JEsFsF

a good, emotionally-articulate film. good acting, very good script - a couple beautiful spoken scenes. Of interest throughout. I got a little lost by the final fast-paced resolution (that happens with me sometimes). Wasn't interested enough to rewind and see if I could make sense of it all, but I was happy enough to keep the film on Play through the credits.

Imagine if one of your favorite bands from 20 years ago released a new album. Here's the disclosure: It may sound quite good, just like their old stuff, but it utterly fails to connect with you. The beautifully choreographed scenes, the swelling John Williams score, distract rather than draw in. Spielberg wants to challenge you with Big Questions and it looks like this movie is just a really an attempt to find a vehicle to ask them (and unfortunately he relies on a lot of cliches. His vehicle is chock full of vehicles.). This is the first Spielberg film where, instead of revelation, it feels like spiel.

I dislike high bitrate poetry (it takes me too long to unencrypt the meaning). Fortunately, most of the dialog requires no translation. Really well done. Watching Jessie alone is worth the two hours. It's a heavy watch, though, but (good) tragedies, by definition, always are. I'll remember this film for Jessie and its heaviness, maybe little else.

characters you care about, clever dialog, some interesting ideas. emotionally rich. very enjoyable.

Lots to like about the film, but soon it becomes "let's just get this over with." Similar to Adam Sandler's "Uncut Gems" in improvisational hustle, but here each move is completely self-serving and selfish. Marty and his hustle become unlikeable, then exhausting, then excruciating.

I didn't like this much. It was a look-in to something going on, but I didn't really know what. It wasn't until I googled about the ending that I understood the intent of the film. And once you understand the intent and the context behind that intent, THEN you feel the film's impact. It's profound and you carry it with you forever.

It's on. It's functional. It's real. The preview showing Will Arnett's "comedy" bits had me thinking "this guy is not funny, so I'm not going buy into his journey." it's a modest tangent to his and his ex's split. Call it one of those earnest looks into a fraught time in a relationship. It's interesting enough to care a bit. It stands up to emotional scrutiny.

Incredible - in the bad way. I liked the original, it had some believability. Since the sequel scored higher, I expected more. I got a whole lot more. Bigger action pieces, but they were unbelievable. Big ideas, but just completely ridiculous. At some point, you just think "nothing has to make sense" and you emotionally divest in the character and the movie.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Great acting; good science fiction premise and fealty to the premise; realistic high-level emotional context and dialog. Lots of moments and interesting ideas to ruminate on. The negative is Alicia's behavior is often cringe - but it's consistent with and necessary to the story.

It's hard for me to call this film "powerful", because it plays so effortlessly and spontaneously. But as the final credits roll, you're left basking in its sweet and endearing emotional impact. I always say that either the story or the storytelling must be remarkable to make a compelling view. It's rare to get both. The story may not be remarkable, it's good, but I'm not sure it goes anywhere unique. The storytelling here, though, is remarkable. There were dozens of ways the storytelling could have not worked. Tim Key really had to thread a needle with his performance, and he nails it. Everything else needs to work, and it's excellent and fluid, but Tim is The Key. My wife fell asleep during our viewing, which (this time) is good: I get to watch this again, right away. You should too.

A Space oddity... I appreciate that this film was an earnest effort. It had ambitions. Lots of ambitions. All over the place. Sci-fi. Deep Thoughts. Social commentary. Political lampooning. Wanting to like it, it still got away from me. Pattinson's vocal affection was a constant distraction from his first voiceover. Bong pulled it together so that there was an emotional component to the finale, but the path was a mess.

One of those very earnest films directed by its writer. It's like a single malt scotch - its quirks give it its character. Perhaps a tiny bit amateurish, a bit clumsy in places, but full of meaning and heart. It is a sweet watch and rather memorable.

I think this film will stick in my head for a long time. It's deep, and it goes places I haven't seen explored much - or at least it carves its own path through the subject matter. The writing is excellent; great, detailed emotional dialog. It digs into psyche, but it's very gentle, tender, and caring. Andrew Scott's emotional articulation here is explicit and very convincing. I think I'll have to watch it again very soon (a rarity).

Interesting. Then ridiculous. And afterward feeling like they missed an opportunity for some really profound storytelling. There's a lot to like about this film, but its need to go Hollywood Big derails its seriousness and earnestness. The ape's faces are quite amazing in their expressiveness - that's the technical milestone here. Near the end, the movie touches on some very interesting concepts - which would be worthy of a follow up (which is how it is set up). It would have been more enjoyable had they been explored in this film. I wanted to like it and was until it just went Hollywood at the end (spectacle over story) even though somewhere in there lies a pretty compelling story, untouched.

