ahnehnois

The tone of the original has been recreated and advanced in a convincing and worthwhile way, for better or for worse. Where the original inspired many sci-fi pieces over the last twenty or thirty years, the sequel clearly borrows from the genre, with one of its several twists being borrowed from the very Blade-Runner-ish Battlestar Galactica. As many references to the original as there are, some work better than others. I can live with an Edward James Olmos cameo, but Sean Young was really awkwardly shoehorned in. The funny references to long lost companies permeate the background and that's cool, but what's less cool is the ubiquitous Hans Zimmer aping the electronic soundscape of the original but completely missing the meditative quality of Vangelis' original. On its own merits though, the new Blade Runner is more of a thinker's movie than most, and offers several intriguing twists, memorable characters, and iconic imagery. It's worth seeing, and going in without spoilers, and giving a think as to how far away we are from its world right now.

If you could take out the essence of the movie-its characters, its themes, its politics-and distill them into some concentrated entertainment, it would surely be a really great movie. As it is, it's some entertaining performances and imagery dragged down by a variety of errors. It's less than the sum of it's parts. Still worth seeing. The Good: Most of the performances were strong. Gleefully over the top, but fun. The characters talk honestly and amorally. There are lots of pretty colors. There are fun little touches like one character that is a BET fan and there are serious moments where the characters' power seems perilous. The cast must be about as demographically diverse as for any big movie ever, but there is a refreshing lack of political correctness and pandering. Batman's appearances create a sense of mythos. The Bad: Thin writing that shows obvious plot devices like a redshirt squad member to die, a villain gratuitously shooting henchman to demonstrate villainy, and them expecting us to believe that the Joker is dead (seriously). Cara Delevingne is completely unconvincing as either a witch or as someone with a PhD. The soundtrack is too loud and too head-on-nail, and the score from Steven Price sounds too much like his last effort. There is plenty of room to question their editorial choices too. The Joker is not really in the movie any more than Batman is. Most of the good lines were already in the trailers, and there wasn't enough humor. All told, one wishes they'd done a better job executing this movie, but there's certainly room to hope for better in DC's future movies, and there's enough here to watch this one. Don't worry about the professional critics; they seem a bit out of touch.

It's easy to see why the story is held in high regard. It touches on powerful ideas. That being said, the source material and this adaptation of it are both clumsy and somewhat trashy takes on the subject. On top of the stultifying dialogue and surrealistic plot jumps, the movie adds an out of touch prologue that really wasn't needed, apparently for no good reason other than to fluff the limited runtime. Of course, the movie has been met with plenty of dumb criticism on the gendered aspects of its violence, but that isn't really the problem. The villain here seems genuinely villainous; nothing in the movie could be seen as an endorsement of his sadism. If anything, the movie caricatures its men more negatively, with the prologue adding a gratuitous extra villain delivering silly lines about women, and Batman having been given an extra layer of emotional ice that his already difficult character hardly needs. Combine that with some weak animation and you've got plenty of room for legitimate criticism here. Several iconic, quotable moments do emerge, but the rest of the movie seems like an exercise in waiting for them. The story seems like it needs to be reexplored with smarter writing, more nuance, and a big budget live action production. Given that The Dark Knight comes pretty close to meeting those criteria, I'd sooner watch that again than revisit this one.

I was as much a skeptic as anyone, but the switch to Justin Lin as director has produced the most enjoyable of the rebooted Star Trek movies. Granted, it still isn't high art, but if you go in for a popcorn movie and take anything else you get out of it as a bonus, you'll be happy. More interestingly, it may also be the Star Trek-iest of the new movies. Beyond the references to the original cast and the series they inhabited, the script also bears obvious similarities to elements of Generations and First Contact and even Insurrection. The pace of editing has dropped out of warp enough to have some shots of what old-school fans would call "spaceship porn", and Michael Giacchino, while he's no Jerry Goldsmith, clearly is attempting to channel him with some of the action cues. The plot is apt enough, and conveys a sense of exploration and general goodwill (rather than one feeling like Starfleet is a miltary organization). I liked it on some levels, but felt it needed some more rewrites. It has its moments, but the villain and his conflict never really has enough weight or meaning, and some of the dialogue was rather utilitarian and in need of a dose of poetry. The action, however, isn't in need of much else at all. It's as pretty and modern as JJ Abrams Trek was, but more intelligible, engaging, and with less lens flares. The inherent drawbacks one now expects from the reboots; the kitsch of the original series and a certain sense of cheapness that comes with excessive CGI, and it lacks the seriousness and weight that a few of the best bits of Star Trek carry. But honestly, this movie is as good as or better than many of its cinematic predecessors, and for a film that was picked by some to damage the franchise, I don't think it will.

It's pretty much as good as one might have hoped. Unlike the last Captain America, this is basically an Avengers movie with a central thread built around Cap and his bro Bucky. However, it is much, much better than the last Avengers was. The movie's downsides are its lack of focus; there is a balance between characters and storylines but they all go by really quickly. Also, like its competitor Batman v Superman, this movie is predicated on the odd conceit that the violence of the previous movies suddenly counts. Flipping the switch to suddenly have people care about death and mayhem is a bit awkward, as is the conflict in engenders, but if you're willing to go along for the ride, it's a fun ride. The movie's upsides include possibly the best superhero action Marvel has put out and some pretty intriguing character introductions. It seems a strange choice to introduce a new Spider-Man by shoehorning him into a movie with a boatload of less popular characters, but the new take on the character is refreshing, genuine, and funny. Finally, a kid playing a kid. Black Panther is slightly less exciting and is walking on ice a little bit, but I felt the character worked and would want to see his solo movie. The direction is slick, the mix of humor and action should appeal to most any audience, and the effects are great. But perhaps the biggest surprise (and maybe it shouldn't be) is that like the last movie in the series, this one really advances the continuity. The Marvel universe changes after this movie, in ways far deeper than a simple apocalypse averted or character death would suggest. All in all, it's a satisfying ride.

