brohug

Just not compelling enough. The stand-up comedy would likely get him booed off most stages. The narrative is muddled: middle-aged divorce that leads to the husband and wife exploring new opportunities. Cooper borrows elements of David O. Russell's "Silver Linings Playbook" but the script and actors just are not up to the task.

Implausible but entertaining thanks to the caliber of the lead actors. Supporting actors are the scenery which is a problem if you give them too many lines. The tone of the film is dire and high stakes with virtually no humor. But the ambiguity of the ending is not without merit.

Properly tragic, just like the play. But the final montage of the performance of Hamlet at the Globe is transcendent as we are moved by not just the actors but the audience's reaction to them. The mini performance by the children of the three witches from MacBeth is depicted as a laugh-filled moment shared by the family, but we the audience take note of what the Bard's play portends.

A beautiful story, beautiful film. An elegy to the dramatic changes that happened in the 20th Century. The passage of time and the ruthlessness of aging. Aging in a time of dramatic lurches forward in industry and technology. It's not a cry to return to those olden days but an opportunity to reflect on what came before the internet, social media, etc. There are themes of human awakening but also human loss. But also what it means to be an old logger in the Pacific Northwest. That character often struggles to comprehend his own existence, and place in history. Robert (the protagonist played by the durable Joel Edgerton) has elocution late in the film which works against the plot a bit. I think one needs to be in a mood to watch this, maybe with a joint. But his character grows old and dies with no remorse. May everyone submit to the same fate. "The world is an old place."

Dan Trachtenberg keeps finding inventive ways to play with and expand the Predator franchise. This is close to being an adventure rom-com where the Predator is actually good guy and victim, aided by a handicapped android (played by Elle Fanning) in his quest to capture the Kalisk creature. The Prometheus timeline of the Aliens franchise provides a nice tie-in for the real enemies standing in his way.

Not really horror at all but closer to kids/YA fare; think Roald Dahl. For such a lean film, the plot was a little difficult to follow at times. But very enjoyable and has just the right amount of stylization to set the proceedings.

I've tried twice to watch this at home and I can't get out of the first twenty minutes. I felt like adjusting the settings on my Sony TV because surely that must be the problem. Daily Planet bustling news room and the term "social media" just don't mix, kids. If there's a plot in this film it must have been left out by the script supervisors. And starting the film with a protracted "interview" (wink, wink) between Lois Lane and Clark Kent has the gears grinding in first as Gunn and the filmmakers can't find the stick shift. Hollywood: please just leave Superman alone. RIP Terrance Stamp.

My "six" score is a composite. It's a high quality cast and it was fascinating to see Anthony Dod Mantle revisit the guerilla cinematography style from the advent of digital feature films 25 years ago. But as others have mentioned it's tonally inconsistent. Also, there are POV problems. What are we supposed to infer from Spike's fever dream observations at the welcome back party? The Alpha zombie plot thread seemed very contrived. The original "28 Days Later" remains the gold standard for apocalyptic zombie films. But the final acts of that film pretty much starkly laid out the appropriate takeaways: humans can act as savages, infected or not.

Tom Cruise is asking us to trust him "one last time". Don't do it. Trust me instead. By far the worst film in the series, making "MI 2" look like a Best Picture nominee by comparison. Looking at you, John Woo. This film is incredibly boring and weirdly depressing. Long detailed expositions by characters about strategies and tactics that absolutely, undeniably MUST HAPPEN to save all of mankind. A very saggy middle third that combines "The Hunt for Red October" with the "The Abyss". A prisoner fight scene that seems like a redux of what happened early in "MI: Rogue Nation". A character from the first film with no lines reappears and has pages of dialogue. And...a dog sled scene. The plot is there to only serve the purpose of having Ethan Hunt deep dive a sunken submarine or hang off a biplane. Because, of course, he is the only person qualified to do these exploits. No help necessary from secondary characters. Hold my beer. The MI series has been escapist popcorn movie fun for three decades. We go to these movies to forget about all the craziness going on in the world. But guess what? The craziness is here now for real. We don't go into a cinema for 3 hours to watch CNN. No need to depict grim Oppenheimer-like global stakes. We get it. It was truly astonishing to witness such a wooden and mirthless finale to a remarkable action series.