A great film. If you were to condense the deliberations of founding a nation into a two-hour film, you couldn't do any better than this. As concept- and value-dense as anything I've seen and somehow maximizing immediacy and tension. Head and heart. A film I'll definitely revisit a couple of times.

I went in with low expectations and we pleasantly surprised. Tarantino vibe (Hateful Eight), but you like the characters. Very good performances. Quite fun and surprisingly satisfying.

Sometimes stories are so rich and compelling that they don't need to be well told. Sometimes the telling is so rich and immersive that they don't need a story. Janet Planet is the latter. It's visually beautiful and keenly observed. You get to know and like some characters in their moment. And can imagine some arcs. I just prefer to see something, anything, resolved in some way. This just is. It's nice.

Civil War maintains a consistent tense suspense throughout - it's action scenes are gripping. It's an enjoyable intense two hours. Many critiques have lamented that Garland should have picked a side or made a political film or found the characters underdeveloped. The critics wanted something different. Garland made some choices - legitimate, coherent, consistent decisions that make a very good movie. Don't ding him because he didn't make the film that YOU wanted. His biggest philosophical wrangling here is the role of journalism - rather than a critique of our current political polarization. Such is his right. So, an intense and enjoyable thriller; I'm not sure it will resonate with me long term, because it doesn't address the big term themes and movements that stay with us. But walking out of theater, I felt like I had really enjoyed the experience.

My overall reaction during this file was "Why?" If you found the originals from 50/70 years ago compelling, than the modern cinematography and effects would likely be a lovely update. If politics was your draw to the originals, then you have a similar draw here. It felt dated and didn't go anywhere new. Not a bad watch, but "Why?"

I didn't hate it, largely because I didn't expect it to be good (from the trailers). Metacritic's Score confirmed not to expect much. it wasn't dumb enough to elicit anger; it didn't elicit much of anything. It didn't pull the arbitrary "random contradictory 'science'" to drive the plot other than to set up an initial countdown. The questionable plot choices were driven by human decisions, which were not beyond question, but weren't ridiculous. It was just... mundane.

An interesting film, but somehow not a remotely exciting film (how can a racing film NOT be exciting? Consider "First Man". It manages to make the first moon landing - perhaps the peak event in our lifetime - dull. Ferrari is similar: a biopic with a car theme. Three interesting characters with the remainders placeholders. Some "interesting" direction, some tension, but never excitement. A well-done biopic, but little more.

My buddy at the closing credits: “That was HUGE!”Me: “Hugely empty. HUGELY unimaginative. Well, visually imaginative.” This was a terrestrial (b)Ad Astra. Visually ambitious, technically well-executed, but with neither brains nor soul. Top-notch visual artistry and some beautifully executed scenes, but the writers seem to have no understanding of, nor any expertise in, Science Fiction (or science for that matter). “Science Fiction? Yes, just hire some of your good screenwriters. Use the Golden Child / Chosen One template. We have some great visuals for the inevitable bulk content: fight and chase scenes.” An opportunity for a big movie to make share some insight on the new AI Era. There is no AI in this movie. The robots are Average Joes with metal head parts. They aren’t even networked. Zero imagination. Here’s your character development: Hero thinks robots are just things, but learns to LOVE one. Wow! Theme? We want to be free! As with (d)Ad Astra, it just seems that no one in the writing and financing chains of command had any experience in, commitment to, or really any interest at all in science fiction. It’s like they didn’t care to try – outside the visuals. I guess it’s up to Christopher Nolan to save Big Budget Sci-Fi films.

Perhaps not a great film, but I LOVED it! Would you? Do you like attractive dynamic people acting extremely well. These two do. Complex emotions reflected, expressed through every facial gesture (and this movie is a lot of headshot). Are you moved by emotional vulnerability? By the need to be healed, the effort to express that need (by earnest urgent albeit indirect means)? The writing is layered, the direction solid, the story fun and full of turns. I'll watch this one again soon, and it will be fun to revisit again later. So, maybe not a Great Film, but it's certainly a serious, great Rom-Com.

I'm not sure I understand half of "Nine Days". But the half I did understand is deeply moving. And it is fully beautiful. If you appreciate tales of struggle, redemption, and transcendence, you'll like this film. Maybe love it. One could argue that the pacing is a little slow. Its rich setting and setup engages you, but it gets a slow in the middle. If you stick with it, the final third flies by. Unlike a lot of "artsy" films where I'm lost and content to stay lost, the half that remains unclear to me draws me to watch the film again. I will be rewarded, I might even be better.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

If you liked 'Ad Astra' you'd probably like this, but not as much. The pacing is glacial. it's dark, it's depressing. It's s l o w. Reasons to watch: we're hard up for entertainment; it's free on Netflix; some of the visuals are stunning. I'd almost recommend watching it for the visuals, except that it's agonizingly slow and disappointingly pointless. If 'Ad Astra' offended you because of its random-plot-tricks-masquerading-as-science, this will offend you more, because at least 'Ad Astra' had some urgency in its pacing. The dialog dumb, the "emotions" forced. Cut it down to twenty minutes of visuals with some nice music, it would be a beautiful screensaver.

