, Spielberg and Bay communicated to me that what they were after. More than story, more than characters, they were after an abstract "poetry in motion," a kind of abstract action-painting made possible by ILM's handling of characters made of hundreds of separate, moving pieces. This goal was evidenced in the one or two dialog-less action-plus-sound-design sequences in the first film, which succeeded in my mind--and I think in theirs--as "poetry in motion." The latest "Extinction" movie succeeds as poetry in motion at least as well as earlier episodes. I suggest people stop reviewing Transformer movies as “adult” movies or movies for adults. They are for eight year old eyes; or, maybe even four and five year old boy eyes. When you were forming your visual and imaginative vocabulary as a child, can you imagine how this Transformers movie might impress you? I think very powerfully in a mostly good way, as movies go. That Transformer movies are weak in character and plot does not bother me because they dare to create something much more difficult: an authentic fairy tale. In this "Extinction" is among the best one or two Transformer-movies-as-fairy-tales.

If you wanted to be Neo after the first two Matrix movies, you will want to be Lucy after seeing this movie. This is the latest spiritual movie alert! The pattern is movies taking on the topic of individual transformation and upliftment, in any authentic way, receive primarily negative and so-so reviews, by mainstream reviewers, across the board. This pattern continues here. I’m writing this review as this is the only spiritual movie I have given a ten to in about five years. For me Lucy stands with Besson's best work, which I consider to be Fifth Element and The Transporter, first one. I have read other reviews, before I saw Lucy. I was expecting to agree with the reviewer who said it was a mediocre Besson effort with all the familiar rhythms and disappointments. I very much expected a script without a third act. Surprise! I found Lucy quite coherent, fresh, entertaining and engaging thru to the end. There is no holding back. As far as I can tell, no expense has been spared in the special effects and chase sequences. They are both top-notch. The actor for the main villain deserves special mention for anchoring a formidable presence to balance the intensity of Scarlet Johansen's character and performance. The French police lieutenant who arrives mid-film is also a fresh face providing needed counterpoint. Today I read a film review mentioning the curse of the underwritten woman's role. Writers on this topic point to the heroine in the Matrix movies as the archetypal underwritten woman's role, fierce yet inconsequential to the plot, despite her great potential. Here in Lucy we get to see a woman both kick ass and develop her full potential--if you subscribe to any kind of personal-spiritual growth beliefs or aspirations. My view is: let’s support ‘spiritual movies’ when they arise so the system makes more of them.

Bill Paxton is a revelation here! Doug Liman has done it again, taken a tired genre and re-invigorated it by using jui-jitsu on the premise and srcript. An excellent recent LaTimes interview with Doug describes his script and studio issues insightfully. Apparently he had to write a new third act and I think he's done brilliantly. Doug knows just the right balls to keep in the air and which to drop because we have been there, done that so many times before. I liked Oblivion also, despite its useless title and this is more of the same in many respects, sci-fi film reimagined to do things impossible to do in sci-fi video games.