StevieGJD

This is a hard movie to review. I want to like it because I agree with the film's intentions and goals. I know there really are people who want to do what the antagonist characters are doing, feel the way they do and surely don't think they are racists. I'm sure a good number of them posted 0 reviews for this movie here. I also really like Janelle Monae as an actress; she has a great screen presence and tries really hard here. But she cannot overcome this material. The movie wants to be like "Get Out", which was great, and a little M. Night Shyamalan with the major plot twist. The former was a wonderful film and Shyamalan can make entertaining movies with interesting twists (but can also make dreadful films with lame twists). But this script just is not there. Any specific comments would be far too revealing of plot. Many of the characters are simplified and without depth. A friend of the main character, who only appears in the second part of the film, is tonally apart from this entire film and seems like a stereotype from a bad Black Rom Com. Unlike many people who do not like this film, I believe that evil like this is real and it exists and is being fanned in our current political climate. But the evil here is kind of like slavery torture porn. It is so unpleasant to watch and so completely without any legitimate motive, other than hate, it is simply vile. Unlike others, I can understand why the message and point of this movie might be enough for some people to like it, especially given our current political and cultural morass. But it is pretty poor film making. And even good intentions can end of with a bad product.

I have enjoyed all of Tarantino's films, some certainly more than others. This is a really fun film. There are abundant references to TV shows from the late 50s through the 60s, both U.S. and foreign films of the era and another history redux. There are some things that are fun or clever that do not make a great deal of sense. The attention to detail in making Hollywood look like it did in the 60s is great. Both Pitt and DeCaprio are well suited to their roles. DeCaprio, in particular, seems to be tangentially parodying his own career. There are different moments that are funny, sweet, insightful, silly and ultra violent. The violence, particularly against women, unfortunately ebbs towards misogyny. But, at the end, this 60s Hollywood tale is a great deal of fun.

This movie is not for everyone. There are scenes and images that will so bother some people, they will hate the movie. However, it is gripping, intense and well acted. It's pretty bleak and that also bothers some people so much, they can't appreciate the art. There are so many beautifully composed nature shots. At it's core it's a movie about privilege, brutality, revenge, acceptance, and friendship. But there's a great deal of unpleasantness one has to go through to take the journey.

I may like this incarnation of Spiderman the best. I love that Peter Parker actually seems like a high school kid, as do most of his classmates. Though it's definitely not part of the comic book storyline, I love the hot Aunt Mae. SFFH is the first entry into this next phase of the Marvel Cibenatic Universe, and it blends in previous movie elements well. Though Jake Gyllenhaal was excellent in his part, I had logical difficulties with his whole storyline. I'm also did not love the final CGI battle,which of course is unfortunate my de rigeur for the genre. But the film is earnest. The background romance is sweet. There are other cute romantic side pkots. It feels like how a high school kid would process these situations. Special effects are always getting better and they're great here. The main acting is great for the genre. The first post-Endgame film dutifully advances the franchise.

This is an anomaly: an arthouse, dystopian future, sci-fi, mind bender. I have appreciated many of Claire Denis' films. This one, in English, is definitely different. There are shots of great beauty, imbued with stunning composition. Metaphors abound in many of the beautifully composed shots. There are also many vulgar and disturbing images. Though there are numerous sexually charged events, none of them are remotely erotic. That tension, between vulgar sexuality and absent eroticism is certainly both one of the main subtexts and also something that will put many people off. The film is not presented in a linear narrative, though there ends up being one when one pieces together the parts, which are constantly switching between times. The acting is very good. It is not for everyone. For example, I would never bring my mother or my wife. But I found it interesting, sometimes funny, and always engaging. It will not be most people's cup of tea; but I found it interesting and moving.

This film is delightful; it is filled with beauty. It is absolutely fantastic that the director, writer of the original book and cast are all Asian or Asian American. It is romantic and sweet. Some of the characters are a bit too broadly written or acted, and that prevents the movie from being great. But it is very good nonetheless. There are laughs, tears, courage and redemption. I hope this ushers in more inclusivity in major studio films.

This film is about characters who are normally the window dressing in most films. It is a wonderful turn that the men in the story are the people we both don't know much about and don't care much about, while the women are the main characters and we learn a great deal about their lives and what they have to put up with to survive. Regina Hall is fantastic. She has the perfect emotional tones in different situations. There is a great deal of humor and real life tragedy in this film. It definitely has a low budget production vibe, but that is part of its charm. The supporting characters are all very good. I didn't love where the film went near the end, there are much better ways to resolve the main tension. But, even with that one arguable misstep, "Support the Girls" is a very enjoyable ride.