For all its controversial casting choices, it isn't Ben Affleck or Gal Godot that drags this movie down, it's Jesse Eisenberg's ridiculous Lex Luthor. His pointless yammering represents the film as a whole; it has a few good moments and plays with a few interesting ideas, but there's no there there. The real blame for this mess, though, lies on the people who made it. The movie suffers from the excess of characters usually reserved for the third, bad film of a superhero trilogy. Did a movie about Batman vs Superman really need Lex Luthor? Probably not. Did it need a CGI wasteland with Doomsday at the center? Definitely not. And while this was a passable Wonder Woman, the forced inclusion of Superman's wife and mother, both dithering about pointlessly with cringeworthy dialogue, is unlikely to placate whatever portion of people looked at a BvS movie and thought to themselves "this needs more women". The excess of characters leaves little time for the movie's central conflict, with Batman's one-note rage coming off as hollow. Even more time is wasted on CGI fakery (whereas the smart blockbusters, Batman movies included, go hard for real locations and practical effects), and the hallmark of lazy writing: excessive dream sequences. And for all the stakes this movie purports to have, the ham-handed introduction of the Justice League leaves little doubt in the viewer's mind that regardless of how many explosions we see, everyone will be back for the next movie. Except, possibly, the audience.

A very enjoyable period piece. The horror is muted and largely psychological, but there will definitely be some scares. What comes through more strongly, however, is the enormity of the untamed wilderness around them, the absurdity of malnourished subsistence farmers living alone in the New World. The threat of witchcraft hanging over them can barely rival that. The movie brings different colors to the table. Dread is intermingled with humor, often through some oddly well-cast goats. The performances and dialogue are credible. The movie has a real ending, but questions are nonetheless left unanswered, even from the opening scene. The score is creepy, the direction taut, and I would want to see more from this creative team.

The superhero movie boom has gone on long enough that it's time for something like this: a self-aware quasi-parody. The genre needs to make fun of itself a bit. It's a little dirty, plenty violent, and a lot of fun. Ryan Reynolds nails the title part, though the supporting cast has some head-scratchers, from Ed Skrein's one-note overconfident charisma to Gina Carrano's can't act-ness. And while Morena Baccarin made plenty of an impression as a zen master prostitute on Firefly or as the frigid alien queen on V, it's subsequently hard to buy her in this role which requires a little more zest. Nonetheless, the movie works well enough. There is an end credits scene, a Stan Lee cameo, and everything else you'd expect from a comic book movie.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

This is a really beautiful film. This is one of the ones where the visual experience of seeing it projected as part of its limited run is worthwhile. It's quite long, but the intermission in the middle is welcome. My theater started the showing right on time (no trailers), causing me to miss the first minute or two of the opening, a shame given the striking musical score. Fair warning. Besides that, it's much what you'd expect. The Eight are indeed gonna hate, and none of the movie's characters could be classified as a good guy. The language and violence are extreme. The dialogue frequently meanders back and forth across the line between quotable and corny. On both sides of that line, the actors are clearly having a good time, and anything with Walton Goggins in it (among others) is watchworthy. At the end, I kind of wondered what the point of it was, all the violence and hate. And maybe that's the point itself, that behaving this way is pointless. If you're looking for any grander theme than that, you won't find it. If you're looking for a stylish Western that'll keep you engrossed for three hours, you'll go home happy.

I went in without any plot spoilers (though I had read some news about production and such) and I wish I'd gone in knowing less, so no spoilers here. However, be aware that if you've seen the original Star Wars and the JJ Abrams Star Trek, you won't see much new here. Not that this is the worst thing; The Force Awakens can't be accused of any great originality but it beats the hell out of the prequels. Scattered thoughts: *John Boyega is the best thing in this movie. He's asked to sell so many different emotions and to convey a difficult character with very little screen time devoted to his backstory, and he somehow makes it work. I wish we'd seen more of him. *BB-8 is the second best thing. Whatever it is about fake robots and bleeps and blorps, it just works. *Oscar Isaac is the third best thing, and probably the most skilled actor in it, but he's underused. *Chewbacca is the movie's principal action hero. Yes, really. *Mark Hamill has far more stage presence in this movie than he did in any of the originals. *Rey (Daisy Ridley) demonstrates her strength by complaining about sexual harassment during a battle for no reason. But otherwise is a passable Luke Skywalker redux who will hopefully grow into the role as he did. *Han Solo and Princess Leia's future is kind of a disappointment. *Kylo Ren is ridiculously emo, and whiny, and really a disappointment. *The location shooting is great, and this movie looks much better than the CGI foolishness of the prequels. *There is mass genocide of people we're given no chance to care about. *The whole thing takes place in JJ Abrams Time, this weird time warp where it seems like actually less time may have passed on screen than you spent watching it and where people decide to do things and then instantaneously appear wherever they need to be to do them. *You could drive a Star Destroyer through some of the plot holes. *Other than lines repeated from earlier Star Wars movies, there isn't much in the way of memorable dialogue. *Likewise, the new John Williams score is fine, but hardly lives up to perhaps the best known film scores ever. *Every now and then a decent joke lands. *The next Star Wars is heavily teased. This won't be the last one, folks. Surprise! It's by no means a great movie, but you'll have some fun.

I think what's so insulting about this movie is that it presents itself as the real story on which the fictional novel Moby **** was based, and yet this story is fictionalized as well, often in pointless and overly conventional ways. The film trumps up a competition between captain and first mate that goes nowhere and creates ridiculous and unnecessary foreshadowing, before leading to a downright comical conclusion. If you believe historical accounts, it is true that this ship was sunk by a whale, but the notion that the whale stalked the crew for weeks thereafter is ludicrous, let alone the shred of humanity the filmmakers tried to imbue in it. Moreover, none of the actors are believably Bostonian whalers and the CGI isn't very good either (I saw it in IMAX 3D so I'm not getting cheated there). Even in 2015, fake water still looks like fake water. And the nastiness of being stranded is painfully obscured by the PG-13 rating, though you can look forward to some unpleasant whaling footage. Perhaps the worst sin is that they missed out on the true story. The survivalism of the crew is fascinating, but is compressed into a few scenes. An anecdote about the crew burning down an entire island by accident, a golden cinematic opportunity, isn't in the film at all, nor are some of their other adventures. Thinly drawn trope characters are allowed to replace whatever genuine story inspired Melville to write his famous novel. Time is wasted on using Melville as a framing device. Though, in truth, the whole movie ends up being a waste of time.

