crankyerma

Dreary, one note, soulless, pointless, without story drive, clumsy and at moments surprisingly stupid. This whole storyline should be scrapped and forgotten along with Reeves and Pattinson's tenure on the franchise.

Fun film. It mocked a lot of the postmodernist tropes of current cinema, actually portrayed rural characters as more than one dimensional monsters and called out the postmodern coastal elitist set on some of their unselfaware hypocrisy. All the characters had more depth than you'd expect. I actually cared about more than one person in this which surprised me. Some inventive kills and it's an all out glorious SPLATTERFEST. It's nice when folks in the entertainment industry remember that their primary function is to "entertain."

This one starts off pretty slow but kicks into overdrive by the second act turning point. The new characters are fairly underwhelming. I really wasn't too invested in their survival. The best parts were the discussions of the ever evolving rules for the genre and David Arquette's performance. The legacy characters of the franchise are still the best. It's not even a question but this one was okay. It was better than the fourth installment.

Aaron Sorkin, a man who is best known for spending several years writing **** Centrist fan fiction where all of the characters sounded the same, wrote and directed "Being the Ricardos," a film that seems to take the position that one of the greatest and best loved television comedies of all time was essentially hacky. It's ironic that in the script, Sorkin has Lucy criticize her showrunner for keeping a gag that she feels essentially says the audience is stupid, which is an unforgivable transgression. What are we to think Sorkin is saying to all of the fans of the original show watching his film by portraying that classic as absurdly hackneyed, stale and yes, even stupid?

Say "Dumb, hamfisted, postmodernist propaganda" five times in a row and this film will appear.

This film is far, far, far better than it deserves to be considering how many cooks the studio tossed into the mix in terms of the script. It is delightfully entertaining and (as it is a satire) doesn't take itself seriously at any point. But I think other than all of the cameos, amazing locations and legendary soundtrack, the true standout here is the performance turned in by Charles Dance. He was wonderfully evil but oddly not cartoonish in this one. His character was by far my favorite in the film and he truly nailed it.

Seriously solid action film. And despite some claims that it's a satire of the genre, that doesn't come through too much and certainly doesn't inhibit the viewer from enjoying it as a straight forward shootem'up. At a time when people need escapist fare more than ever, Hollywood by and large seems only interested in preaching, condescending and scolding rather than allowing people to forget their troubles for 90 minutes. "Nobody" is a truly welcome exception to this tone deaf, postmodernist trend. Let's hope it catches on. It would good if the Entertainment industry got back to the business of actually entertaining.

Easily the stupidest big budget picture of the 90's. It's shocking that it didn't kill Crowe's fledgling career. Any time Washington acts like a haughty, egotistical jerk, friends can point to this steaming present and several other absurd cash-grabs he did to shut him up.

Well, we found something less entertaining than the Eurovision contest. This is a deeply,unforgivingly punishing attack on anyone who loves comedy. This film is a hate crime against laughter. Avoid at all costs.

Was it the best structured script in history? Of course not. Stewart is not a screenwriter. But it is a very on point satire of the current farce that is our electoral process and the media industry that surrounds it which leave us with people who know how to campaign and not how to govern. Plus, it was hilarious to see Deborah Messing playing the exact kind of out of touch, coastal elitist asswipe whose messaging she has been mindlessly parroting for years.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of Apatow's work or really him personally. I find his public persona to be that of a pandering, hypocritical Centrist hack. That said, after seeing the trailer and knowing a bit about Pete Davidson's personal backstory, I was looking forward to something a little funnier and with possibly some genuine heart. I was disappointed. I like Pete but the material here didn't really give him an opportunity to be very funny or show any emotional range. He was more or less a pet goldfish through the whole thing. It was like "Yeah, he's moving and doing stuff but is watching this entertaining to people who aren't stoned... or even those who are?" I mean, there are little bits and pieces of a character arc for Pete but they feel like teases for some bigger evolution that never happens. There's nothing that is clearly defined here. There is a lot of meandering in terms of story, wasted minutes that didn't need to be there, as with most of Apatow's films. And this film really doesn't have the truly poignant moments that allow an actor to show emotional range and show a clear pivot for the character. Does Pete's character grow or change over the course of the film? Maybe a little but somebody should have told his face that because he seems to have the same look on it through the whole thing. There was an opportunity for a really good, funny, moving film here and it was missed by a fairly wide margin. It's too bad because this could have been the career transforming vehicle for Pete that allows him to move on to film **** and he seems like a nice guy.