Charlise Theron is proving to be one of the best actresses of her generation. The physical transformation she goes through to play this part is astonishing. She is simply perfect in the film. All of the acting is very good though. The reason I think this movie is a 70-75 is the gimmicky explanation at the end. There could have been other ways for it to be revealed than the circumstances under which it was revealed in the film. A doctor's reply to a statement the husband makes near the moment of the reveal is sublime. The fact that this movie is not an in depth look at postpartum depression is fine; I don't fault the film for that. I am fine with the gimmick. I just didn't like the revelation of the gimmick. Still this is still a very interesting movie with a tremendous performance by a gifted actress at the peak of her prowess.

While I don't think this is the 91 that it is adorned with here on metacritic, I very much enjoyed Cold Water. The performances by the two main actors are terrific. There are a number of really excellent scenes that feel very real and genuine. The film is an amazingly honest portrayal of teenage angst, rebellion and ignorant imortality. The end is unfortunately predictable. There is one plot line that is built up to a point, but there is never a payoff to it. I kept wondering what happened to that plot line, even at the main story's tragic end. The music, the licensing of which delayed the film's release for more than 20 years, is absolutely great and is reminiscent of the early 70s the film is supposed to take place in (even though there is a scene in a location that could not have existed in the early 70s). I thoroughly enjoyed the film, warts and all.

I loved the first Deadpool and I really like Deadpool 2. I am, in general, a fan of Superhero movies. DP2 has many of the same things that made DP great. It is raunchy, R-rated and funny. I don't quite understand why Josh Brolin is the bad guy in two Marvel movies released so close in time to each other. But he is good here. Ryan Reynolds is perfect for the tone of both DP movies. The new character Domino is great. The opening credits are a wonderful homage to the Bond films. The story is a little predictable and somewhat schmaltzy. There is a scene near the end where there is a snarky (albeit funny) comment about the conventions of these movies, then the movie simply follows the convention. Nevertheless, I laughed, was entertained, and had a good time. The other Marvel convention, one that I can't seem to get enough of, is the extra scene during or after the credits and the one in this movie is simply awesome. Do not walk out until it plays out; it's very funny.

I was surprised about how much I enjoyed this film. It was very funny and I laughed a bunch. Margot Robbie completely surprised me. While I have had no doubt about how attractive she is, I never expected this kind of fully realized performance from her. She is really great. Alison Janney, as her mother, gives a one note performance, but it is an hilarious note. This story about a bunch of low class idiots is more than a little mean spirited about its targets. But when you see the real people the actors were playing at the end, after laughing the whole way there, you realize that there are people this dumb. The greatest irony is that I now feel sorry for Tonya Harding.

What a beautiful film. While this will not be everybody's cup of tea, I loved it. Daniel Day-Lewis serves up another great performance: a fully realized, and exceptionally bizarre, artistic dress designer. There were so many quirky moments that cracked me up. But I also noticed some people in the theater that did not get it. This movie also looks so perfect. It feels like England in the 1950s. My wife and mother (both of whom I took to see this) were in love with the dresses. This movie is a lock to win the Academy Award for best costumes. The narrative goes in a direction that I did not anticipate. But that made it fun too. The acting is superb, as is the direction by Paul Thomas Anderson. I am truly sorry for those who don't get it, you missed something special. But I expect there are a number of things those folks don't get.

What a beautiful and romantic movie. The visual aesthetic of this film is so captivating. The varied green tones embedded in every scene are lovely. The art direction is astonishing. This looks like the early 60s. The acting is universally great. Sally Hawkins, Richard Jenkins and Octavia Spencer are simply perfect in their roles. Michael Shannon is the bad guy (perhaps too bad) and he is up to the task as well. The movie is about how we tend to view those of different races, genders, cultures, nations, and species as "the other" and this "other" needs to be blamed for our lot and hated for its existence. The greater meaning of this allegory is too sad to contemplate. Only those whose hearts are open, will understand "The Shape of Water".

