Reviews

The unwieldy title notwithstanding, TMOUW is an outstanding film. In real life, classified documents from Churchill's war room regarding a WWII special task force had finally come to light in 2016. The story is nothing less than astounding as 5 British agents are recruited to weaken the German forces operating off west Africa's Atlantic coast. Boring so far? How about if I said America depended on their actions in order to cross the Atlantic and ultimately help defeat the Nazis? For two hours I felt riveted to my seat as the story unfolded.

This is director Ritchie's best film yet. He has identified and developed his characters quickly within the context of a superb action film. (Their real-llfe counterparts are acknowledged in the end credits.) How much is fact and fiction I'm not sure at this point, but I will dig deeper. Oh, it also mentions in the end credits that the fictional James Bond was likely inspired by these events.

.

I was expecting to see the disconnect between the comfortable life of the German family and the horrors happening on the other side of the property wall at the Auschwitz death camp.

Instead the film spends all its time on the mundane daily life of the Nazi officer and his family - playing, dining, gardening. The horror of the death camps is substantially downplayed in the entire film. It occasionally shows the top part of a watch tower beyond the wall, a few glimpses of desolate barracks, and some flames in the night sky. At one point you hear a guard beyond the wall saying "stop trembling" and a gunshot. That's the extent of all the Auschwitz atrocities that the film gives us.

The filmmaker is almost normalizing the circumstances of a father going about his his job while raising a family.

Overall, the film failed to hit the emotional marks I was hoping for. Visit a holocaust museum if you can for a much deeper experience.

What I liked: For some reason I like stories about artificial beings trying to find their humanity, whether in comic books (Jocasta of Avengers), Spielberg films (A. I.) and of course Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. The Creator succeeds in this genre. Visuals, mood, music, set design and special effects are top notch. Some minor references to BR, such as the General's glasses reflecting light like Tyrell in Scott's film, are terrific.

Not so much: Poor title, sounds like a faith-based film. Why didn't they call it the more intriguing "Nirmata"?

Really didn't like: The last 20 minutes. Where was all this action taking place, in Los Angeles or New Asia? And that corny final scene was embarassing.

This is a top notch film in its genre and worthy of comparison to JAWS. The serious issue of the illegal animal trade in Africa is brought to light in this intelligent and exciting film. Smart in a way that it doesn't need to preach. We see the developments unfold mostly through the eyes of the two daughters, one of whom "read an article" about wildlife poachers. In a pointed moment, the daughter asks if her conservationist "uncle" kills poachers. He doesn't answer her.

The story, direction, and acting could not be better. The young girls are standouts. Idris Elba, who I saw in 3 movies this weekend (!!) played his part very naturalistically and with an American accent. Highly recommended.

Maybe this project began as a biopic, a la BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY? But without the participation of the Celine Dion camp, it pivoted into a fictional version of Dion's career. Regardless, the film is endless fun and one of a very few movies that I wish was longer. I didn't fact-check Dion's real life to ALINE, but it seems to hit the bullet points. The movie's strengths are many: a witty and sincere screenplay, terrific casting and acting, and well-handled drama as well as lighter moments. Danielle Fichaud as Aline's mom, Sylvain Marcel as "Rene" and Valerie Lemercier (with an audacious de-aging process!) were all standouts.

For whatever reason, the most successful moments of the real Dion's career were spotty or non-existent. No mention of "Beauty and the Beast", and just 7 notes from the TITANIC theme (to which Aline responds "I don't like it"). I'm guessing that getting rights to many songs was expensive or even declined. So that means we hear "Nature Boy", "I'm Alive" and a few other songs more than once. I don't blame the filmmakers for this and chalk it up to the the constraints of making an independent film.

I hope Celine and her handlers see this film for the loving tribute that it is.

The Eternals comic book published in the 1970s was cancelled after 19 below average issues. In the 1960s Jack Kirby was credited as an artist but also developed Marvel Comics' characters and storylines in partnership with Stan Lee. By the 1970s Kirby wanted total control as writer, artist and editor for his newest ideas. Without oversight, Kirby weakness as a writer was his Achilles heel. His The Eternals, deriving ideas from Chariots of the Gods and 2001:A Space Odyssey, created a pantheon of Super-gods (Celestials) and the super-human Eternals and Deviants. The story didn't make much sense then, and it still doesn't even now.

The film does little to sort out the nonsense. Major characters are missing (Zuras), and the others don't resemble the comics version. The Uni-mind should blow us away but instead it underwhelms. The sets look cheap, the script and acting are embarrassing. There is really nothing to enjoy in this painfully long film.