Surprisingly bad for an Eggers' product. "The Witch" and "The Lighthouse" are auteur-level pieces of art but this was pointless. I guess part of the problem is that there has been a LOT of Dracula since Murnau's 1922 film. It's simply not enough to have exquisite production design and cinematography; the rest of it has to coalesce also. Lily-Rose Depp cannot act; I actually felt sorry at times for the person (not the character). There are interiors during the film where the other actors literally look lost in the scene. I'm a big fan of Bill Skarsgård but Count Orlok ain't much competition for Pennywise the Clown.

Updated with comments: It's pretty sad to see the studio trying to shore up the review balance by having either algorithms or humans generate fake positive reviews. Take a look at a sample of them. Score typically of ten points with a few nines and eights in there to throw people off the scent. But the pattern is clear. The review itself is one or two sentences and incredibly this is the single only review ever written by this "person". The profile name looks generated and the profile photo (if there is one) appears either **** off the web or itself generated. Shame on Disney and Lucasfilm. Original review submitted on Dec 20, 2019: Slightly better than "The Last Jedi" which is faint praise indeed. However, this is the reckoning we get when the machine known as Disney gets control of the most beloved sci-fi movie franchise of all time. A creative abyss. Like others have noted, the filmmakers seem to literally be check-boxing every nostalgic note from the original series. Some of the visuals are stunning but the script and acting is so flat that you just want the damn thing to be over as quickly as possible. On to "The Mandalorian" and whatever the Mouse has in mind next. Mercifully, this saga has finally been shuttered.

...and they all lived happily ever. Tarantino's ode to the 1969 Los Angeles of his youth is an alternate history that pretty much everyone can get behind. The end of Sixties innocence is pushed back into a time machine that meanders through the streets and studio sets of Hollywood, as network television is depicted as a boon and a threat at the same time to the working actor. Some of the scenes are almost excruciatingly long but like Wes and PT Anderson, best just to trust the process. Pitt and DiCaprio are terrific, but Margot Robbie steals the show without much dialogue. Her Sharon Tate is kind of perfect. A sub-par but beautiful actress who is a beam of light that wants nothing but happiness for herself, Roman, Jay, and her unborn child. The violence at the climax is satisfying, but upon reflection also deeply troubling. We are voyeurs to an outcome opposite to what history has told us. And yet we are still savagely rooting for payback that never was or will be ever realized. It's been years since I read "Helter Skelter", one of the great non-fiction crime novels of all time. It was challenging while watching the film trying to recall some of the true details of the book, as Tarantino gleefully tip-toed the historical line right up to the end.

Much like its anti-hero Eddie/Venom, the film is neither truly good nor truly bad. It's well removed from the rest of the Marvel Universe, and has trouble getting out of the starting blocks. There are bombastic action sequences which seem to render as much destruction to San Francisco as an earthquake, but in the world of comic-based films life and relationships seem to go on without skipping a beat. Meh.

As I have said before, Tom Cruise films are generally well-oiled machines. But this machine is a high-end sports car: thrilling and the handling is precise. Easily the best action film of the summer and possibly the best since "The Matrix" upped the action genre back in 1999. The action is relentless to the point where you say: "this all seems a little unneccessary". The trailers leading up to the July release have betrayed a fair amount of plot IMHO. But like a great omelette, it's not the individual ingredients but how they are ultimately cooked together that make it delicious. Not sure how much of this iteration of Ethan Hunt is Cruise or McQuarrie. The audience who have loyally followed this character over SIX editions of this franchise have likely seen the actor in his various other roles and films over that span. As youthful as he looks, Cruise seems to be letting the audience in on the fact that he is 56, heading for 60. The terrific bathroom fight scene with Cavill and Yang actually shows a man who has done probably thousands of takes of fight scenes, and frankly looks winded and flagging. There is a preceptible pattern of vulnerability emerging over the last few films, and it's actually pretty satisfying. It enriches his characters and doesn't lessen them. McQuarrie has emerged as a profoundly good action director. "Rogue Nation" was solid but it was really "Jack Reacher" where we got to see a director take somewhat thin material and elevate it to a much higher level. Finally, there is a curious retrospective quality to "Fallout" that seems to play on many of Cruise's earlier films. The end of the bathroom scene reminded me of "Jerry Maguire", busting into the funeral service with spinning disorientation echoed "Eyes Wide Shut", and the bare hand rock climb in the climactic confrontation reminded me of the opening sequence of "MI:2". Enigmatic in real life, there is no mistaking that this dude is an anomaly in the corporate Disneyland that is modern Hollywood: a classic movie star.