This is a great film. The acting, writing and directing are superb. This is a character and place study. There is no real action or dramatic arc. But, there are a number of really interesting and relevant experiences of the main character, her reaction to, and her growth from, those experiences is the narrative. The relationship between Lady Bird and her mother is the most poignant part of this lovely film.

This is an excellent film. The director's previous movies were very good, but this is more. The contraposition of the Russian middle class struggles with the Russian government bureaucratic milieu is so unique. I've not seen many films about this group of people. The morose sadness of the unsolved tragedy in this story, combined with the repetitive life choices of the main characters is soul numbing. I loved this movie. It is one of the best of the year

I don't think that people who have not seen The Room will love this film as much as I did. I am cognizant of the fact that seeing the source film and understanding how insanely bad it is makes The Disaster Artist a different experience. But, on its own, this is a film about a person trying to create his dream (albeit an insanely lame one). James Franco took a few liberties with the story, but he clearly has a deep-rooted affection for Wiseau, his artistic goals, and his atrociously bad film.

This is a lovely film. It is filled with intelligent, cultured and good looking people. The Italian town, countryside and villa where the majority of the film take place could not be more inviting. The blossoming of the relationship is both romantic and understandable. The acting is excellent, as are the art direction and cinematography. The final scene upon which the credits are layered, is incredibly moving. All but the truly homophobic will find something to love about this beautiful, tender film. My only complaint is not really a complaint, it is just a sad fact: the world in which these characters reside does not exist. It would be lovely if it did. But, alas it does not. It is a kind of fantasy place where everyone is understanding, accepting and kind, nobody is judgmental and bigotry does not exist. This is a very good, but not amazing, film.

This is a thought provoking and well made film. Melissa Leo gives an amazing performance, one that I suspect will be Oscar nominated. There are some unnecessary scenes and an unfortunately predictable story arc that creates part of the film's dramatic tension. But the main points of this film, the intensity of old school nun training and the effect that Vatican 2 had on Catholic nuns, are very well told, very well acted and quite poignant.

I grew up on comic books and truly enjoy many of the film franchises. The Wonder Woman movie, earlier this summer, was terrific. I hoped that it would echo a new approach for DC superhero movies. Alas, it did not. The DC animated films are very good. Their movies, except Wonder Woman are bad. "Superman" and "Batman vs. Superman" were terrible, overwrought and too long. So is "Justice League". How could Wonder Woman be so good a few months ago? The answer is: with better writing and a better director. The best parts of "Justice League" are snippy dialog between the heroes, dialogue I suspect that was added in by Joss Whedon, who was brought on to lighten up this dreadful mess. It takes far too long to get going. The villain is a completely unmemorable force of evil. The CGI is so over the top that it just looks silly at times. The only reason it gets a 4 are the humorous elements that humanize the characters and lighten the film. Marvel does this so much better than DC.

This movie actually made me sad. There are very good actors in it and they are all fine in the film. There are many well framed and beautifully composed shots. The art direction and the costumes are lovely. I like Kenneth Branagh's Poirot far more than the Albert Finney version in the earlier film adaptation of this book. There clearly was money spent on it and effort put into it. But at the end of the day, it is just a meaningless distraction. It is neither challenging nor inspiring. It is neither fun nor suspenseful. It is just there. With all the talent, money and effort behind this film, that is sad.

How does one decide the worst movie ever made? Is it bad acting? Is it a ridiculous story? Is it taking itself far too seriously too? There are some movies, like "The Room", which are so bad they are actually funny. The only think funny about "Geostorm" is that somebody thought this was a good idea and put a great deal of money into it. Think "Armageddon" with an environmental catastrophe theme and an evil megalomaniacal government takeover just to make it even more convoluted. Then mix in Gerard Butler, who is credible enough as a tough action guy, but let's make him a scientist, physicist, computer and aerospace genius. That'll be great. 12-15 year olds with no taste might like this movie. But this is utter drivel. It is two hours you cannot get back.

"Only The Brave" is formulaic, somewhat emotionally manipulative and more than a little corny in parts. But it is also very earnest, emotionally engaging and entertaining. I was not familiar with the true story of the Granite Mountain Hotshots. So I did not know exactly what was coming, though it was not that hard to anticipate many of the turns. Josh Brolin is great as the road weary veteran supervisor of the team. Miles Teller gives the best, and least obnoxious, performance of his young career as the troubled loser who conquers his demons. While I really liked him in "The Spectacular Now" and I loved "Whiplash" as a film, he too often hits the same note as an obnoxious, self-centered jerk (which worked in The Spectacular Now), but not so here. His character is dynamic and Teller's performance is mature. Jeff Bridges and Jennifer Connelly give strong supporting performances, as do the other actors playing the other Hotshots and their families. There may be a bit too much male bonding ribbing in the downtime, but the fire scenes are very well shot and the sound engineering is excellent. You can feel the onslaught of the fire. At times, it is laid on a little thick. But, in the end, it is quite entertaining and heartbreaking.

