ScrawnyPunk

Fantastic movie. Written and directed by the guy who wrote Hell or High Water, which is also a fantastic movie (as well as Sicario, which I am not as high on). Lots of layers, a fresh narrative structure, and loads of great acting. At the very least, it would be nice to see Gil Birmingham get an Oscar nod for supporting actor. This is a movie that trusts the intelligence of the viewer, which means we can take a few perfectly-chosen words and imply paragraphs of emotion and exposition. For example, on the destruction of Native American culture: -Jeremy Renner: “What’s with the paint?” -Gil Birmingham: “This is my death face” -JR: “And how do you know what that is?” -GB: “I don’t. I just made it up. It’s not like there’s anyone around to teach me.” That’s it. No explanation, no further dialog, no righteous lectures. And with that, we know that a father can’t properly mourn his daughter because even that piece of culture been taken from him, along with everything else. Jeremy Renner also excels in a role which seemed made for his toughness and deliberate pacing. He might even have reached Gus McCrae-level frontier righteousness, which isn’t an easy thing to do. Finally, the entire movie oozes respect for its subject and makes a compelling point without stooping to, as Mr. Birmingham has said in interviews, "poverty porn." An all-around good film, and definitely in my top 5 for this year.

The first thing to understand about the film is that it is not an adaption of The Dark Tower in its entirety, or any of the component books in part. Instead, it is a continuation of the story from the point at which Roland walks out of the Tower in Book 7. True fans looking for a continuation of the story might be rewarded. The rest of the world may be left scratching its collective head. Leaving aside the feeling that the best stuff happened before the film starts, the second thing to understand is that any sense of awe and wonder is undercut by the previews. We’ve seen Roland’s otherworldly (literally) skills, and we’ve seen most of Walter’s magic tricks on Youtube, Apple Trailers, etc. This is a bad thing – what little chance the movie has for awe, wonder, and suspense is blown since we already know what will happen at crucial moments. The best example is when Roland blind-shoots Jake’s would-be captor: the scene is filmed to perfection, but we aren’t on the edge of our seats because it is effectively a re-run. I don’t blame the filmmakers here, but I do blame the preview editors. As for the rest of the film, I’d call it “adequate.” Jake’s earlier scenes are great, but wasted as the troubled-but-visionary character trope gives way to a straight-forward fantasy quest. The vistas are magnificent, but give way to village scenes that look straight out of Costner’s Postman. Walter is evil, but so completely and casually so that we can’t be frightened (and who doesn’t want to destroy a cinematic universe these days? The action is fantastic, but how many other times have we seen someone in a leather duster shoot up a room full of bad guys? The film resolves, but there are a ton of contrived plot devices which cause the movie to skip anything interesting or character-defining (and let’s not forget that one of Steven King’s greatest skills is character development over long periods). As a final (and positive) note, the cast is fantastic. Idris Elba is great as always, Matt McConaughey is silky-smooth, Katheryn Winnick (aka Lagertha of Vikings fame) is nearly perfect, and Lucas Hamilton does a great job of balancing Jake’s psychological “troubles” with a sense of awe and understanding of his destiny. Jackie Earle Haley gives what he has to a throw-away role, as does Claudia Kim. The only weak link is Fran Kranz, whose screen time leaves him without his usual ability to put an indelible stamp on a character. He is woefully underused here, but that’s really the only issue I took with the cast. In the end, I think we deserved a multi-season epic covering the actual books, bringing to life a truly unique fantasy multiverse. I think what we got was something more like a coda: like 1998’s X-Files or Twin Peak’s Fire Walk With Me. Vaguely interesting, but not really satisfying.