The story is fascinating. The film is inherently problematic. For one thing, as is noted at the end, the real miners who were trapped underground made a pact not to discuss parts of their experience with the rest of the world, which is reasonable but also means that anyone telling the story is forced to make up a lot of what happened. And frankly, they've Hollywood-ized a lot of plot elements that they didn't have to, which cheapens the reality of the historical events. Eyes will roll. For another, as the film notes at the beginning, people die in mines all the time. The fact that one group of miners was saved under extraordinary circumstances (and at extraordinary expense) is great news for them and their families, but should not blind us to the overall picture regarding the safety of mining practices and the failures that created the disaster in the first place. Also, it's silly that the film is in English. We could have handled subtitles. As it stands, this is a mildly entertaining movie at times; the surface elements are often more interesting than what happens underground. It should serve only as an afternoon's distraction or a primer to learning about the real story.

On the good side, it is the second most expensive film ever made, and it looks like it. The cinematography is gorgeous, and Thomas Newman clearly had fun writing this score. On the bad side, the actual events that are being filmed aren't that interesting. The Bourne-style action and ruggedly humorless Daniel Craig characterization are more than a little tired, as is the series of references to Bond tropes. It isn't a great showing for the supporting cast either; Christoph Waltz and Monica Belucci might seem like casting coups, but they're both wasted, and Lea Seydoux is of course very, very pretty, but her character's archetypically fickle and irrational Bond girl behavior feels increasingly out of touch in a gritty 2010's movie. Plot holes abound, the henchmen have the level of marksmanship you'd expect, and you'll wonder what kind of intelligence agency builds a massive prominent headquarters out of glass. None of this is really outside of the Bond ouvre, but it's getting tired. It's a fun movie at times, but it's trying to be realistic, unrealistic, and tongue-in-cheek all at the same time, and that just doesn't work.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

As a Guillermo del Toro fan, I found this something of a disappointment. Sure, it's well-directed and all the del Toro hallmarks are there: a vivid color palate, auspicious insects, intermittent shock and gore. But this is no Pan's Labyrinth. It's a romance, and like most romances, it relies on the audience believing in and caring about a central female character who has no meaningful personality or abilities, who falls for a man who does have personality and talent, who falls for her because of some reason that is never explained or even depicted. Ah, romance. The production design is gorgeous, but I doubt any of the major cast will be remembered for their parts here. It's a costume drama, but none of them look entirely comfortable in costume. There are ghosts, but honestly, those are mostly window dressing. The other horrific elements aren't nearly horrific enough; there's way too much telling and not enough showing. The film has its moments, but after you see it, it'll be back for waiting for the Mountains of Madness for who knows how many more years.

It's a weird movie. I'd call it a pretty poor biopic, but then it seems not really intended to fill that niche anyway. Instead, it's a philosophical piece on the nature of genius. Does great progress require that one dreamer be so stubborn and such an **** that nothing will take his eyes off the prize? There are elements of truth, but many of the factual details are just wrong, and it's hard to say whether the character in the film is a fair portrait of the real man or not. Michael Fassbender does not particularly look or sounds like Steve Jobs, but he's certainly playing something interesting. The odd notion of using hurried discussions before product launches as a framing device is a pretty effective tool, but renders the film incomplete. After all, there were many more important things that happened than can fit into the length of the film. It's a Danny Boyle joint, so you know it's high energy and fun to watch. Go in with measured expectations and you're likely to be happy.

As someone who is terrified of heights and found it nerve-wracking to even be visit the Twin Towers themselves (let alone the void between them), I have to say, seeing this movie in full IMAX 3D is a disconcerting experience. I regularly gripped my chair tightly, looked away from the screen, and wanted out. But that's kind of the point, isn't it? To sell exactly how insane this stunt really was. I'm not a huge Robert Zemickis fan, but I have to say, this was pretty convincing. Additionally, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is equally convincing as the man himself, selling a French accent and a distinctive attitude. You believe the guy would do what he's doing. His wire-walking, while obviously not as audacious as the original's since it's in a studio, is nonetheless a product of some real-life effort that is quite impressive. There are a few eye-rolling Hollywood moments, but on the whole, this is a rare film that holds great suspense even though you probably know what's going to happen. See it if you dare.

This plays nicely as a documentary about the state of American higher education and political activism. Plenty of movies have killed off unwitting college students, but this one hits at the heart of what people are feeling and thinking right now, and its characters feel very much like the sort of people you'd see at a rally. As a horror movie, eh, not great. You kind of know what you're in for. The gore is gory, sure. But strangely enough, it isn't as bad as it could have been. It's the sort of movie where virtually every line is a setup for some later event, and at some point it starts to feel like you're completing a checklist. At its best, its seething social commentary, juxtaposing the cannibals with what most people would call normal animal agriculture. At its worst, it's just cheesy. The tribal aspect is somewhat fascinating. The two identifiable leaders obviously don't belong, but the rest of them are real tribespeople. On the surface, it's a nasty depiction of them that calls back to past horrors of the real world. And yet, one hardly walks out of this movie thinking that the uncontacted peoples of the Amazon are the bad guys of the world. All told, it's an interesting and subversive concept, not really fully executed.