Baker makes movies about people whose stories are not oft told and whose lives many people do not care about. Just like with his first film Tangerine, The Florida Project ("TFP") tells such a story with compassion and insight, but without judgement or condemnation. TFP delves into the lives of people who live in low cost motels because they can't afford to get permanent housing. The story is told mostly from the perspective of a precocious, and completely unsupervised six-year old, Moonie, who explores her world without fear. The only recognizable actor is Willem Dafoe, who is excellent portraying the motel manager who cares for the property, enforces the rules (mostly) and protects his tenants and their children. Though Moonie is portrayed by a young girl who has worked as an actress, her mother and her best were found by Baker on social media and in a Wal Mart with her mother, respectively. There is a genuineness to every performance that is very compelling. I suspect that some people will dislike this movie because it is not narrative driven; it is a slice of the lives of the characters. Things happen, but the events seem to be less the point than the insight of how the characters in this story react, both to the events and to each other. This is a film about week to week motel tenants, close to Disney World, living their lives and trying to get by. If that idea appeals to you, then you'll enjoy this low budget indie film, if it does not, you should probably go see Geostorm.

I completely understand why many people hate this movie. There are some truly vile images, extremely disturbing scenes, a very convoluted plot that weaves both a Biblical allegory with the history of time. This film is very hard to watch and very challenging. It is definitely not for everyone. The film is replete with philosophy, theology with a smattering of Quantum physics. But a movie like that is not going to be entertaining, though there are some odd and humorous moments in the film. This is not a fun journey, but it is intellectually stimulating. One theory of time, from Hawking, is that the Universe constantly expands up to the point when it is at its apex, then collapses back into a particle of infinite mass and density, which in turn leads to the Big Bang and the expansion starts all over again. Take that theory and combine it with the Bible (and numerous biblical references) and current times that seem like we may be close to the apocalypse and there you have this film. Not for everyone. Really.

Baby Driver has an amazing soundtrack, an eclectic mix of songs from the 1960s through the 2000s. This is one of the best soundtracks I've ever heard. That the movie's plot is inextricably tied to the music is its greatest virtue. The writer/director Edgar Wright made the "Three Flavors Cornetto" film trilogy of Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and The World's End, the first two of which I really liked. He also made the truly underrated and under-appreciated Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, which was also tied to its music. Baby Driver is very kinetic and energetic. The driving is fantastic. Aaron Elgort will most likely become more known for this film than his previous memorable performance in The Fault in Our Stars. His character here is not that developed, but he's interesting. We find out the things that happened in his life to bring him to this unique situation, without finding out anything about how he learned to drive - which seems to be his greatest gift. This is a crime/heist drama mashed up with a romance and a long form music video. There are plenty of good bad guys: Kevin Spacey is perfectly believable as the head baddy, as are most of the others. Some are a little too over the top. But this movie is not about subtlety or nuance. You have sexy bad girl Darling (Eliza Gonzalez) and sexy love interest Debora (Lily James), apparently well orchestrated heists and wall to wall music. It is a fun ride. But the story gets a little too corny, rushed and completely unrealistic at the end. Not that any of it is realistic, which Baby Driver surely is not. But it is a fun ride. And did I mention that the soundtrack is awesome?

One can't help but conclude that there are a number of racist, xenophobic or bigoted reviews panning this wonderful movie as none of the negative user reviews are viewable. Maybe they didn't bother actually writing a review because they are small minded racists, xenophobes or bigots. Either way, their ratings make no sense. This movie is funny, touching and sweet, with terrific performances and a great heart. Kumail Nanjiani is terrific playing himself in this autobiographical romantic comedy. Zoe Kazan is charming and perfectly believable as Emily. Their relationship, and its ebbs and flows, feels genuine. Holly Hunter is wonderful as Emily's mother. You forget how good she can be in the right part. She is a real joy to watch in this film. Hunter sort of carries the middle of the film. Ray Romano is fine as Emily's father, though the role is rather thankless. Hunter's Beth is the critical parent here. Kumail's family is played well and they are perfectly annoying and seeped in their traditions. Kumail has to deal with racist bigots and a family who wants him to stay within their culture, even though they've transplanted to Chicago from Pakistan. This movie has many laughs and a few tears. The movie has an independent film feel and is bogged down with typical corporate Hollywood conventions. It is well worth watching and I truly enjoyed it. The 5.5 rating right now is a joke.