A perfect movie. Stunning visuals, quests, humor, a classic hero's journey, and life-through-story, all orbiting around a massive emotional center. That's the "Dad" review. From the eight-year-old boy - "Second best movie ever...behind Jurassic Park." This is an absolute work of art, and something that other children's movies should aspire to. (Most of the reward is seeing the plot unfold, so I'll let you experience that for yourself)

I saw this with my son prior to seeing the reviews. 100% glad I did it that way - we both enjoyed it tremendously, and seeing the massive amount of negative reviews would have spoiled the fun. We both enjoyed the massive-scale landscapes, the back-and-forth between George and Tarzan (and Jane and evil Belgian guy), the action sequences, and the overall story arc. This felt like old-fashioned story telling with a generous helping of digital cinema thrown in for effect. The story itself is straightforward - Tarzan is brought back to Africa to unwittingly help exploit its population and satisfy an old grudge at the same time. **** obviously isn't having that any time soon. Sam Jackson comes along for the ride an a flimsy (but disbelief-suspendable) reason that ends up adding to Tarzan's motivation. And then there is **** should not mess with Jane and expect Tarzan to be cool about it, right? I see reviews calling the back-story heavy-handed revisionist history. Maybe, but I will say this - the movie gave me a chance to talk to my son about colonial Africa for the first time. The history may have off a little (a little...), but this movie has created at least one discussion about mistakes our forebears made, and that can't be a bad thing.

Great as a genre film, and plenty fine as a "film" film. The story arc is clean enough - struggling punk band takes a gig and it goes **** South. But the true accomplishment is the sense of tension, futility, and determination that alternate throughout the movie. Acting is great, direction is great, cinematography is great. The movie doesn't pretend to be art, and it succeeds on its own merits. I particularly loved the conversion of the punk ethos to the screen. It's dirty, it's desperate, and it's meant to be enjoyed live in an ephemeral moment when audience connects with artists. The fact that this happens in a supremacists bar with non-supremacist musicians is a great example of music connecting people regardless of background, and it was a beautiful scene. Unfortunately for our protagonists, that was the end of the beauty. As you can tell from the trailer and the other reviews, their journey swiftly moves from musical connection to defense of life and liberty in a hurry. That transition comes quickly (as it **** you found yourself in that position), and the movie builds a credible amount of tension from then on out. A lovely film, but be ready for violence and lots of it. Credible violence in an impossible situation, but violence nonetheless. There are about 15 minutes that could have been cut in my opinion, but I thoroughly enjoyed the film. And hats off to Patrick Stewart! This guy is clearly a defender of the downtrodden in real life, but his depiction of a supremacist Don is absolutely chilling. I guess that's why they call it acting...