For me, a movie is more than simply telling a story. There is also design, special effects, score and soundtrack, cinematography, atmosphere, acting and dialogue. It is a rare movie that fires on all cylinders. One of those films to me is the original BLADERUNNER. REMINISCENCE has some of what made BLADERUNNER an unforgettable action/futurist film. Miami has replaced Los Angeles, and its streets-turned-canals from rising sea levels is a terrific visual. Throughout the film are wonderful sets of a decrepit future. Director Lisa Joy must also be a fan of the original BLADERUNNER release, by employing the noir voiceover, a visual of an ascending dove and most obviously the overall production.

The opening scene has an excellent musical background. But the score weakens as the film goes on. I wonder if different composers were employed for different parts of the film?

The plot I'll admit is weak. Two weeks after seeing it, I could barely remember what it was about. In an ironic way, this make it a film better seen at a movie theater than on a small screen.

Third time I've watched IRONWEED and it is a masterpiece. When it came out no one went to see it and it got ignobly shut out from Oscar statuettes. Americans don't like movies this depressing and these types of films pay the price. (Remember when they gave Fatal Attraction a "happy" ending for the American market?) IRONWEED tells the story of a few souls living on the streets in upper New York in the 1930s. For me it filled a gap between what we see of the homeless and how they may have ended up that way. It is not a heart-on-the-sleeve appeal for compassion; it's too smart a film to editorialize those issues. In my opinion this is Meryl Streep's finest hour, keeping in mind everything she does is master class. (Cher won the Oscar that year for Moonstruck and I'm happy that she did.) If you like Streep's work and you missed this film, do yourself a favor and see it the first chance you get. If it were up to me, I would have found a way to trim maybe 10 minutes from the ending. That part is Nicholson's story, and I hate to say that it drags. From the direction to the acting, it felt like everyone involved was ready to call it a day. Just sayin' and maybe you don't agree with me. You decide after you see this incomparable work of art.

Seen it twice already, both times in a movie theater. It is perfect from start to finish. Every minute in this film is interesting. As a period piece the scenes are flawless. (I was alive in 1969 and yes, I live in Los Angeles but not sure if that makes a difference.) I feel sorry for the people who say it is long and boring. If your attention span is feeble, or if you watch at home while working, cooking dinner or reading a magazine, then maybe TV programming is a better fit for you than feature films. The soundtrack including commercials from that time is awesome. I will watch this movie many. many times over. A+

I really loved this film for many reasons. This movie has a straightforward plot; a blessing after all those other exhausting and meandering superhero films. You can tell it was created for adults, not children (or children in adult bodies). The themes are mature and the characters come to life with very individual personalities. Motives are as complex as you're likely to find in any film, superhero genre or not. There is suspense in practically every scene. I liked the personal moments as much if not more than the fight scenes. The acting is top notch - kudos to everyone. It seems Sophie Turner has been criticized for being bland, but you'll feel her screen presence when you see the film. The special effects were cool and aptly applied. I liked the "helicopter "scene - no trace of CGI to take you out of the movie. Ditto for Xavier's "walking" scene. If I had to be picky, I do feel some of the dialogue got clunky in a few places ("I do things. Bad things.") The weakest part of the film was not explaining Magneto's island and its inhabitants. The miniscule cameo of Dazzler - now an EDM, not disco performer, was a cool surprise! My vote: Highly recommended. A.

I've seen TGS six times - about every 2 weeks since it opened. To me the film was an imaginative take on the man who created one of the most enduring forms of entertainment the world has ever seen. But the critical comments were not part of my experience. The following points seem to be the most repeated among the critics:

HISTORICAL ACCURACY: This criticism is easy to dismiss. Unless the film is a documentary, the "facts" are subject to interpretation. A long list of movies based on real people or events bears this out. Consider this: If a film (non-documentary) were made about Donald Trump, wouldn't there be very different versions, depending on who's telling the story?

THE REAL PT BARNUM: This can be addressed with my comment above. But I'll go ahead and answer those who feel that the man who was famous for having said "There's a sucker born every minute" had his character sugar-coated in the film. Those critics say he was portrayed as a saintly family man who championed inclusiveness. I don't know how they didn't see the same film I did. At a young age PT learns that honesty may not be the best policy when he is punished for admitting he made young Charity laugh. He subsequently steals, obtains a loan with false collateral, and embellishes his "circus freaks" to his liking. He even admits to being a fraud to the highbrow theater critic. And when he gains entry to high society via his partner Phillip Carlyle, he has hesitations about appearing in public with his human menagerie. I'm leaving out a few, but how many more character flaws do the critics need to see in a 2-hour film?