I really enjoyed this movie. Gal Gadot was excellent as the title character. She was able to be a badass and also be the naive fish out of water. Sure, the script took liberties with the Wonder Woman back story and was much more reliant on Greek mythology than either the comics or the 1970s Linda Carter TV show (with Debra Winger as little sister Drucilla). It also changed the present day from WW2 to WW1. The latter choice was probably due to the first Captain America being set in WW2. The "Great War" setting plays though. It was cool to see the staging of the WW photo seen in the truly bad Batman v. Superman. This is by far the best of the DC movies (I don't count the Dark Knight movies as DC movies). DC has been better at animated films. This is entertaining and fun and ultimately a great summer movie.

John Lithgow's character in "Beatriz at Dinner" is not Donald Trump. The screenwriter says it is based on the dentist who got caught killing a Lion a few years ago on Safari and braggingly posting it on social media. Lithgow's Doug Strutt is not only about the pursuit of wealth; he is also about doing it at any cost, killing and displacing people, rampantly destroying the environment, committing crimes willy nilly; and he also a hedonist who loves to go hunt and kill big game. The only things Trump about him are that he is rich and he owns, among other things, real estate. It is truly only the most superfluous view of Strutt that makes him Trump. The screenwriter, in an interview, said that he is not nearly as bad as Trump and was based on the aforementioned dentist. I'm not sure. Strutt, absent the moral qualms one should have with his worldview, is a charming dinner guest, quite unlike Beatriz. Selma Hayek bravely takes on a complicated character; she has no makeup, wears the frumpiest of clothes and has atrocious bangs. Its hard to make Selma Hayek look frumpy; she does here. Her character also either doesn't understand or doesn't care about social norms or normal conversational cues. I have known plenty of bright, motivated, committed and annoying people like her. She says exactly what she thinks, even though it is incredibly rude and has no hope of changing the minds of the other guests; she needs to be heard. The fact that she earnestly believes in what she is saying does not detract from the cringes one has when she unleashes. The movie is short and clearly makes its main points. But the end is rather dark. That some people don't understand what happens or who Beatriz is, is quite frankly dumbfounding. It is clear what happens and it is clear who she is. She is an alternative medicine, spiritual healing, masseuse, who has a strong sense of her personal dogma. She is not formally educated, but "learned" in the ways of chi and aura, and other such things. I literally have met so many people like her. You just don't see them at this party **** of Southern Orange County, money hungry, robber barons. She does not belong there. And that disconnect is where the uncomfortable cringes and dark humor reside. THIS MOVIE IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY. If you loved Get Out, you will probably like this; it operates in a similar social satire dark comedy place. But Beatriz is not particularly about the Latina experience in America in the way Get Out is about the black experience in America. But this is rife with social satire. The only thing I'd say this has to do with Trump is, if you voted for Trump you probably will hate this movie.

It is not even close to as good as the first movie. If your only gauge of movie quality is special effects then you would like this one better. But what made the first movie great exists only sporadically in this sequel. The interaction of the Guardians and their banter was the heart of the first movie and there isn't as much of it here, largely because for a big chunk of the film, the group is not together. There are two plot lines about family that are pretty corny and both involve lots of effects. The movie is too long at over 2 hours. There are new and different bad guys to deal with, one which you learn about in depth, one group you know very little about and thus far, are not that interesting. You get a nice cameo from Sylvester Stallone that looks like it could end up in a spin off movie at the end. Things end abruptly on a high note that is a little too contrived. But there are good things too. Quill and Gamora's relationship develops. A returning character gets to right a previous mistake. Quill finds out about his father and about who raised him like a son, the latter of which is quite touching. Rocket continues to be an amusing jerk. Drax is amusingly unaware. Baby Groot is very cute in several scenes, including the beginning titles. Awesome Mixtape Vol. 2 contains a number of great songs, but not all. Still it is cool to see 70s music be the main soundtrack. I truly loved the first GotG; I liked this one, I wanted to love it. It is very hard for lightening to strike twice in the same place. I would give this a 6 1/2 if I could, but my sentiments for the first one will bump it up to the 7.