Really not that bad a flick. A pleasant surprise and more streamlined than the ridiculous original with Angelina Jolie. I'm pretty sure I could take down this Lara Croft in a thumb war, but Alicia Vikander makes up for her diminutive frame and stature with the fierceness needed for the plucky heroine.

7.5 de-merited to 7. There's a few continuity issues and some of the ensemble scenes with the family members look like they needed either more takes or better editing. All in all, an above average horror film. Some reviews mention "The Exorcist" but its "heredity" is closer to "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Sentinel". The superb Toni Collette delivers an intense performance and stretches of the film thoughtfully tangle with how grief impacts a family and the following silence of unspoken anger and regret. But the film also puts itself at a disadvantage early on by being completely mirthless and also rendering a central tragedy before the halfway mark. The family stakes are somewhat reduced after that point. Ultimately, the film just trades on some previous horror/paranoia tropes which then push the plot to a not un-entirely surprising conclusion.

Sorry haters, but this is easily the best entry in the Disney era. TFA was decent given the amount of catch-up/reboot it was tasked with; I didn't really have a big issue with RO; but TLJ was an unmitigated disaster. This one was purely fun and entertaining. Alden Ehrenreich was a solid choice to anchor the Han Solo role going forward (he was hilarious in "Hail Caesar"). I was pleasantly surprised by just how funny some of the scenes were; none of the grim gravitas of the other three films. A hilarious new 'Droid character named L3 almost steals the film from the human actors. And if Woody Harrelson is not the hardest working man in show business, I don't know who is. IMHO, these films are big enterprises that have a lot on their shoulders. They should be entrusted with experienced directors like a JJ Abrams or a Ron Howard. Rian Johnson should absolutely not have been given the reins for the next SW main thread movie, as much as I loved "Looper". If Lucasfilm has the chutzpah to fire Phil Lord and Chris Miller in the middle of production, they should do it again with Johnson.

Enjoyable fare. Bit of a mashup of the old and the new: "Casablanca", "The English Patient", "Mr. and Mrs. Smith". After a fairly electrifying opening act as Pitt and Cotillard's characters meet cute for a **** assassination attempt in Vichy French Morocco, they return to England to settle in to life as a married couple. Pitt resumes his job as an Canadian Air Force intelligence officer aiding the war effort as the tide begins to turn for the Allies. Cotillard, after delivering a daughter, is the doting housewife and mother who seems happy to be married and in love during the Blitz of London. However, all the hints are there that maybe her spycraft didn't get left behind in Casablanca. Brad Pitt has that Hollywood-of-Yesteryear sheen to him that makes him "look" the part of a dashing WWII spy and hero, but is frankly flat for most of the picture including some scenes that demand some real emotional range. However, Marion Cotillard is another animal altogether. To say that she is the perfect modern actress to play a WWII French spy would be, ahem, quite the understatement. The film camera and lighting drink up her beautiful features, pretty much the case in any film she is in. A pro's pro at such a young age, she bilingually acts with an uncanny effortlessness. Robert Zemeckis is an incredibly underrated and versatile director. "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and "Polar Express" anyone? But he also doesn't appear to have a cynical bone in his body based on films like "Contact" and "Castaway", so the last act here also is not as gripping as it should have been either. The middle of the film's intrigue is, well..., kind of shapeless and perhaps speaks to a sentimental blindspot in the director's narrative approach. Pitt and Cotillard have some serious sizzle in their early love scenes, including the ultimate car makeout cloaked in the privacy of a desert sandstorm. That might not do much to quell some of the rumors tied to the Brangelina breakup. Also, speaking of romance, Medicine Hat Alberta gets some serious love here too.

Really more like a 7.5 but didn't want to undersell this gem. Lean, effective thriller. At times almost seems like a stage play. The characters are drawn correctly, especially the target of the break-in played by the durable actor Stephen Lang. His moral arc from victim to monster is entirely believable and the motivation for his actions rational, given what's happened to his life. There's one **** plot gap but it is easily dismissed while you're sitting in the theater literally holding your breath.