Short, alliterative review: boring with brief bouts of brilliance. Longer review: As always in “Cap” films, we get a lot of exposition, a little bit of action, and a furthering of plot points for upcoming movies. It is very hard not to get the sense that a number of things are being set up here, but when is that not the case with Captain America movies (or Thor movies for that matter)? So this is my one bit of advice for any viewers – you are going to watch a piece in a larger whole, so if you are cool with that, please proceed with the continuation of MCU Phase 3. There isn’t anything really WRONG with CA:CW, but there is not a lot that is really RIGHT, either. The plot is well-designed and well-paced (and hidden in the right places), but it isn’t all that exciting or plausible when you get down to it. The divisions and fractures in the Avenger’s team dynamic make sense, but outside of Cap and Tony, there isn’t a real sense of antagonism anywhere else. And let’s go ahead and double-down on that statement since Thor and Hulk aren’t around to beat each other up again. And speaking of beating each other up, the fight choreography is OUTSTANDING, and darn near feels like the culmination of 50 years of wuxia. The special effects are also very good, and subtle in a way which Zack Snyder should pay attention to. The acting is plausible, and the humor is well-placed, though sparse. If anything, I would have liked to see more of Ant-man and Spiderman…both were a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stultifying room in my mind. In the end, it is an OK film, but more than a little boring. It is definitely a worthwhile diversion, but definitely not “the greatest superhero trilogy of all time” (Cinemablend), “the most mature and substantive picture to have yet emerged from the Marvel Cinematic Universe” (Variety), or anything along those lines. It is simply another superhero movie. With that being said, what follows is a general statement on the state of the MCU / DCCU (other than Cap’s recent adventure). In comics terms, I think we have already passed the “golden age” and moved into the “silver age.” I liken this to the “golden age” of comics (30s-50s) where the idea of a superhero was developed and we received the big fellas/ladies – Superman, Batman, Captain America, Wonder Woman, etc. For my money, the “golden” cinematic analog would be: the first two Spiderman movies (what motivates a hero), Nolan’s Batman trilogy (who deserves heroism), the first two X-Men movies (rejecting the hero), the original Avengers (teams of heroes), and maybe The Guardians of the Galaxy (why not move them beyond Earth and get a little cheeky while we’re at it). I think we are way beyond that now. The movies are well-made, but we are seriously in re-tread territory. Where we used to get treated to character introductions and serious questions, we are now squarely in the phase of world-building, mega-arc plot advancement, and revenue grabs. This is fine for those who are truly interested in the larger story and character universes, but unnecessary for those of us who are not completists. I liken this phase to the “silver age” of comics (60s-70s) where we received an explosion of characters, abilities, and plotlines, but not a lot that was really, really new from a literary or philosophical perspective. My guess is that we will continue to be treated to new characters in stand-alone roles, and that will be fine as long as it is done in a creative way (Ant-Man, Deadpool, etc.). The rest of it should be expected by now: all Captain America films will be exposition for Avengers movies, all Thor movies are going to explain why/how the Infinity Stones come to be relevant, and the next Avenger story is going to take 5 hours to tell for some reason, etc.. And then there are the TV shows – tons and tons and tons of TV shows, each adding a little nugget to otherwise crowded mine. As for DC, I suspect they have missed the boat. All the key questions have been answered, so they are pretty much forced to go “dark” (Suicide Squad, Vs.) or “historical” (WW), or maybe a bit of both. Unfortunately, both have already been done, so they better bring some serious heat. Otherwise, I think it might be time to move on… …except for Guardians of the Galaxy 2, because that looks awesome. And Dr. Strange, because that looks like a mashup of Inception and Batman Begins. And the Inhumans…because…the Inhumans! Oh – who am I kidding? I’ll watch them all. I just need Marvel (and DC) to deal the interest-factor back up past 5 again.

Walking out of this movie, I felt as if a promise that was made to me as a child was finally fulfilled 30 years later. I turned to my sons (one of which is the exact same age I was when the first movie came out) and asked what they thought. "Can we see it again?" Hard to argue against that. There is a lot of depth here that I can't go into without spoiling things, but suffice it to say that people will be talking about a number of the scenes for a long time. This is a return to form - individual efforts rather than galactic politics, actors and sets rather than CGI, mythology rather than cataloging the make-believe. Fans will love this. Children will love this. People new to the franchise will need to see the first three (Ep 4-6) to understand, but then will love it. Fans of Sci Fi will love it. Students of film history and those who prefer the Bicycle Thief to The Fifth Element...well...maybe not so much, but they would if they let their guard down. Hands down, THE most rewarding movie experience I have had in 10-15 years.