Like a lot of biopics, this one suffers from narrative confusion. Whoever wrote it couldn't stuff in everything that happened in the real story, and didn't always make the most cohesive decisions about what to include. You'll wonder where Whitey's brother the senators disappears to, for example. He's around a lot early on, and he seems kind of important. That being said, Johnny Depp has been in some bad movies and made some strange choices, but here he's just chilling. Bulger is someone who needs to be taken seriously, and you won't have any trouble doing that after you watch this performance. Also of note is Joel Edgerton playing the slippery slope character who tries to work with Bulger and probably shouldn't have. Certainly, the characters are enough reason to watch.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

It feels like there are so many remakes of '60's TV shows and the spy genre that it's hard to imagine what this one could bring. It's funny at times, and reasonably slick and fast-paced, but it's not a smart movie and it's not saying anything new. I wasn't a huge fan of most of the characters. Henry Cavill is so American in this part, it's almost a parody, and Armie Hammer is not Russian, and his rage-driven characterization seems kind of a relic of some need to demonize the Soviet Union (or maybe just to make men look like thugs). I liked Ex Machina quite a bit, but this wasn't a good part for Alicia Vikander; she seemed less spunky than pouty. As a whole, it's hard to take the team seriously, which is why the only parts of the movie that really work are the jokes. But hey, if you're up for some 60's cheesiness, you could do worse.

It's a cheap jump scare movie. There's a bit of fun to be had, and it builds to an appropriate conclusion, but it's plagued by the same issues that most found footage movies are. Who found this footage? Why did they edit it together like this? How did people managed to keep cameras trained on them while they were being hunted by monsters? The titular noose is a somewhat unsatisfying conceit that is never adequately explained or contextualized (particularly notable given its connection to the Confederate flag controversy that erupted shortly before the release of this film). The performances are fine enough, and if you want to spend another 80 minutes of your life exploring the psyches of bratty teenagers, you can. At its best, though, the movie creates a sense of verisimilitude sufficient to sell its jump scares. Horror can be better than this, but at least the Gallows met its own goals.

Frankly, it was better than the reviews led me to believe. It is uneven, and it does run on, but it is genuinely surprising at times, and the mix of ribaldry, violence, and romance is three things more than most Hollywood comedies bring to the table. I gave it a 7 because I'd rather see a movie that tries to be really good and comes up short rather than one that aims to be average.

It gets off to something of a slow start, but it's a fun movie. It shifts weirdly in tone, but ultimately I'd call it a comedy, albeit one with a lot of boobs, drugs, shootings, and other mischief. It feels almost revolutionary to have a teen comedy completely focused on an African American setting and characters, but the movie doesn't overplay that hand. You won't leave with a trite understanding of enduring discrimination and ghettoization in urban America, you'll leave with an appreciation for the humanity and diversity of the characters. And of Shameik Moore's dance moves.

This is an incredible movie. Much as I'm inclined to take a skeptical eye to everything, this film is about as genuine and nuanced as a two hour runtime could possibly allow. You get a sense of free life, and the horrors of slavery are thoroughly depicted, but you also see enough to show it isn't as simple as it looks. The film's many white slaveholders are diverse. All complicit, but some more sympathetic and rational than others. Tellingly, the women are just as bigoted and sadistic as the men, if not more so, and it's very rare to see gender equality of that sort portrayed. And of course, at the end of the twelve years, some whites are on the side of righteousness. The slaves are likewise diverse in their personalities, and compelling to watch. The film is beautiful, and showcases the pastoral rural scenery, contrasting it with the sickening violence. Its historical accuracy isn't perfect (certainly, the real Solomon Northrup wouldn't have had such white teeth), but altogether seems to be close to the historical record, and the real story is of course remarkable as told by the man who lived it. It definitely deserved to see the screen. The one sour note for me was the score, which is distracting when it comes in. Hans Zimmer has done great Hollywood scores, but I would have preferred they stuck with incidental music in the form of Negro Spirituals, or at least had gotten a less mainstream composer. That being said, the many great actors, dazzling craftsmanship of film, and compelling narrative are every bit deserving of the high praise this film has already received. Even if you're not normally interested in a downer, this would be the time to make an exception.

It feels like an '80's movie. In a good way. After all, the action scenes are riveting, and far beyond what the earlier Mad Max films might have accomplished with the budget and technology they had. It feels like an '80's movie in that it just doesn't give a ****, like it wasn't constructed by studio execs to play to the lowest common denominator. Instead, it's pure artistic vision. The only aspect of the film I wasn't high on is casting. Tom Hardy is a good actor who seems perpetually miscast; Max is a better role for him than Bane or Young Picard was, but you'll spend most of the movie waiting for him to unmuzzle himself (literally and figuratively). However, I didn't think the Charlize Theron character or her distracting missing arm made the right sort of impact; I just came away wanting to see Max's next caper. Or, for that matter, more of the thrilling car action and weird touches like the flamethrowing guitarist and his war drum backup. I will say that even though the action is phenomenal, I saw it in 3D, and that was pretty pointless. I wouldn't bother with the extra money and the glasses, just see it normal. Some have called this film "feminist". It is concerning that Eve Ensler would be involved in anything, and if you want to, you certainly can read some hatred into the film. But really, don't all Hollywood films (and other entertainment media) treat men as the bad guys who are all maniacal, sexually aggressive and immoral and women as the innocent victims who can do no wrong, don't they all show men being brutalized en masse and then talk about how tough it is to be female? It's just par for the course. Don't worry, reality is still real, and the real world is decidedly egalitarian. This movie is a dystopian fantasy, not social commentary. Read as such, it's a fun ride.