NO BACKSTORY: A few critics lamented that the secondary characters (the circus crew) were not given full backgrounds. I can only shake my head and wonder how they could expect to pull this off with a dozen or so characters. Would they have liked a 3-hour movie better?

THE SONGS ARE TRITE: Simple answer - one of the most revered songs in a film musical is about rainbows and bluebirds.

NO REAL DRAMA: Sure, it wasn't APOCALYPSE NOW, but PT faced enough challenges in the film to dismiss that criticism.

WEAK SCRIPT: Always a matter of taste, but I found it intelligent, engaging and very often humorous. I've laughed every time, particularly at the exchanges between PT and Phillip as they are trying to make the acquaintance of Jenny Lind in London. And the audiences I've been with laughed along with Queen V at the "reaching the top shelf" retort by Tom Thumb!

SUB-PAR CHOREOGRAPHY/MUSICAL STAGING: Again a matter of taste, but after 6 times seeing the film, the musical numbers still give me goose bumps. The Other Side number, staged in a bar, is no less impressive than anything from a Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly film.

TOO LITTLE/TOO MUCH: The Village Voice critic wrote that it was boring and exhausting - in the same sentence! So which one was it?!

I personally feel that a clinical dissection of the movie misses the point. Maya Angelou said something to the effect that people don't always remember what you do or say, but they will remember how you make them feel. I'm glad I'm one of the many viewers who got such an incredibly wonderful feeling from THE GREATEST SHOWMAN.

ANNIE HALL is my favorite film of all time, a comedy that weaves in threads of complicated relationships to perfection. I wanted every future Allen film to be like Annie Hall! But after seeing his excellent drama INTERIORS, I realized Allen was also a thoughtful and observant filmmaker. Acclaimed movies such as HANNAH AND HER SISTERS and BLUE JASMINE have teetered between drama and comedy but also show Allen's mastery with female characters. WONDER WHEEL is an excellent addition to that list. Kate Winslet is the suppressed housewife Ginny, living a lower middle class life on Coney Island with her son and shlumpy husband. The magical aura of the amusement park contrasts directly with her mundane existence. She had dreams of becoming an actress, but through lack of ambition, opportunity or talent, her domestic role is the one to which she is unenthusiastically resigned. Meeting the younger lifeguard Mickey (Justin Timberlake), a more worldly person (for his age), might just open up her world a bit. Might. Mickey tells Ginny he's been to Bora Bora, to which Winslet responds- in a perfect Long Island accent- "I've heard of it". This line means a lot to me. She doesn't engage the topic, as though it's not even feasible to dream of travel to an exotic place. This happens fairly early in the film, and I won't discuss the plot after that. Small details create a fascinating portrait of her character from beginning to end. I loved this film and look forward to watching it again.

Van Gogh's painting style is captured magnificently and is the selling point of the film. The story is a DATELINE-esque narrative of the people and situations that may have contributed to Van Gogh's death. The first time I saw it, I did think it was a little slow. But I went again with a friend and it was even better the second time. I noticed more details, and understood the impact of certain characters more. The closing song adds an emotional punch - best use of an end-credits song since TITANIC.

My first viewing of this film had some scenes marred by digital glitches, but I saw enough to want to see it again, without the glitches. It was even better the second time, with a crucial line of Dan's now revealed. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

This film is actually very funny, just watching Dan go about the details of his life in exacting precision. (Note how he moves an olive atop the crudité tray for a better visual presentation.) The way Dan's personality bounces off the many supporting characters is just amazing: some mock him, some abide him, and very few actually like him. Even his wife chastises him at the dinner table with a sharp "Dan" when he tells his 14-year old son that a popular girl asked him out just to humiliate him. I could probably evaluate each and every scene in depth over the interplay of the characters. Well done, writer/directors and actors. This movie has deeply felt and spot-on performances from every single actor.

The dialog that I missed the fist time around was a particularly poignant remark that Dan makes to Oliver: that his appearance at the high school reunion will be something they will remember for the rest of their pathetic lives. Substitute "my" for "their" and this scene says it all.

I have to say I hated the last 10-minutes of the film. But I can't let that ruin what I really enjoyed about it.

Don't let the notion that if you've seen one handicapped-person movie you've seen them all prevent you from seeing this extraordinary film. It simply gets to your heart without overplaying its emotions.

It is not a sunny tale of overcoming one's handicap. It is more of a clear-eyed look at one man's attempt to experience what most of us take for granted, specifically sexual pleasure. That said, it is not a "raunchy" film, and the surprising lack of profanity belies the subject matter.