A good Bond film, but not a great one. The filming, pacing, acting, and emotion are all there; it’s the plot that doesn’t hold up. And since the set-up is three movies long, it feels like a little bit of a let-down by the end. The great allure of Daniel Craig’s Bond movies has not been Daniel Craig as Bond, but the underlying story arc. Where the previous 20 films brought us increasingly far-fetched episodes in the career of a decreasingly relevant cold-war spy, Casino Royale was a masterful reboot and the beginning of (what appears to be) a four-episode uber-plot. Gone were the references to geopolitical turmoil; in where the references to some sinister organization controlling global crime through a highly secretive network. In the middle of it all we sensed a Moriarity-level spider pulling all the web-lines, with James Bond slowly circling into the middle of the web at the expense of all he holds dear. This was finally the out-sized story line worthy of an out-sized character, and we loved it: Casino, Quantum, and Skyfall grossed more than the 10 movies preceding the reboot. And now are at what looks like a logical end to the story arc, so we have to ask – does this movie hold up as a satisfying end to a four-episode story? In my opinion, the answer is: “almost.” Whereas Skyfall gave us a truly masterful film by any standard, Spectre is only a masterful film by James Bond standards. As a stand-alone film, Spectre is head-and-shoulders above most action movies this days. The story is intriguing, the filming is absolutely top-rate, the pacing is near-perfect , and the acting is spot on. Bond fans will be particularly pleased with a return to some bond basics…multiple locations, multiple ladies, multiple expendable henchmen, and a super-villain with a super-lair. We also get a number of nods to Bonds past, like Dave Bautista’s clever update on “Jaws” (including the fight on a train) and a suspiciously furry white kitty. However, as part four of what has been a masterful story so far, Spectre doesn’t give us the payoff we deserve (especially in comparison to recent ‘concluding’ films like The Dark Knight Rises). In a nutshell, it feels as if plausibility has been sacrificed for convenience; as if everyone agreed the story needed to end and no one knew how to end it. We get the ending we expect, but the path is too convenient. Most conveniently, there are too many easy-outs: from the ease with which Bond beds his women (one of which absolutely HAS to be #1 on the playlist for Wedding Crashers’ Chazz Reinhold), to the ease with which super criminals transform themselves into bumbling, monologue-ing, capture monkeys. It has been a great ride and Spectre is great fun to watch. And although it isn’t quite the same caliber as the set-up, it would require superhuman ennui to not to at least enjoy watching it. AND…I can’t way to see what Bond cooks up next.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

This is a nice, gentle left-turn from the frenetic Bourne-clone spy flicks and destroy-the-world comic book movies of the past few summers. It's also a bit more action-paced than recent "thinking" spy flicks like Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (which, incidentally, I enjoyed tremendously). It hits a nice middle-ground between the two extremes and results in an enjoyable movie with familiar characters, an understandable plot, low-body-count action, and a satisfying conclusion. In this installment, the IMF is back to doing what it does best – defending the world from certain annihilation while working without the cover of government protection or authority (again…where does the money come from?). Ethan Hunt is off the radar, staying one step ahead of the CIA and one step behind his enemy until he is able to reunite his team to do the “Impossible” (thus the title, right?). There isn’t a lot of new territory here, and “The Syndicate” doesn’t sound all that different from the version of SPECTRE we’ll be seeing later in the year. However, it is well-crafted and well-executed, and is therefore a good example of what movies do best – escapist and enjoyable. This could be a personal opinion, but "Rogue Nation" felt much more like the original movie than any of the others in the series. Not only do we have an explicit reference to the original NOC-list heist, but the movie’s locations, lighting, and pacing lend it the same air of foreign charm that helped separate the original from predecessor Bond and Bourne movies. While the movie drags in spaces, there are a few scenes which are balletic in their execution – the complicated “chase” scene above the Vienna Opera House being the most obvious example. All in all, enjoyable and recommended.

Remember that time Matthew Fox was in that Roshamon rip-off set in Spain? Or that time that they remade The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 for some reason? No? That's a shame, because either is more memorable than this late-career paycheck for Sean Penn. In a loving ode to both Safe House and the Constant Gardner (that's what they did, right?...intentionally combined the most boring parts of these movies to cinematic test of fortitude for the casual observer), Sean Penn gallops around the world kicking all sorts of bad-guy-butt like only a 54-year-old can do these days. Somebody done him **** they're about to get theirs once he figures it out. The positives - the actors are top-notch (and committed to their roles), the scenery is quite lovely, and the film is not (as I suspected about half-way through) 4 hours long. The negatives - boring, derivative, falsely preachy, and saddled with the worst dialog I have seen since Attack of the Clones. On the bright side, Sean Penn is extra bulked up. Which made me **** he can look like that at his age, then I definitely can. I'm hitting the gym tonight and my wife will thank me for it in a year or so. So thanks for that, Mr. Penn. Sorry you had to melt your guns for your new lady, since it looks like you must have really missed them after making this movie.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