It's really kind of boring and derivative at this point. The first one had its issues, but at least it was novel; we hadn't seen anything like it. Age of Ultron throws a lot of stuff at you, but it all feels regurgitated from the first one, and overly commercialized, with product placements galore. Joss Whedon's gone corporate. There are so many characters that the few attempts at development aren't successful. The camp of it, the fake-looking CGI and the very comic book-y costumes, just doesn't play that well any more. And guess what, there are some more MacGuffins coming! The titular villain never really leaves a mark, simply for screen time issues. Not that James Spader isn't entertaining, but if you want a real exploration of AI, check out Ex Machina. This movie tries to leverage the idea, but there isn't enough substance there. There are also a lot of people doing fake Russian accents at this point, which is not good. On the positive side, every now and then there's a laugh line, and the setup for a civil war between the superheroes suggests that maybe future movies will have some more intrigue. Who are you rooting for? This one's mostly just CGI battles. It feels like filler. For a movie that cost almost $300 million, that isn't good enough. Also, one female character is briefly captured and spends approximately five minutes of screen time not kicking ass, and a female and male character talk equally about how they want to have children and can't, so therefore this movie is a misogynistic rant from noted misogynist Joss Whedon, and if you watch it Marvel Studios will take away women's right to vote and institute mandatory sexual slavery of all women at every Marvel-watching household in the world. Or not. (No, seriously, some people are attacking this movie because of these minor inoffensive plot points. Look it up.)

Despite this film taking on the timely and intriguing issue of artificial intelligence, my number one take-away was "Damn, I want to live there". "There" being the rather spectacular robotic lab/man cave/posh pad/remote getaway that the film quickly deposits us in. It is a visually compelling work, and even when humans and robots are sharing the screen, never feels anything less than vibrant and vivaciously real. The script is provocative, though there are a few moments that fail to have impact, notably when a character wins a lottery that is so obviously rigged I don't feel the need to tag this for spoilers, but the characters act as if it's some big revelation. This is minor though, and the film's exploration of artificial intelligence is on the whole compelling. It's a lot easier to start a sci-fi film than it is to end it, and the conclusion wraps up tightly, if not with the dramatic punch I might have hoped for. To me, the highlight performance is Oscar Isaac, who presents the age-old ambiguity between genius and madness, and sells the story. The robot you're here to see is also an impressive achievement, both technically and dramatically. There are a few moments of action and swells of predictably electronic score, but it's ultimately a cerebral movie, one of the few of late that is truly science fiction, speculative fiction, rather than a conventional story set in space. Definitely recommended.

It is a beautiful and intriguing film, but narratively muddled and with a few missteps. The locations are excellent, as is most of the cast, especially the Turkish actors. It stands out though, that while most of the Aussies and Turks are played by native actors, the female lead is clearly not. It sabotages the film, because the script is trying to tell you that she's part of the Turkish culture and is fighting tradition, but it doesn't feel right at all when she's the only outsider in the dance party. The romantic aspect of the film feels really unnatural and forced as a consequence. It's also odd that the film is titled The Water Diviner, as the titular character's habit of dowsing is both unscientific and irrelevant to the narrative. The film opens with a suicide, which is confusingly presented. A lot of the film is confusing, really, if you don't understand the history. But the battle scenes are compelling, and the post-battle scenes where bodies are being buried are equally so. The relations between the Turks and their former foes are nuanced and entertaining, and those performances are excellent. Also, the Aussies' hats are so absurdly ostentatious they just have to be real. At the end, there's a bit of an unsatisfying "eh", but the picture of post-war Turkey leading up to it is worth seeing.

A thoroughly entertaining and thoughtful film. Twisted, enough so to make your stomach turn a few times, and inventive, but also timely. There are dramatic conceits to be sure, but anyone who thinks that a woman can't be this crazy hasn't been following the news. Far from being misogynistic, if anything it's hard on men, portraying Nick as a loser who can't control his sex drive and the rest of the movie's men as being dupes and fools. The women, conversely, range from the titular Machiavellian **** from Hell to Nick's loyal twin sister, the one genuinely competent police officer, the predatory ratings-driven talk show host, the innocent coed, and yes, a variety of dupes and fools as well. If any film has attacked gender politics more smartly and more fairly, I've not seen it. And it makes for a thrilling ride. An audience desensitized to violence will likely be upset by some of the scenes. Piercing cultural critiques and sarcastically written laugh lines alternate with disturbing plot twists. And how often can you say "man, Tyler Perry was perfect in that role"? I wish they had held the main plot twist a bit longer, and, like the book, alternated more into the titular character's perspective, but despite these narrative shortcomings, the movie we did get is well worth watching.

I enjoyed it, but felt it a tad overrated. The title is pretty much the horror conceit here. "It" will follow you, slowly, but relentlessly. Symbolically powerful, but narratively unsatisfying (that goes for both the creature and the movie itself). It's a very sexual movie; with both non-sexual nudity and non-nude sex scenes. There are a small number of jump scares, and a large number of drawn out scenes of tension. It is creepy, and the way the characters test the "rules" of this horror world lend it a certain credibility. The negatives are some weird cuts; where it isn't adequately explained how the characters got to or did something given the stakes. The writer oddly does not explain why these teenagers are so completely unsupervised or where the cops are when some of the nasty events go down, which is made all the stranger by the fact that cops and parents are around in the movie's first third. The ending is somewhat blunt and unsatisfying, but perhaps appropriate. On the whole, it's better than a lot of the junk that gets labeled as horror, but not life-changing or anything. Some people seem to interpret it as a sex-negative movie, but I thought it a bit more complex than that. If anything, maybe it's love positive.

I don't get the negative press, I really don't. This movie's take on AI isn't exactly the most scientifically accurate portrayal, but as a fun popcorn movie, Chappie takes a little bit of cerebral, a larger bit of Neill Blomkamp action, and a lot of South African weirdness. If you're expecting just a cameo from South African rappers Die Antwoord, you're wrong. They're surprisingly in focus. There are more than a few plot holes and writing mistakes, but it's largely made up for by how compelling the on-screen reality is. Neill Blomkamp directed the heck out of this movie. If he ever gets a really brilliant script, he'll make a great movie. As a writer, he's too eager to please a crowd and not eager enough to answer its questions. Given how hard it reportedly was to make a film with non-actors, this may be the only Die Antwoord sci-fi action thriller we ever see. However, they are impossible to duplicate, and the sheer absurdity of watching them prance around unironically in skimpy Americana, juxtaposed against an entirely convincing emancipated police robot learning to think, makes the movie work. It isn't quite as exciting as District 9, but it's far less ponderous and heavy-handed than Elysium. Go watch it and have some fun.