My first 4/10 review, so there's that. Hard to sit through a film so thoroughly boring as this enterprise. Poor script, cinematography, music, and direction makes Suicide Squad a dull time. I enjoyed David Ayer's "End of Watch" but "Fury" and now this minor catastrophe has me second-guessing him as a director. Margot Robbie makes a case for her Harley Quinn character to continue in some kind of sequel, I suppose. Jared Leto's Joker is pretty over-the-top and strangely harmless, more like the clown you hired for your son's birthday party showing up high at your front door. The whole thing is wildly unbalanced. Army Chinook helicopters repeatedly falling out of the sky. Long scenes of exposition that leave you scratching your head in a WTF way. Too much Will Smith (he of the almost six billion dollar worldwide box office). DC Comics is starting to dig a substantial cinematic hole for themselves thanks to the bombastic direction and production tastes of a certain Zack Snyder. It all started with "Man of Steel", continued with this spring's underwhelming "Batman v. Superman", and now we have a straight-up contender for the 2016 Razzies top prize. At this point, Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy almost seems like IT must have come from another planet.

"I want to believe." Approach this as an X-Files episode and you'll be fine. An X-Files episode that just so happens to depict the seminal moment in Catholic orthodoxy. The point of view is that of the Roman Tribune Clavius played with steely grit by Joseph Fiennes, who is tasked with the nasty business of cleaning up Pilate's claim to fame: the crucifixion of Jesus. The movie is a solid historical period piece for three quarters of the film. It plays more like a murder mystery as Clavius tries to track down the whereabouts of the new disciples who represent a threat to the governing status quo, and more importantly, the crucified body that has vanished from the tomb under supernatural circumstances. Clavius doggedly kicks in doors and interviews witnesses, trying to make sense of it all before an expected visit by Pilate's boss. Then ultimately the producers show their cards and go all in on the Clavius conversion as he ultimately helps the disciples escape and rendezvous with Jesus at Galilee. This film was made by the Sony denominational studio Affirm Films, so the payoff for the expected demographic is not at all unexpected. Before the film started, there were a string of previews for upcoming faith-based features, so Hollywood has clearly identified a reasonably fallow market over the past few years. The difference now is we are slowly starting to see better talent and production values in some of these efforts. Risen should not be avoided purely because you may be a religious skeptic, just as you should not avoid a film about, say, strange lights in Roswell NM just because you don't believe in UFOs.

Come for the horror, stay for the history. A Puritan Panic Room, the film opens with a family banished from the protections afforded by a New England colony, presumably for whatever crazy-ass rumors were leveled against the prideful patriarch William. The young family reboot their pious pioneering efforts on a new tract of land, but they have some company deep in the gnarly, tangled woods by their new farm. It's an interesting premise that seems like it should have been mined long ago: Indulge the viewer in the notion that there was something supernatural behind some of the witch trials back then. A good part of the film looks and feels like it could be a new adaptation of The Crucible. The drab clothing, the spartan furnishings, the farm construction all look authentic in studious detail. The Witch largely avoids the tropes of modern horror cinema and jolts are kept to a minimum. The suspense plays out methodically almost to a fault. This movie may one day be shown in college History classes rather than Film Studies.

Pretty tepid effort. Looks like the Marvel catalog pillaging by the studios is starting to expose the weaker source material. There is nothing innovative about the story or characters in this comic book outing. Evangeline Lilly is actually painful to watch in many scenes. Michael Douglas looks and sounds like Gordon Gecko hiding out from the IRS. Finally, Paul Rudd's smug charm should be pretty good in this sort of comic-con summer fare but it feels like he's struggling, even slightly disinterested. One positive: might be nice to see Michael Peña do more comedic material; at least he seemed to be enjoying himself. This tired plot device of each film referencing other Marvel touchstones like the Avengers, Hydra, Stark Industries, etc. only works if those other films are successes in their own right. Not sure how many Ant-Man quips we will hear from Captain America.

War is hell. In case there was any doubt in your mind as to the validity of that aphorism, "Fury" rolls through a 2 hours and change slog of French mud and artillery blasts to reinforce the point. The film depicts the claustrophobic, tin-can environment of a US Sherman tank crew as the Allies try to push back the Germans in the spring of 1945 after D-Day. The exhaustion is etched in the faces of these crew members led by the enlightened but battle-hardened Sergeant Collier (Brad Pitt) who has literally seen uncounted ways for men to die on the battlefield from Africa, to Belgium, to the Bulge. There are some virtuoso battle scenes, including a tactical battle-to-the-death showdown with a Panzer tank at short range. But the middle of the film sags badly with a pit-stop in a small French village where the Allied forces kick back for some relaxation, taking time to play pianos, cook eggs, and indulge in some earthly delights. But predictably, it ends badly with the loss of innocence for the newest crew member played by Logan Lerman. His fellow crew mates all seem to have the required Southern US accent of B-level actors that informs the audience that these are salty grunts, presumably from Podunk USA. The final act is incredulous as it depicts a legion of **** soldiers who seem to be cheerfully pressing on in the fight but incapable of outwitting these Happy Few in a busted Sherman tank. Perhaps it's a personal view of mine, but it really is quite difficult to improve dramatically on the human story of the WWII European theater beyond what "Saving Private Ryan" and HBO's "Band of Brothers" have already so artfully done.