A very 2/3 intriguing film that suddenly ends in a clumsy **** of Hollywood virtue signaling that is as misandrist and heterophobic as it is predictable.

A testament to Hollywood's current dedication to bringing its postmodernist values and "socially enlightened" point of view to us, the stupid, unwashed masses rather than entertaining, this film is an utter failure on every level.

Nearly three hours of me not caring about a single character in the film and it's the sequel to a picture which I actually liked a good bit. That takes some doing.

Solid action picture. The pacing is more akin to a 1970's revenge flick. The first two acts of the film are essentially a set-up for the final one. This is not a wall to wall action picture. However, the final act is jawdropping. Patience is required but it is rewarded many times over. The critics whine about the film being xenoophobic because Rambo is a white guy who goes to war with a Mexican human trafficking cartel. It's disingenuous postmodernist criticism. Don't listen to them. If it were Sam Jackson or Benicio Del Toro going after the Russian or Irish mob, they wouldn't have any gripes. Bad guys are bad guys.

Know what's even better than going out to see this film which features Bruce Springsteen's music? Staying home and listening to Bruce Springsteen's music.

Forget the critics. This film is worth your time. There are a couple of points in the third act which are equally as inspired as the premise. Given the level of brilliance in the premise and some of the turns, does it feel like Curtis could have put a little more time and effort into the writing and handling of the film? Sure. Still, there's enough emotional uplift and truly moving moments here as well as re-introductions to the best songs of the past two centuries, that this movie will more than satisfy most viewers.

The whole reason for the original "Aladdin" was Robin Williams' performance. It remains one of the stand-out turns in a career that had more true magic than anything the genie in this tragic and pointless waste of effort can even pretend to muster. At times, it seems that the only point for this film is to "update" the storytelling for our postmodernist times, which while meaning well, does more harm than good. Hollywood needs to accept that while some of its classic films may not match up to our culture's current counterbalancing efforts in terms of social justice and cultural sensitivity, their value as art often outweighs what are seen as anachronistic flaws. Sometimes, it's better to leave well enough alone.

I liked the first two JW films, the first one decidedly more. But this one was so light on story and character that it was boring. The non-stop onslaught of glitz and action to the exclusion of everything else is mindless to the point of becoming numbing. It's like watching someone else play a video game. They should probably make sure they have a story to drive the action next time. This was a MASSIVE let down.

Was it "Almost Famous?" No. Was it fun and fairly faithful to the source material without being completely pornographic? Yes. Was it fun as hell? Damn straight.Screw the critics.

I'm a big fan of the franchise. Haven't looked forward to seeing a film in the theater like this in over a decade. That said, this "Halloween" kinda blew goats. The biggest problem is that the script didn't seem to have much drive from scene to scene at times. There were no great dialogue moments. Laurie's character felt flat and kind've under defined. Add to that the misguided undercurrent of not feminism as much as misandry was a turn off as well. They do make it a point to show that even when you are best friends and have an emotional connection with a girl, if you are a fat or less than hot male and you try to kiss her, it's an offense worthy **** death. Love the sensitivity of the #metoo crowd. Good to know. "H2O" was a far better written and more entertaining film. As I left the theater (which was dead silent for the entire film) I couldn't help but compare my overall lack of enthusiasm for what I just sat through and the elation and total satisfaction I felt after viewing "H2O." This film was kind've a loser.

This isn't the kind of picture that you say you "loved" because of its subject matter but it's a film I definitely respect. It raises the subject of class in a way that is gripping and at times urgent. While the film is sold as one kind of horror story, it's a bait and switch that serves up quite a different one that is far more real and terrifying. It should also be said that Jesicca Biel gives an incredibly telling and nuanced performance where much of the questions the viewer is pondering through the film are answered by her without dialogue. Quite a cool trick. Ultimately, the film raises some serious questions even right up to the very last frame. I know where I stand, but I think folks owe it to themselves to view this film and make up their own minds.