It's a pretty weak movie. The opening is decent, but the film's main caper is dumb. It's not so much full of dramatic ambiguity as it is muddled and unclear. There isn't really any dramatic turn for the characters, and the tumults of their relationship make no sense. The ending is lame and anticlimactic. And frankly, it just seems like the once great Will Smith has been phoning it in for a while now. The positives are elsewhere. The film's first third, set in New Orleans, is more energetic and flows better, and promises what should have been a more interesting set of capers. Some of the supporting actors bring stronger work, including a hilarious turn by B.D. Wong (i.e. the psychiatrist from Law & Order) as a high-rolling businessman. And as to the reason that many people will watch, to see if this previously unknown Margot Robbie can hold the screen with Will Smith and is ready for some of the bigger roles awaiting her, the answer to that is yes.

It's not a movie to be taken seriously, but it is fun. It's also quite violent. It's a bit of a James Bond send-off, with even more over the top action, and occasionally funny gags. The sense of style imbued by Colin Firth and the movie's ubiquitous high fashion (the secret agents pose as high-end tailors) elevate it slightly from a typical popcorn movie. There are also some odd real-life parallels, from a murderous henchman with blades for legs who was at one point to be played by Oscar Pistorius, to a presumably unintentional Kim Kardashian reference at the end. Eyes may roll at the manufactured stakes, the racial dynamics, or the movie's lone child being conveniently spared from its climactic bloodbath, but it's all in good fun.

My conclusion after watching this is that this is probably exactly the movie Chris Kyle would have made about himself. It has some real strengths because of that, but also some profound weaknesses. I thought it portrayed the nature of modern battle and the Iraq environs reasonably well (not having any first hand experience or anything). It was tense at times, but also a long grind, and that is true to form. Some of the moments where soldiers get shot or are in the hospital afterwards are effective and feel real (and that I do have secondhand experience with). The movie's flaws are two. The first is the inevitable Hollywood-ization. Not being sure when I watched it, I checked, and the notion that he had a "white whale" enemy sniper that haunted him throughout four tours and that he had to kill to feel complete as a soldier is made up. Some of the romance is treacly, the training scenes are trite, and the jeopardy (while there surely was a lot in real life) is trumped up at times. The second and more profound one is that the film reflects what seems to be the bias of the autobiographer himself. His motivations are always pure. The bad guys are always bad. Every shot he takes is a good shot. His leadership, his fathering skills, and his relationships with other soldiers bring nothing but positive reactions. He struggles, but he's always the good guy. I don't doubt that the truth is that he did some good things, but I can't imagine that it's that simple, and reading into what is known about the man suggests that he wasn't entirely honest (and indeed was sued successfully for lying in his book; the movie doesn't cover that) and he bought completely into the narrative the film presents-the idea that Iraq was a justified response to 9/11 and that the war was for a reason-which we now know is a lie and lead to a disastrous conflict that was mismanaged at every turn and accomplished nothing. Which takes me back to the beginning: American Sniper is likely exactly what its subject character wanted to say-the sheep/wolf/sheepdog story at the beginning seems so sum his philosophy all up-and in a way it's good that his perspective is being represented. Certainly our veterans deserve a voice in public discourse. But honestly, I'm not sure about what this particular voice is saying. Watch it, and decide for yourself.

It's quite an intense movie. I played and performed jazz for a decade or so, but certainly not at this level. The music and the performers are quite credible; I had expected to learn later that Miles Teller knew nothing about drums and was just a really good faker as in most music films, but it turns out he is a drummer and did take intense training for this movie, and that authenticity strengthens the film. The point of the movie though, is asking whether a high-stress teaching approach is a good thing or a bad thing. The director's behavior gets intense, and I do struggle to imagine that someone could get away with the things he does in the twenty-first century. It is, however, a provocative issue nonetheless. The way I read into the film, it's up to you to decide the answer to its thesis question: is this aggression and confrontation and abuse necessary to achieve at the highest level, or is it unnecessary? What's not in question is the pain, the question is whether it's worth it. The trailers present the film as a twist on the schmaltzy teacher and student films we've been cursed with. If you're waiting for the other shoe to drop, if you're waiting for this film to abandon its central question and go back to the safe, boring narrative of an omniscient unflappable teacher and a student who just needs to get over himself and put his personal issues aside and then becomes instantly perfect, this movie never reverts back to that. I'd say that's a good thing.

There are certainly elements of the film that have been seen before, but the test of a horror film is whether it can violate your expectations enough to create some legitimate uncertainty and get under your skin. On that level, The Babadook feels like a success to me. It'll creep you out all right. It's also a fine piece of craft; low budget to be sure but it looked slick and stylish and I didn't question the effects. Hard to say too much about the plot of course without giving things away, but what makes this movie interesting is it really focuses on a mother-child relationship, and the social dynamics surrounding them. On that level it feels grounded, and that makes the film compelling.