The title of "Norman: The Moderate Rise and Tragic Fall of a New York Fixer" is both misleading, while at the same time too revealing. The movie is well made and well acted. There are moments of wry humor and moments of sweet charm. It is categorized as a drama/thriller in Metacritic, which it most certainly is not. There is not a single moment of thriller here. And while there is drama, it is counterbalanced by a sweet comedic tone. Richard Gere is quite good in the title role, in a part where he is on the screen 95% of the film. He is charming and folksy, as well as annoying at times. But that is who Norman is. Steve Buscemi is great as Norman's Rabbi and possibly only confidante. There are numerous other very good performances by other Israeli actors. The direction and pacing are first rate by Isreali Director Joseph Cedar. What I didn't like about the movie was how obvious both one of the storylines (with Charlotte Gainsbourg as Alex, a prosecutor working at the Isreali embassy) and the end were. Norman's meeting with Alex is near the middle of the film and you immediately know how it is going to play out. I kept hoping I was wrong. But it just kept coming. As to the end, when it becomes obvious that there is only one way for things to work out, we still have 15-20 minutes of getting there, which led to an otherwise very good movie just being pretty good. I kept hoping that all this lead up was going to lead to a twist, but alas it does not. Still it was worth seeing and I liked it. With all the great acting and direction here, it could have been great.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I must admit that I knew who James Baldwin was before this film, but I had not read anything more than a short essay of his in college. I was completely blown away by his intelligence, his insight and his verbal acuity in numerous old television appearances. It is so sad that there are so many people in this country who hate people because they are black or because they are white or because they are gay or because they have the audacity to challenge existing societal norms. One of the most amazing things about Baldwin that I got from this film is that he, unlike other outspoken civil rights leaders of the 1960s, is that he didn't hate white people. He just saw what was so obvious to him then, and is obvious to me now, that there are many ignorant people who hate other people based on their skin color, ethnicity or religion. This film was so powerful to me that I watched another documentary about him the next day and I am now reading Baldwin. If you have an open mind and want to learn about a great writer and communicator then this is a movie you will adore. But posting a 0 review for a movie you did not see is just ignorant.

I never thought I would think or say this: but Casey Afflect tackles an emotionally complex and pained character and does an amazing job. This is well-written, well acted, emotionally devastating movie that reveals its soft underbelly in a series of reflections from the main character's perspective. Without discussing plot, this film is really about an action that yields such terrible and life altering results that a person can never come back from the consequences. This could have been more of a pity party than it is, where there sort of a nobility in suffering. It is not a movie for everybody. It is too relentlessly depressing and hopeless for people who only want escapist entertainment from movies. But if you don't mind working for it the payoff here is tremendous. I really loved this film.

This is not an action movie. It is also not a movie for those who want to have the plot and the main points spoon fed to them. Amy Adams delivers another great performance. Jeremy Renner is fine, but his character is really a fairly thankless supporting role. The movie is likely over the heads of most people, as, at its core it is really a reinterpretation of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which is a largely discredited linguistics theory. If you know this going in (and I seriously doubt the majority of people do), it takes the main critique of that theory and makes it inapplicable as it is not being used to explain differences in human cognition based on language, but whether differences in alien and human cognition are based, in part, on language. The other deeper issue explored is time. Humans' existence is special and temporal. For us, reality exists in linear time and we relate to the rest of the world in terms of three dimensional space. What if there was an alien species for which time and space are not perceived the way we perceive them? Again, these ideas are not simple and the movie does not successfully answer them. But the fact that it even brings them up is more intellectually stimulating than most films I've ever seen. Not that all movies need to be that intellectual. I like other movies for other reasons. But this is a smart movie that challenges viewers. Again, it is not for everyone. But I really liked it.

I truly enjoyed this film. The story is interesting and never boring, though the film has a seemingly lazy pace. The acting is excellent. Even Chris Pine, who I have never thought much of in other films, was very good. I loved the easy interplay between the two cops searching for the criminals. This is a cops and robbers story with a twist that I've not seen before. Loved it.