Much like the intense gravity of a black hole, the big ideas of "Interstellar" overwhelm and crush the film. The Nolan brothers mix in real theoretical concepts of astrophysics into the story (singularities, wormholes, time dilation) but also unwisely choose to have the characters banter back and forth these complex ideas in order to prop up a plot with more than a few holes (even for a sci-fi flick). The casting is just okay: McConaughey is riding the high tide he has enjoyed from solid work in "Dallas Buyers Club" and HBO's "True Detective", and has the requisite Texas twang of an astronaut/engineer who is convinced to leave his earthbound family behind in the name of preservation of no less than the entire human race. Anne Hathaway is something a curiosity as an unconvincing astrophysicist, but apparently gets the Nolan 'pass' from her previous work in "The Dark Knight Rises". Then Matt Damon appears later in the film, entirely out of place as a failed mission commander whose motives may or may not be altruistic. Christopher Nolan has done his youthful homework: there are ideas borrowed from a fanboy's inspirational memories of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Solaris". I won't deny some of the film's visuals are stunning and actually effective when it comes time to render an environment as unfathomable as the very center of a singularity inside a cosmic black hole. But no amount of editing can reconcile the back-and-forth of an astronaut trapped inside some theoretical dimension of a singularity (when really he would have been shredded at the event horizon), and the quiet, lonely space on earth of a young daughter's bedroom. "2001", "Solaris": these films were also laden with big ideas. But they granted the subconsciousness of the audience space to work through very abstract concepts without trying to dictate either clumsy exposition or a Hollywood happy ending.

Easily the best big ticket film of the summer so far. The idea of combining "Groundhog Day", "Aliens", and the Halo video game is both thrilling and funny. Once the D-day looping gets going, the audience becomes attuned to it and revels in Major Cage's Sisyphus-like efforts to advance the clock and defeat the Mimic hordes. The filmmakers keep that editing relatively tight, so we are never bored by a "oh, this part again" syndrome. In almost a tip of the cap to "Aliens", Bill Paxton appears as a Master Sergeant more than happy to send the alleged deserter Cage to his glorious doom, only later to have his Kentucky-bred drill squad speeches defused by the front-running Cage, who by then has literally heard it all before. There are few deficiencies. Emily Blunt is less believable as a ruthless Amazon leading the assault on the French beaches, but is solid as a romantic heroine. And the J Squad members are fairly expendable, which is fine by me so that our emotional investment doesn't get too fragmented from the two leads. Despite much of the craziness in Cruise's personal life, he's still arguably the foremost movie star of his time. His films typically deliver a high-quality product with a recent predilection to science fiction action tales. Last summer's "Oblivion" came up short in that particular department but he followed that up with the under-rated "Jack Reacher" last fall. There's a surprising amount of vulnerability on display here as well as a hilariously cowardly squirm to the beginning of his Mad Men-turned-soldier arc. I think "Edge of Tomorrow" will live on with the original "Mission Impossible" and "Jerry Maguire" in the Cruise canon for some time to come.

I enjoyed this. Straight-forward murder mystery set against a Big Chill reunion of characters from the original series. I must admit that I never watched the TV series and knew little about the characters going in, but that didn't deter my enjoyment of the film one bit.

Human-zilla. A Michael Bay scale movie without his Red Bull hyperactivity. I was just a little skeptical going in but this is the kind of studio tent-pole film that Hollywood every now and then somehow gets right. The filmmakers wisely keep the title monster behind the curtain well into the film to build up anticipation. After all, there's no mistaking from the title what you have plunked down your movie dollars for. This ain't Woody Allen... The actors are all solid and have the right approach to their scenes: no over-acting here. They commit to the urgency of their situations, not the notion that nuclear-hungry, giant prehistoric monsters are having a throwdown across the Pacific Ocean. The humanity of their stories is simple but effective. And the titanic monster battles in San Francisco are shrouded in crumbling rubble, smoke, fog, and rain which lend a certain atmospheric look that doesn't push the viewer away but instead draws us in as we strain to see who is throwing the most seismic haymakers. The absence of too much "dumb" sci-fi exposition in the script is frankly refreshing. The explanation of certain plot lines resonate (I didn't say plausibly) with recent events in real world disasters, particularly the Japanese tsunami impact a few years ago that led to a meltdown at the **** Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. It's all good. There is a curious use of music from "2001" used in a sunset military HALO jump scene, but it just serves to amp up the tension as the soldiers drop into the battle below. Perhaps Kubrick would even enjoy that.