This gets my minimum rating for a Wachowski movie. 5 points for visuals and general goofiness, 0 points for everything else. Word to the wise - this movie is EXCEPTIONALLY stupid. Probably on par with Lucy, but in outer space. So if you think Lucy was a thoughtful movie, then this one is for you. Otherwise... Plot is plodding. Characters development is negligent. Acting is marginal. Dialog is absurd. Creativity is absolutely absent - this is basically a mash-up of Cinderella, Flash Gordon, Star Wars (episode 3...which might not be the best one to crib), Hitchhikers Guide, and Dune, with slight traces of Ice Pirates. The saving grace is occasional humor, mostly at the expense of civil servants. The February release looks intentional.

This is pure science fiction - an idea supported by a story taking place in an imaginative setting. And when pure scifi works, it really works well - that is exactly what happens here. As with most science fiction, you will need to let the "science" take a back seat to the "fiction," but if you do you will have a great time. A welcome break from blockbusters, Snowpiercer is a fairly unique take on both the apocalyptic and the totalitarian. Although it has many elements stitched from prior movies (hints of everything from Old Boy to Soylent Green, to Brazil and everywhere in-between are cribbed here), the overall effect comes off as fresh and more than a little exciting. It is definitely a departure from the standard CGI-Blow-Stuff-Up-Aliens-Robots-and-Stuff-and-Such fair that is served weekly in US cinemas. We are treated to literally-straightforward story line (get to the front of the train), creative battle sequences, tension, humor, social commentary sufficiently removed from the present so as to be bearable, a dash of zaniness, and a satisfying (but not obvious) ending. Overall, a great experience. More of this, less Transformers 4, please. Unless you want to keep eating your protein blocks...

I felt this movie was astounding – flawed, but astounding. It is what it wants to be and it does not bow to convention. It is both a block buster and a psychological character study. It is both Biblical and inventive. It is both digital and auteur. It is also, obviously, very thought-provoking…which is more than can be said for most big movies these days. What this movie is – a VERY loose interpretation of the Biblical flood story, with tiny packets of the Book of Enoch and the Qu’ran to flesh out the back story. As with most Aronofsky films, it is primarily a psychological study. What exactly does faith mean when it requires a man to let ALL OF HUMANITY DIE? If that man is sane, how does he react? Cope? Adjust to change? What are the depths of his despair if he feels that his familial compassion equate to failing his God? These are the questions posed in Noah, and it does a fairly (but not exceedingly) good job working through them. What this movie is not – a Bible study or lesson in Theology. However, biblical accuracy is not one of my criteria for movie critiques. It would be akin to stating “Dante’s Inferno is HORRIBLE…there is no evidence for nine circles whatsoever in any religious text!” Obviously, such a criticism would miss the point. My suggestion is that if you are looking for Biblical consistency you should probably go see Son of God instead. There are some slight flaws (e.g. the strength with which Mickey Rourke carries The Wrestler is in a different league than Russel Crowe’s performance; diversions into implied veganism and earth-first philosophy detract from the larger character study, etc.) but the good outweighs the bad. I choose to believe this movie is a step in the evolution of movies as both big and thought-provoking, and I quite liked it.

Absolutely terrible. Overly indulgent at 3 hours - I get it (his life was just so), but that's no excuse for about an hour and a half of extraneous material. Inexcusably sympathetic towards criminals (99% shows their debauchery, 1% shows their justice). Excessively misogynistic. And worst of all (aside from being boring) is that it feeds the ego of a true **** remains famous, he gets a sympathetic day in the sun, his victims don't even get the recognition of a name. Absolutely atrocious. This could have been a great piece **** spent half as much time personalizing Belfort's victim's as it did cataloging his hedonistic **** it gave any insight into the motives and methods of the investigative **** it treated sympathetic characters with sympathy (his wife, the lead detective who ends up on a subway, **** it chronicled his fall instead of showing us 2 minutes of a sleazy sales **** it had a coda listing all the people who were ruined as the credits rolled (maybe it did; I didn't stick **** it was anything but a free pass for the scumbags involved. This should be the movie that Scorsese and DiCaprio later tell us they are ashamed of. Instead, it is nominated for an Oscar. Was there no other worthy movie this year?