This is a great documentary. The mere fact that they were filming this when the second sexting incident became public is serendipitous to the extreme. My wife and I saw this in the theater when it came out. We just watched it again on cable. When we left the theater, I felt horrible for his wife and thought Weiner was a dirtbag for putting his family through what he did. My wife felt bad for both of them. Now, with the most recent new events, even my wife thinks Anthony Weiner is a dirtbag. I actually agree with his politics. But his personal behavior is so reprehensible that I am disgusted. The way this film shows him using his child on election day as a prop and subjecting that poor child to the media circus created by Poppa Weiner's sexual addictions is simply disgusting. This film shows Weiner's gigantic ego and utter lack of moral fiber. While he did not do anything criminal, this film shows him to be the piece of trash he is. Thank goodness Huma finally had enough of him.

I wanted to like this movie. While Tim Burton is an uneven director, he certainly has a unique vision and sense of visual style. I liked Asa Butterfield in Hugo and Ender's Game; he is good here too. Eva Green is striking and is fine in the film. The acting is mostly pretty good. The art direction is really good. But the story or the way it is edited lets the film down. It starts really slowly and takes a while to get to it. Then it rushes through the interesting parts to get to the action scenes in the final act. There is not enough character development, literally none with many characters. This could have been much better. As it is, it was just ok.

This is a well made and inspiring movie about people overcoming overwhelming odds to achieve something special. It is a movie I took my mother to. It is neither high art nor densely intellectual. It is family friendly entertainment. Anyone who hates this movie because it does not comport with their beliefs about the "real story" is either a racist or simply misses the point: Phiona overcomes great odds to achieve what she does in the film. So do the other kids. The coach and his wife are wonderful people who give of themselves to help others rise above their station. It might not be 100% accurate. But this is not a documentary, this is a drama. The main actors are great. David Oyelowo does another excellent job as the coach. Lupita Nyong'o is a terrific actress who is very good again. The young actors playing the children, including newcomer Madina Nalwanga as Phiona, are all effective. This is not a movie about chess, it is a movie about overcoming obstacles. It is a little corny at times. But it has a great heart. Racist bigots will not like it for obvious reasons. While it is certainly not a dynamic work of art, it is pleasant entertainment that is well presented about a subject that it important (and that is working hard to achieve, not simply chess).

The subjects of this movie, slavery in general and Nat Turner in specific, are important stories that need to be told. There have not been enough good movies made about these subjects, including this one. There are many powerful and disturbing moments in The Birth of a Nation. For some people, these moments and the fact that these stories are not told often are enough for them to ignore the glaring flaws in the film. The female characters are weak and need men to save them. Nat Turner's character is grossly oversimplified. There is a complete lack of subtlety and nuance in many scenes and with most of the evil characters. Many of the shots are over-composed or overly staged. so that they just look fake. The actor director is far too in love with himself and that really hurts the film. To be sure, there are going to be racists (whether they are aware of it or not) who will hate this film because of their biases and bigotry., But while I respected the intent and motivations of the film maker, the end result is simply not a very good film. I rate it as I do because I wanted it to be great. It needed to be great. It just is not great. It is worth seeing though. It merits discussion and reflection. I just wanted it to be better.

This is a good movie for kids, but I was underwhelmed. The digital rendering of the animals is excellent, really great. This is a visually stunning film. Some of the references to the 1967 animated movie are cute and endearing. But the script is the problem here. The story is corny and feels phony. Some of the short appearances of characters just seem pointless. While I absolutely love Scarlett Johnansson, her character's brief appearance in the film adds absolutely nothing. Much of the movie felt like this pointless scene. So, while they clearly have the technology to put Kipling's book on the screen, they needed to focus more on the plot and writing. I expected it to be great. Unless you are a child, it is not.

For superhero movie fans, this movie is a very pleasant surprise. While Reynolds has been in a couple of the worst superhero movies ever made, this one plays to his Van Wilder sarcastic persona. The main character breaking the fourth wall constantly is great. The action is entertaining. The villains are requisitely bad. The self-effacing humor is thick. Definitely not for those who take this genre too seriously. This is not the best movie ever made or anything close to that, but it is a great deal of fun.