The positive reviews seem to be mistaking self indulgence and pointlessly stylized filmmaking for art. Doing something odd for the sake of being odd is not art, it's **** and that's all this is. It felt like a student film with a ridiculously high budget. I guess the folks reviewing this steaming present positively forgot this medium is for storytelling, something in which the makers of "Mandy" have precious little interest.

Pretty solid. This was easily the best action picture I've seen in a while. The story clicked along, the characters were duly developed and their actions were motivated. The dialogue was also a cut above your average actioner thanks to Black taking a hand in the writing. Most of the hatred in the reviews here comes from either misguided expectations or just small minds. This film was built to entertain. I guess that's too hard to grasp for some.

This is what happens when you get a star with no taste who attaches themselves to a lazy, lowest common denominator premise and writers too hacky, uncreative and just plain untalented to find a way to raise the material above it.

I love Anna Faris. But this was just horribly unfunny, poorly cast and tried way too hard. The original was a fair to middling movie that got cute points because it was clear that its stars had chemistry together. This was not that. Add to this that (at least the copy I watched) did not feel the need to include subtitles for the frequent and extended Spanish language parts. For a film produced and released in the US, this seems a curious choice.

I honestly couldn't sit through this. It was insufferable. From what I saw, I can sum up what it is and why it did well during awards season in one sentence: "Actory actors acting as actors acting actory."

I watched both this film and "A Quiet Place" today. While this was an incredibly silly, goof-fest of a film, it aimed to entertain the audience and the writers made some attempts to at least follow the logic of the world which they created within the script. Whereas, the critically lauded "A Quiet Place" forgot early on to make any sense even given the conceits set up by the writers from the get-go. Also, "Rampage" doesn't lie to or betray the audience the way the other film does and has a sense of humor about itself. Want to be entertained for a couple of hours this weekend? Go with this one

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

No, "The Last Movie Star" is not the great or even really good movie it could and should have been. But Reynolds' performance in it is one of the most deeply touching, truly vulnerable turns by a veteran actor I've seen in ages. Reynolds really rises above the material and makes this a much more affecting film than it has any right to be. I honestly got choked up more than once during the showing. I would highly recommend watching it for his performance alone. That's more than reason enough.

Solid, entertaining action flick that had a funny script, performed by a couple of guys who can deliver comedy lines as well as just about anybody in the business. Too bad the director and editor seem to find comedy and timing to be a foreign concepts. Still a decent summer flick.

This cynical and ill conceived attempt to start a Uni-"Monsterverse" has one incredibly fatal flaw. When Marvel began their cinematic universe, all of the films were solid stand alone pictures true to the original material. This is a hopelessly convoluted mess that has nothing to do with the original screen legends.

Shyamalan is a gifted storyteller. There is no doubt about it. Every one of his works is reminiscent of Serling minus the latter's voice in the dialogue. But Shyamalan, despite influences still has his very own specific identity and style. That said, if Serling's work was always stories told well but sometimes stories not necessarily worth telling, the same holds true with Shyamalan. This is a fascinating and taut film that ultimately left me unfulfilled and disappointed. I'm still glad I watched it but want a bit of a rewrite. It should be said that all of the performances were stellar, McAvoy's being chief among them. I know this is the sort of role that many actors salivate over and it could have been done so absolutely over the top as to ruin the experience. James did not do that. He showed subtlety and nuance but also menace when need be. Pretty captivating performance.

I would say "Ride Along 2" is Kevin Hart's funniest movie yet but that could be construed as hate speech. He seems like a great guy in interviews but not all great guys are funny or creative.

I'm a little shocked by the ridiculously bad reviews. This was a very solid action picture. The lead character had clear emotional stakes that kept getting raised. There were some twists that were not entirely predictable because the writing and performances were nuanced enough to keep you guessing a bit as to how the whole story was going to play out. The action sequences were pretty intense at times for the budget as well. The people who trashed this picture went into it wanting to hate it. Well, if you want to hate something, chances are you will. What kind of loser is looking to not enjoy themselves?

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Okay, this film was silly, campy fun. If you enjoy over-the-top horror movies with a sense of humor about themselves than this is a worthwhile picture to catch in the theater. There's tons of cheesey bad guys getting what's coming to them, chicks showing off their boobs and a handful of actual scares that will have you jump a bit despite yourself. Good cartoonishly gorey fun.