My review is simple I took my three kids (ages 7, 5, and 3) to see it and they all laughed the entire time. That's the target audience, so it works. Most adults will not enjoy it, but it's not really for us.

Funny, but not the second coming of the Hangover, Borat, American Pie, or any other gut-busters. The premise is a decent one, the cast is (mostly) easy on the eyes, their comedic rhythm is great, and the set-piece jokes are pretty funny. Jason Sudeikis obviously moves the movie along, but it's a fun flick. Definitely not for kids.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Absolutely one of my favorite movies of the summer. Probably the best big-budget robot-vs-godzilla (**** know that's what this is) movie that will ever be made. Every twist and device in the movie is a complete rip-off of something else, but it's so damned FUN that you can't help to like it...unless you are allergic to good times. As someone who enjoyed a little (ok...a lot of) Voltron back in the day, the "sword" scene almost had me jumping out of my seat. If you like robots and giant monsters, you love this movie. If not, I am sure there is some Scandinavian neo-realist retrospective playing somewhere.

This is a REALLY fun movie basically, Olympus Has Fallen with a little humor and a larger budget. It is cheeky enough to avoid being tainted by the obvious cliches the movie is riddled with. Please, don't ruin your experience by thinking about anything it is meant to be enjoyed without critique. Things blow up. People get saved. A dude becomes a hero to his daughter. Accept and enjoy life...

This feels like a good (not great) movie with some brilliant scenes (especially the opening ones and the exit from Jerusalem), a cohesive story line, and characters with actual emotional pull. It is not preachy, it is not a slave to special effects, and it does not drag. However, nothing in the movie is really spectacular enough to make this a must-see movie. I'd recommend watching it, but I wouldn't cancel existing plans to do so.

A horrible disappointment. Well-crafted enough to keep attention on the big screen, but I don't think this will translate well to TVs and other screens as time goes on. The back-story was very well done and touching in parts, but the lack of a real-time plot (they find him, a fight ensues, earth is saved) prevents it from paying off. This would have worked better as two separate movies one about the destruction of Krypton and the hunt for a new planet (including the show-down with Kal-El), and another with Superman discovering his place on earth. But the combined story doesn't work very well. The fight scene is ludicrous and boring.

This was one of my worst movie experiences in the past ten years: terribly derivative, intellectually insulting, and a complete waste of time. The sequence of events are too convenient for a heist movie, so the magic element had to be thrown in. However, the magic show scenes are too boring, and the interplay between the characters is too dull to be a magic **** some heist element had to be thrown in. This was my general take it is neither one nor the other, nor good enough to be either. The bright spots in the movie are Dave Franco and Mélanie Laurent (Shosanna from Inglourious Basterds), the only two actors given real characters and a chance to turn in decent performances. Everyone else plays a smug version of themselves. Any specific complaint about the movie would include spoilers, so here are some surface-level observations: Acting mediocre, with hints of terrible by Mark Ruffalo. Plot much more convenient than clever, with "magic" used to explain away impossible plot points. Dialog snarky and witty (excluding Ruffalo's character), but so much so that there are no real characters, just one-liner automatons. Plot twists there are no real plot **** you think "what is the most ridiculous thing that can happen in this situation," that is exactly what will happen. The ending I almost threw up in my empty pop-corn box. Saccharine doesn't come close to describing it. Overall philosophy Magic exists? Insurance companies are evil? Revenge is sweet? Love pops up in the strangest places?