There were moments in the Lord of the Rings movies where things got a bit cheesy, production values failed, writers went the wrong direction, or for some other reason things just didn't work. But this final movie of The Hobbit trilogy is pretty much just that, and nothing else. There just isn't that much substance to this movie. The locations are few, and mostly CGI; barely a hint of the spectacular New Zealand landscapes that fans flock to. The five armies are boring, and given that we already know where this is headed, there isn't much of a sense of stakes. Of course, before that, you get to kill some time watching Smaug destroy CGI Laketown and the wizard and elf crew fight some CGI wraiths. And frankly, for whatever reason; the frame rate, the 3D conversion, or whatever else, all that CGI looks terrible for a big budget movie in 2014. But wait until you see the five armies in all their CGI glory, and the absurd combat stunts of the dwarves and their allies. That looks worse. The book's merits are mangled or buried. There are only hints of Bilbo's emotional journey and moral ambiguity. Thorin's obsession with (CGI) treasure is elevated to comic levels; his insanity is so over the top and his overcoming it is so gratuitous and forced that it's hard to watch. There's plenty of time, though, for talking about the feelings of elves and dwarves, and watching Legolas, the ageless elf who looks older than he did a century in the future, and wasn't in the book. And never mind the gratuitously sleezy laketowner, who decides he isn't in to fighting battles for no reason, but is branded a coward, who runs off and hides with the women and hides his treasure in the front of his dress, making him look like one. Ha ha funny. Way to offend everyone at once. I think what tells the story is the title. The original title for the second, and then when they split them, the third Hobbit movie was "There and Back Again". And that's what I wanted to see. The Hobbit is a tough book to film, but it's really about the subjective experience of the title character, and him experiencing the epic and the supernatural and the horrors of war and returning home to reality. A movie that focused on that and ignored all the subplots could have been good. But they changed the title to "The Battle of the Five Armies" and that's apt. Because now the movie is about the part of the book that Bilbo slept through after getting hit on the head, and nothing else. As much a fan as I am of the LotR movie trilogy, I'd suggest that people should pull a Bilbo and miss this battle completely.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Where this movie succeeds is in making you feel like you're in a tank. Technically wonderful, with a lot of grit, energetic and scary battle scenes, and a thunderous score. The characters aren't particularly original, but by and large they feel like real soldiers. There's a bleak, unsentimental quality to most of the actions. Of course there's a lot of violence, but the movie isn't afraid to let a recognizable star get shot in the face. I won't say which one. It's short of being a great movie though, for a few reasons. For one, the stakes and action are ramped up, and even though many Hollywood conventions are successfully avoided, the jeopardy and brutality can feel gratuitous. Particularly given that they were winning the war, it seems they should proceed more conservatively. Another issue is a sequence in the middle where the the crew shacks up with some German civilian women. It's muddled and confused, and seems to equivocate on the definition of **** in war. It also muddles the soldiers' code, particularly their leader, who would be hard pressed to justify why he draws the line where he does. Beyond that, the whole thing drags and ends up going nowhere. It seems like it was written just so some of the movie would be outside of a tank, but the subject matter calls for a better written interlude. Indeed, the writer/director claims to have written in in one quick burst, and I think that's the movie's strength and its weakness. It feels raw and natural, but maybe could have used a rewrite so some character decisions and plot points would make more sense. That being said, even if this isn't quite on the level of Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers and The Pacific, it's still an entertaining movie that says something new about the well-trod subject matter. And if you see it in the right theater, you'll really feel those tanks blasting.

A whimsical dystopia with a (gasp) perchant for class warfare. Like the train on which it is set, the plot follows a number of twists and turns but was always going where it ended up. Unlike many films of this sort; the climax is engaging, appropriate, and not a let-down or a cop-out. Don't ask why moving around the train requires one to pass through saunas, kitchens, and schools in a way that defies practicality, or how the perpetual motion machine at the front works, or what the stuff is that somehow sent the entire world into winter faster than a nuclear war ever could. And don't question the caricatures that populate this train (Tilda Swinton in particular seemed to be having a blast). The movie has fun action, and is just cerebral enough to hold a viewer's interest, and is slickly produced. An odd note was the idea of casting Captain America as a grizzled antihero, but Chris Evans is a good enough actor to sell it. CGI pops up occasionally, and isn't quite up with the best films but it holds up enough. It's a tough movie to find in theaters, but worth the search.

It's an enjoyable movie. More than most remakes, it remains very true to the original concept. Since the original concept involves rock 'em, sock 'em fights between giant monsters as puny humans watch their cities crumble in the crossfire, there's a limit to how auspicious this new film can get. It's pretty close to that limit. The concept is revised for modern times, cleverly and disturbingly working in some of our modern experiences with nuclear energy. Some of the film's strongest work is a visit to the ruins surrounding a destroyed power plant in Japan, a chilling reminder of recent history. It's good enough to keep your attention while you wait for the monsters to appear. The movie builds suspense for a while, but don't worry. The mayhem is coming. The effects are very strong, and seeing this movie in a good theater with IMAX and/or 3D is advisable. This being an American production Godzilla seems to be illustrating our obesity problem, but he works. The score is a bracing homage to early film music, with a bit of Japanese flavor sprinkled in. There isn't a great deal of ceremony or sentimentality. The tone is very appropriate and conveys a sense of cosmicism. That is, the lesson of Godzilla is that the universe is bigger than us. There are some fetching lines of dialogue, but the human characters aren't particularly developed. The Bryan Cranston character is probably the most compelling one in the movie simply because he is trying to do something productive, while the others occasionally act but spend most of the film sitting and watching the larger goings on. Which, to my way of thinking, is fine. You're not going to see a movie called "Godzilla" for the people in it. Ultimately, the film's suspense and action, summoned skillfully by a surprisingly newfound director, make it worth seeing.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

An accessible documentary that chronicles the obesity problem. Footage of children struggling with their weight is intercut with various scientific and political machinations. A variety of interview subjects, including some big names, spice things up. The film's conclusion is essentially that refined carbohydrates are the source of our ills. This matches up pretty well with where the science is on the subject. Foods that spike your blood sugar levels, including, obviously, sugar, but also processed grains of various sorts, cause the hormonal state that leads to obesity, which is why low-fat and various other "healthy" trends have failed to accomplish anything. This is presented intelligibly enough, and some products with sugar that seem healthy to most of us apparently aren't. Even I was surprised at some of the examples that flashed across the screen. The film downplays the importance of physical activity somewhat; which seems questionable. Despite having Bill Clinton on repeatedly, it doesn't talk much about plant-based diets and instead focuses on the importance of cooking your own food from whole food ingredients rather than getting things that are processed and full of additives. It also focuses heavily on advertising to children and school lunches, concluding that people become addicted to the sugar rush of processed foods before they can make informed decisions, which is likely to antagonize some viewers. Despite not covering every base, the film ultimately presents an - ahem - digestible narrative that lines up well with the medical experts I know.