A borderline disaster. Perhaps sufficiently bad enough to kill this incarnation of the Spider-Man series. Dialogue is clunky and the tone of the movie is all over the map. At one point, as Peter and Gwen are in a broom closet at Oscorp hiding out from some nasty security men, they rekindle a discussion of whether she should go to her Oxford study program in England or not. Times Square is laid to waste (again) by Electro and the mass destruction of a New York landmark seems to get lost later in the on-going debate about leaving for Oxford or not. The musical score is poor and often doesn't support the drama depicted. Dane DeHaan is an exciting young actor but his Harry Osborn seems a tad over-the-top at times. Finally, this smarmy Peter Parker/Spider-Man edition portrayed by Andrew Garfield is, after two films, actually pretty annoying. Sony must feel pretty frustrated with its corner of the Marvel universe. I wonder when the next impatient Spider-Man "reboot" will be green-lit. This edition offers nothing that we didn't see and (dare I say) didn't enjoy better with the first two Raimi films.

Another quirky diorama is added to the impressive collection of Wes Anderson who could be considered America's foremost auteur. And yet... The film is beautiful in its color and set designs. A ravishing impression of continental empirical splendor in a Slavic country prior to something like World War II. The question is, as for several of Anderson's last few films: how does it make you feel? The sight and offbeat gags are there and aplenty but can they support something that is not quite drama or comedy, and certainly not conventional storytelling. The last few scenes of the film redeem the previous segments as the relationship between M. Gustav H. and the Lobby Boy is cemented as a bond that finally feels genuine. And when the telescopic looking glass of the story's three time periods are finally pressed together, I did feel something close to profound melancholy for the memory of all the central characters in each age, no matter how ridiculous they were depicted. Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and The Life Aquatic combined to showcase a new and unique voice in American cinema. In Rushmore, Max Fischer ambitiously pulls together a school stage play adaptation of the film Serpico. I loved that conceit then, but feel like that now IS the conceit for many of Anderson's latest films, including GBH and Moonrise Kingdom. Terrific actors reciting very serious-sounding, direct dialogue with middle school earnestness.

Hercule Poirot at 37,000 **** Poirot was a Belgian air marshal who could snap bad guy's necks over his knee. Taut, effective thriller where for once the cabin interiors actually look like a fuselage as opposed to a movie set. The camera moves with the characters in these confines in a way that actually manages to convey that mile high claustrophobia. Since "Taken", Liam Neeson inhabits these gruff, slightly out-of-control characters with the right amount of gravitas to propel the plot along nicely. And this who-doing-it plot actually does work well enough that you really are guessing as to the identity of the villain and their motive deep into the 3rd act.

Electric, unsettling film. I see other reviewers comparing it to The Godfather, which is high praise indeed. Jacki Weaver is downright unnerving as the crime family matriarch.

Disappointing film. The depiction of the dawn of the Eighties seemed contrived and inauthentic. De Niro and JLaw are the only performances that feel like they belong in the story. Christian Bale portrays an ultimately sympathetic character with a measure of understatement. The always engaging Jeremy Renner stretches to play a good family man perhaps too eager to help his NJ constituents, but is sabotaged by an Elvis wig the size of Graceland. Indeed, it seemed like the toupées and up-dos should be nominated instead of the actors wearing them. Bradley Cooper goes over the top to the point where you’re not sure if he's sure what film he's in anymore. I agree with other reviewers: I don't feel that the FBI chain of command would just let Bradley Cooper's character have the run of the house so to speak. In fact, it has been suggested that Abscam was the FBI's response to the some of the Washington inquisitions of the Seventies, like the Church Committee. A poor man's re-interpretation of Goodfellas, which is perhaps the definitive depiction of dangerous loyalties and survival in the emerging age of greed as a lifestyle. I guess I felt conned, but maybe that was the goal. Russell has directed two of my favorite films (Three Kings, The Fighter) but recently seems to be enthralled with Oscar award bait after making this piece and the slim "Silver Linings Playbook".