I think M. Night gets unfairly abused by critics many times, but this was not one of them. While the movie's themes are very good, the film is questionable at best. The heart of the film is a father's love for his son made manifest by forcing the son to become his own man not by coddling or insisting on an identical path, but literally kicking him out of the nest (ship) to find his own way with just enough aid not to get killed. I don't think this is a very common parenting style these days, but I respect the Fresh Prince for taking it to screen. However, this movie was not the best vehicle for it. The science is bad enough to kill suspension of disbelief and the set pieces are just this side of 1960's French Sci-Fi (i.e. weird, incongruous with the implied technology, and already dated). The most glaring bit of weirdness is the idea that an old-growth forest can be flash-frozen every few hours without permanent cellular **** doesn't make a lot of sense, and neither does a lot of the "science" elements in this film (like turbulence in space). Perhaps a present-time marooning would be a better vehicle? Or a slightly-improved attention to details which Sci-Fi fans normally obsess over? **** I am going out on a limb here...maybe a different planet? The fact that it is earth does nothing for the movie. In summary not a good movie. As always, M. Night does a good job filming and pacing, but there are just too many other mistakes to overlook.

A very good diversion for small children, and worthwhile for accompanying adults as long as they are comfortable with fantasy. It is well-filmed and well-executed, and the pacing feels about right for summer fare. It is not highly original (e.g. Ferngully, Arthur and the Invisibles, etc.), but is fine enough update on older concepts to be satisfying. There is decent humor that resulted in both children and adults laughing out loud in the theater, and the action sequences are great for boys in the audience. No doubt, the princess references are fine by the little girls as well. In summary not the best, or even a great, animated film ever, but it has something for everyone.

An enjoyable sci-fi film, but very derivative and a little antiseptic from an emotional standpoint. The cinematography was absolutely stunning, and the score is gorgeous (a bit like late-period Kubrik scores). Movie fans should probably see this movie for these two aspects alone. As for the story, the basic premise is interesting and believable, but a lot of the touches (like the kid at the end) do not make much sense and really don't contribute to the overall story line or movie quality. And the twist...well, it's been **** I'll leave it at that. With a better director and some script editing, this could have been a masterpiece. As it stands, it is a decent movie with stunning visuals and soundtrack.

If you are a fan of Asian action, horror, or sci-fi, this is on your "must" list. If you are merely a fan of dystopian fiction, then you should probably see it as well. If you are unaware of the plot, a quick view on Wikipedia will help you out. Basically, The Greatest Game meets 1984. This is WAY better than a certain unnamed American **** not nearly as engaging as the book. I love me some Beat Takeshi, but his character felt a little wrong here. If you haven't read the book, do so it should take you a couple of hours at the most. But watch the movie first.

If this was an original concept, it would be a 10. But it's a mash-up of multiple ideas (The Witness, Akira, and others come to mind), so we have to take a little off for orginality. With that being said, it is executed nearly perfectly.

Any of these by themselves are a 5 or a 6, but taken as a whole they are much more than the sum of their parts. Many scenes are hard to watch from a human interest perspective, but the sheer sociological impact is staggering. It is not every day that a series of documentaries builds enough awareness to reverse a miscarriage of justice.

Not exactly a "must-watch" on the level of Schindler's list, but Spielberg manages to bring topical relevance to a historical subject, while making it an engaging view. You can switch the topic and the characters, and it is still a powerful study of human behavior what kind of man does it take to make a difficult decision, against all practical odds, with little-to-no support, while balancing "right" against "expedience" over the long term? As with all Spielberg movies, it is well-written, well-filmed, and well-acted (with the exception of Sally Fields, whom I found to be over the top in a needless way). This should be watched by our high school students perhaps this will bring some life to a number of subjects they find boring (e.g. government, politics, parliamentary procedure, compromise, ethics, etc.).

A competent action flick, perfectly slotted for pre-summer release. Various plot devices are hardly believable, but you just go with it in this type of movie. Predictable, but fun.

This is a good movie, and a bit of a surprise. It is well-acted and well-paced. It sits somewhere between blockbuster and indie territory, which might explain the mixed reviews. With that being said, it is an engaging drama and well worth watching. It is very comparable to The Yards in feel and quality.

This is a funny movie, with some hilarious scenes. It is definitely stale and slow between jokes, but the comparison needs to be made to the travesty that is has become the Scary Movie franchise and similar "satire" films. WAY better.