I did not get it. Reading up on the movie after having seen it, there was a plot there, a character progression that I honestly did not follow as it was happening. To me, anyway, the movie was a pure sensory experience. Of course, Scarlett Johansson nudity will do that do you. And there is a lot; we're not talking one or two fleeting shots. Nor is the nudity restricted to one character; it's quite egalitarian. However, the film works as something more than pure erotica. Scotland doesn't sound interesting, but they shot the hell out of it for this film. There's very little dialogue throughout and only bursts of sound; you're just watching one main character set against scenery. In the end, it's a film that asks questions, not just the obvious one, "Would you follow a naked Scarlett Johansson to your death?" (yes, answers half the world), but also "What would an alien arriving on Earth make of us?" and "What's the difference between good and evil". Even if you don't catch all of the plot that is being nonverbally conveyed to you, there's enough going on to make this an effective cerebral sci-fi film.

The opening sequence (which I won't spoil) begs the same question that the entire film does: Are you serious? Is this real? Apparently the answer is yes. The film revolves around Indonesia; which despite being an enormous country is pretty much a mystery to most of us. The paramilitary gangsterism described is brutal. The specific individuals being focused on are essentially a group of thugs who try to make a movie about their own rise to power, while being followed around by the documentarians. Their apparent lack of insight into their own situation is mind-boggling, and yet they sometimes have a very informative perspective on the rest of the world. Besides the disturbing nature of the politically motivated genocide that its subjects participate in, the surprising thing about this documentary is that it subverts Hollywood-driven expectations. These are the bad guys, and they not only admit but flaunt their own atrocities, but they essentially have one. Decades after rising to power they remain figures of influence, and there is nothing to suggest that any of them will ever be held accountable. Their own journey towards (perhaps?) understanding what they did as they make their propaganda film is the only justice they'll likely ever see. This documentary offers a surprisingly intimate picture into that journey.

This is what a comic book movie should be. It develops the characters, expand the mythology, provides an abundance of visually spectacular action, and references the zeitgeist of our time without being overly polemic or allegorical. It's a thriller with a lot of twists and turns, and the stakes, while high in any comic book movie, feel more meaningful than in any of the other Marvel films. Despite all that, it doesn't take itself too seriously, and mixes in some insider references and comic book gags successfully. Highlights include an authentic (to a point) engagement of the Washington, DC scenery, the new character (Falcon) engaging Cap based on shared military service, some smart moments for Black Widow, and the legitimate creepiness of the tactfully used titular Winter Soldier. This is the best acting I've seen from the extant Marvel characters (Cap, Widow, Fury), but the additions of Falcon and the Robert Redford character are also immediately credible. The direction is smooth, and the visuals impressive. The few lowlights include moments where they cheated the DC locales and a few bits where the comic book logic cause eyes to roll. Some will be disappointed at the ending which, while not a cliffhanger, does promise another movie. To me though, this movie's story was complete, and I don't mind waiting for the next one. To me, this is the best comic book movie since The Dark Knight; including the (overrated) Avengers. Not quite a cultural icon or a piece of high art, but an entertaining, intelligent, and well-produced film that augurs good things for the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The visual experience is tremendous. Awe-inspiring. Something that deserves to be seen on a large screen and in 3D. The soundtrack is an equally chilling accompaniment. The plot itself blends many realistic elements with bits of fantasy. The hurtling space junk is scary enough that most viewers won't stop to ask why a medical doctor is flying in space and repairing a satellite, or why in the vastness of the Earth's orbit everything is so close together. The central narrative is a classic survival narrative of a blip of humanity up against the vastness of nature. It approaches greatness, save for an unnecessary intrusion of sentimentality that creeps in towards the end. Still, a finely crafted and enjoyable film.

As Bill Maher himself says, he's not selling certainty, he's preaching the Gospel of I Don't Know. He sure does it in an entertaining way, however, touring the country and the world to meet some of the most ludicrous examples of religious people behaving badly the moviegoing public has ever seen. Not a journalistic expose like, say, the HBO doc Friends of God, this is more in the weird fact-based entertainment niche that Jon Stewart and Maher himself have popularized. Interview subjects range from truck drivers to weed worshippers, the reincarnated Jesus Christ (one of them, anyway), a British Muslim rapper, and one of the Jews who patronized the Holocaust Denial conference. And so many more. Even Maher's mother stops in to talk about the religious component of his upbringing. It's reassuring to learn that some subjects (like a profiteering preacher and an anti-gay activist who seems awfully gay) experienced real scrutiny and losses after having their idiocy exposed on screen. Conversely, it's rather sad that Ken Ham's monstrosity of a museum is still going. It's a very Michael Moore style process where subjects are surprised (perhaps unfairly), but allowed to speak in their own words in response to common sense questions. They generally make fools out of themselves while doing so. It's certainly an attack piece and while there are many truths here, they are selected somewhat arbitrarily. Christians, for example are shown not just as nutjobs but also in the guise of seemingly reasonable people such as a borderline atheist priest and a Catholic astronomer who believes that dogma doesn't trump science. Muslims don't get that privilege as Maher relentlessly rails on their xenophobia, violent rhetoric, and social conservativism. Neither do Jews, whose mainstream is omitted in favor of inventors trying to scam their god's Sabbath restrictions. It is also odd that the film makes nary a mention of the Dharmic religions (Buddhism and Hinduism, among others), or of the numerous other religions of the world. A comparison of modern organized religions to animism, cults, and dead religions would have been quite informative (and probably fun). The film jumps around oddly, following no clear narrative and going from lighthearted pranking to serious business without a blink. The ending is a bit abrupt, and prefaces the end of the world and makes a case for facing that possibility realistically. Nonetheless, taken as a whole, it's a film that taught me some pretty interesting things and definitely brings the laughs as well. Would that we had more discussions like this one.