This is not really a horror movie, though there are some very disturbing images. It is also not a movie that people who want clean resolutions and happy endings will appreciate. The cinematography offers the viewer a bleak and rather desolate glimpse into isolated frontier life, albeit from an earlier time period. The acting is pretty strong. The complications and tragedy which befall the purposefully isolated family ranges from uncomfortable to disturbing to rather silly and overwrought. Still, it is not the typical film of this genre and there was a strong attempt to do something different. I was really on the fence about rating this. I suspect that very religious people will be offended and horror movie buffs will be greatly disappointed. It is thoughtful and accepting of the supernatural being real, which will surely disturb and anger some. There is not a tremendous amount of character development, just bad and unfair things happening to people. This will not be everyone's cup of tea,

While it would be unduly critical to call this film "bad", it is most certainly not great. It is mostly what one would expect from the genre: a feel good, triumph over adversity story with a good heart. But it also suffers from some of the limitations of the genre: corny, predictable and manipulative. Still, it is unoffensive, sweet and mostly based on a true story. You could take kids to it or your mother. Just don't have expectations that are too high.

Really enjoyed this movie. I was aware of the truth of the story so this did not shed any new light on greed for me. But it was a very entertaining and amusing film. I'm not sure how I feel about all of the characters we are made to care about in the film. Some of them are really not very good human beings. But they are all well acted and are very funny at times. Having an understanding of how the market works and is manipulated makes this film much easier to understand. My wife, who is an attorney and is very intelligent, doesn't have the economics background to understand all of what was going on. So having an understanding of the gambling that the stock market has become is very helpful is appreciating this film and The Big Short is a very fun little romp - definitely one of the best movies of the year.

Concussion was not nominated for any Academy Awards because it is not very good. It is just ok. The point of the real story is important and the main message of the film is as well. Will Smith is not great. He is fine, but not great, You never lose the fact that charismatic movie star Will Smith is being himself with an accent. It is probably true that the NFL did everything it could to hide the real Doctor Omalu's findings. It is also true that Dr. Omalu's story could have been told better and a better film made.

I liked this more than I thought I would. Both Cumberbatch and Winslet are perfect and the movie is interesting in how it focusses on Job's career milestones (both good and bad) as the time signatures of his life. But it is by no means perfect. It doesn't really explain anything real about Steve Jobs and many of the supporting characters are pretty thin. I really like most of Sorkin's screenplays. This one is a little thin. But maybe that is part of the point.

The acting is very good in this film. I will be surprised if DiCaprio does not win the Oscar this time. The supporting performances are all very good. The cinematography is beautiful and, at times, breathtaking. But this movie is far too long and self-indulgent and the end is terrible. This movie is based on a true story that ended differently. There was also an earlier version of this story that, while not as pretty as this film, was more consistent with the real story. Iñárritu can apparently do wrong in the eyes of Hollywood. But while I liked Amores Perros, 21 Grams and Babel, I thought Birdman had a dumb ending and the annoying artifact of the faux continuous shot was pretentious. The Revenant, while beautiful and well acted (much like Birdman was well acted), is also pretentious and far too long.I know nobody in Hollywood is going to say it, but the emperor is wearing no clothes.

While The Force Awakens is certainly derivative of the first Star Wars movie, now known as Episode 4: A New Hope, there are many things to love about it. The effects are amazing. It is wonderful that the main protagonist is a young woman. It was a joy to see the original characters again. It ended leaving me anxious about the next film. But the main villain is weak, There are a too many **** overtones of the bad guys for my taste. One of the best new characters (who clearly is the Yoda of this film) is not given enough screen time or enough to do. So it is at least an inconsistent movie. The first movie came out when I was a kid and I loved it. There had never been anything like it before, ever. The Force Awakens is not that film. But it is entertaining and fun, albeit not particularly original.

What a disappointing finale to this movie series. I really liked the books, though I thought the third one would be hard to make into a film. The first and second films were very entertaining and did a good job of capturing what the books were about, even with changes and omissions. The third book just didn't have enough in it to make two movies and both Mockingjay films suffer from the decision to make two films. But two films makes more money right? Jennifer Lawrence has become one of the best actresses of her generation, but she can't save this. The choices made to change key plot points really detract from the story here. It is actually boring at times. It is executed poorly. How could they do that to these books? Two movies makes more money than one. I hope Hollywood eventually sees that this choice can ruin something that could have been great. This is just ok, nothing more.

Great film. My favorite of the year thus far. The Coens toned down all the Spielberg sentimentality and Spielberg have the Coens heart. A great pairing that yielded one of the year's best films.