Reasons to watch: we're in lockdown, entertainment is scarce; Gal Godot, Chris Pine; some of the visuals; Gal Godot; for the same reason you watch a car wreck; to watch bad money chase good money. The villians are not villiany enough (no suspense), the gimmicks not interesting. it tries, it fails.

Sometimes you have the patience for a "keenly observed" film. Sometimes it can be infuriating. The setting was interesting and appeared authentic. The two characters were realistic, only one was interesting. Their. dialog. was. glacial. in. speed. The story wasn't remarkable. The storytelling was not bad, just SO slow. Wife really liked it (she is partial to "interesting settings"). I enjoy glimpses into different lifestyles, but different, alone, isn't enough to maintain my interest. Certainly not for two hours.

You never have / never will see a film like this. Time is moving in both directions at once. It's uniqueness (and it amazing production) will ensure / has ensures it remains one of my favorite movies of all time. [[Updated 2026. Original rave below]] Wow! An incomprehensible story. Impossible to anticipate one scene from the next - the primary enabler of suspense. And yet.... An AMAZING accomplishment. Somehow Christopher Nolan makes almost every scene not only engaging, but compelling. Rather than passive wonder, you're somehow caught up in the action; all the fear triggers are pulled, even though your "higher" brain is completely lost. Which somehow makes it even scarier. It is the most wondrously engaging (or engagingly wondrous) film I've seen (I'm 55). Nolan stands alone, and this is his most intense. Okay, tamp your expectations down, so that they can be properly exceeded. This is a film that needs to be seen on a large, large screen with loud sound. See this in a theater, see it often.

I saw this a couple of days ago and I can't remember a light moment in it, though I think there was one. Slow, sad, you get a sense of creep towards something bad inexorably. Not even much drama, but it has soul, if only to watch it wither. Well done, worth watching, but as I said to my family immediately afterwards, "you're left with nothing but the realization that the death penalty ****. You can't escape that, even if you're for it."

Bad Astra. I'm am still getting grief from family and friends for subjecting them to this film. My response is "I did due diligence. I check the Metacritic critic score: it was fine!" This movie is the Pearl Harbor of outer space. But at least that film had a theme (A Japanese sneak attack on an American Love Triangle). This looked like a film whose individual scenes were submitted filmed and spliced together by random people with only a cursory attempt to knit a story. "Does the timeline seem to go forward? Good enough." Well not random people: writers without an iota of science understanding. I found more coherence in the random shots of people in a commercial doing those things that the advertise prescription medicine will get them back to doing. It did have some great looking but nonsensical imagery. Bad Astra.

Solid story about structural discrimination. the acting stood out as really good; you care about all the characters (except for the ones you're not). There were a couple surprisingly moving threads. Good film to introduce Social Justice to your kids with. My 14-yr old son, notoriously difficult, enjoyed it and probably learned some important realities.

Functional but endearing. Not great, but pleasant-with-a-purpose. If you have a child in the house that you're wanting to watch a Social-Justice themed movie with, this is contemporary and acceptably entertaining.

I really wanted to like this film. I saw the poor critical reviews, but thought that, being a fan of science, it couldn't be worse than a middling documentary... My takeaway feeling is: how could they have made such an exciting scientific slugout so DULL? And how did I learn NOTHING over the course of 100 minutes. I couldn't figure out what each scene was for, the conflict they were trying to resolve at any given point (other than AC vs DC). Some beautiful scenes. Some earnest effort. Completely wasted opportunity. If you're looking to learn about this "war", I'd bet KhanAcademy would be more dramatic. Definitely more informative.

My favorite film of 2018. Perfectly executed. You feel the oppression, the longing. The acting is outstanding. Each scene reveals just enough. Here's what I thing Rachel McAdams does better than anyone else: you see her character and think "man, I want someone to love me like that." I can't wait to watch it again.

okay. this movie has staked out it's niche. It's personally intimate. It's effective at literally getting in people's face. Inside a crowded Gemini cockpit: claustrophobic and chaotic. As majestic as the backdrop is, this film is as grounded as it gets, but not in a good way. Character studies have their value, but Armstrong, while an important man, while an iconic man, a First Man, is just not interesting man.