PJPaz

I'm always astonished when critics who love TV dramas which relieve the viewer of any need to think, approach films like this with a bit of bafflement and dismissive cynicism. Even Anthony Lake, an otherwise intelligent reviewer entirely misses one of the central plot points of the film. In fact, what Lake misses is what makes the film so good: what Therea knows about Isabelle. (C'mon, Anthony, you gotta pay attention). Anyway, it's made me want to see the Danish 2007 original, despite the fact that, it seems, it was filmed in "shaky cam" style. (Dramamine can overcome that little problem - though not my dislike of a DP's need to keep moving the camera to remind you he's there. But I digress). The plot is beautifully thought out and the acting is perfectly underdone. The main trio of Moore, Williams and Crudup is not only in fine form but in perfect synch with one another.

Reading some of these reviews is astonishing: what do we, as a collective modern audience, still bring to films? It's as though some of these professional critics didn't really watch the film (e.g., "None of the life we see ... illuminates his great works of art". Really?) and as though some of these amateur film goers simply want it to be a different film (e.g., knocking it because it doesn't shed "any light on Tolkein’s genius for creating myths that... inspired some brilliant films by director Peter Jackson." Holy mackerel. And even worse: "You can't make a movie about JRRT and pretend that christianity doesn't exists". Puh-LEEZE). Clearly, we've devolved to the point where our attention spans are equal to a 3-month old blowfish and our historical sophistication is comparable to a sixth-grader's. If, on the other hand, you were fortunate enough to see the recent Tolkien exhibit at the Morgan Library in NYC, you know that this film beautifully and accurately portrays the essential Tolkien and shows how all his extraordinary skills - as a story-teller, mythologist, philologist and linguist, artist and (I know this is boring, guys, but deal with it) a father - were the raw material for the classic novels he wrote. Highly recommended.

A film that clips along at the same brisk pace as Aaron Sorkin's albeit unrealistic dialog. It's nicely structured and wonderfully acted. Someone referred to its "non-linear structure", but I hardly noticed that - perhaps because it was in the service of a minor "mystery thread" at the center of the film. The flashbacks helped pique interest in how Molly got to where she was. By the way, does anyone think Metacritic will eventually combat the trolls at Slant by throwing away the highest and lowest scores for each film? I mean, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, what a boon this would be to those of us tired of seeing Slant snottily trashing every good film that comes along, including this one. Eliminating their predictably low score along with the highest score - that is, the outliers - would result in a much more accurate/representative film rating.

Amélie meets The Beast. It's the La-La Land of 2017: tedious, overrated, bloated, fatuous and cliché-ridden. We've seen this film - done better - before. A waste of good acting talent. Run away.

There's a good argument to be made for Metacritic to adopt the widely-accepted practice of dropping the highest and lowest score for a movie. Note that those pompous, self-aggrandizing morons at Slant did their usual hatchet job on this film and gave it their usual basement-level score. What's worse is reading their review, which not only misconstrues plot points, but throws spoiler after spoiler into the fray. In fact, this is a wonderful, dream-of-a-film in which Ian McKellen delivers an intelligent (when called for) and poignant (likewise) performance.

First of all, this is a 2-Dramamine movie - one of those films, like "The Hurt Locker" where the camera operator shakes it around on purpose, most likely to convince you that it's a dramatic scene. The result neither increases the tension nor settles the stomach. It does, however, draw attention to itself, reminding you that there's a guy/woman holding a camera and that we're watching a movie. Aside from that, and aside from the usual "Let's get to know the contestants before we kill them" format (in fairness, quite unavoidable if it's to remain true to the book), this isn't a bad action movie. We all know how much the book owes to Shirley Jackson ("The Lottery"), but then we all know how JK Rowlings borrowed liberally. I don't begrudge them that. I'm just hoping they hold the damn camera still in the next movie.