Having a priest as his confidant frames the topic of sex in a Biblical context, and why shouldn't it? As is pointed out, no subject covers more ground in the good book! O'Brien was a religious man, but even the less devout mind accepts it's the most basic function of living things. O'Brien is more or less talked into seeing what he is missing.

The film is funny and moving thanks to its note-perfect script, and superb acting and direction. I have not been moved to tears in very many films lately, but this one does the trick. It's easier to understand why any film would fail rather than succeed in that respect. Trying too hard to showcase emotional moments with over-the-top acting and heightened drama always leaves me cold. None of that in THE SESSIONS; it is naturalistic throughout.

I have to say I am disappointed Hawkes didn't receive an Oscar nomination. What he accomplishes with his speech and limited movements is unforgettable.

I thought THE 3 STOOGES was hilarious from beginning to end. From the very first scenes with Larry David, to the homage with the horses at the end, this film captured the Stooges humor in a terrific modern update. The actors were so spot on it was uncanny. Hayes didn't look exactly like Larry, but his speech and actions were excellent. Curly was probably the weakest recreation, probably because the original was truly one-of-a-kind. That magic is impossible to capture, but Sasso was fine throughout. Moe by Chris Diamantopoulos was sheer genius. I have never seen such an uncanny recreation by an actor in my life. I'd hand him the Oscar right now!

I'm sure I have not laughed as much and as hard at a movie since THE WEDDING CRASHERS. I don't know how you can make it through this film with a stone face. Even just the anticipation of a scene about to unfold - such as the Stooges entering a pediatric ward - had me laughing in advance at the set-up. Anyone who complains about the story or plot elements would never be a real Three Stooges fan. Plausible situations being thrown to the wind are part and parcel of their comedy. With just the opening scenes, when the Stooges age from infants to adults while the supporting characters (David, Jennifer Hudson, etc) remain the same age, I was already on board for their ridiculous brand of "reality". This is Stooges genius at its best.

The Farrelly Brothers get my highest praise for making this thoroughly enjoyable film!

This forgettable piece of junk had one bright moment - the ebullient Stan Lee in a cameo as a truck driver. Now on to the bad stuff: everything else.

STORY: Probably solid as conceived by J Michael Straczynski. Definitely ruined by the credited scripters. Because ...

SCRIPT: Anyone who talks or writes knows to get your point across in as few words as necessary. Early on, Odin instructs his sons that although they do not seek war, "we have to be ready for it". A more regal, adult response would have been: "we have to be prepared". Odin words sounded like they were written by (or for) 10-year-olds. Sorry if this sounds nitpicky, but it was an indicator of the wretched mess of dialogue for the next two hours.

ACTING: Tom Hiddleston(Loki) seemed to try a bit; everyone else phoned it in. There is not a drop of emotion in evidence anywhere.

ART DIRECTION: Fake-looking all around - from the New Mexico town to Asgard and beyond. The Frost Giants and Destroyer were no better executed than what you find in a movie-of-the-week on the ScyFy Channel, maybe worse. And whose idea was it to make Bifrost, the Rainbow Bridge, a pavement of fiber-optic Lucite?!! Unbelievably bad. Only one person can take credit for that, and he is ...

KENNETH BRANAUGH (DIRECTOR): He has to be the weak link here. Too bad because he seems like a nice guy.

FINAL COMMENT: The story draws on Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's origin of THOR (Marvel version, of course) from 1968 - issues #158 and #159. The two comic greats had applied their cookie-cutter morality play to THOR, as they had to their other creations - Spiderman, Iron Man, Dr Strange to name a few - that of a self-absorbed individual gaining a conscience and becoming a hero. As usual, it was done to perfection every time. I still get a lump in my throat every time I re-read Spiderman's or Thor's origin. (And all done in 20-pages or less!) Reprints of these comic books are out there and I encourage everyone to read them and see why movies like THOR are being made 40 years later.

.

I happen to be a fun, not-too-serious guy who has fallen hard for two recent "death" movies! HEREAFTER was going to be hard to top for me and although RABBIT HOLE doesn't, it sure comes close. RH is an easy movie to dislike. It's mostly a self-absorbed character study and like most stage dramas adapted to film, the story doesn't veer very far from its core. Many people are comparing it to other "loss" films, and RH stands among the finest.

Probably the best thing about the film is Nicole Kidman. I know great actors can really impress you with their skills at inhabiting a character. But with Kidman's performance, I thoroughly felt what she was feeling. Pick out a scene with few or no words, and and I'll eat my shorts if you can't tell what's going through her head. (At first I thought she was so good at this because she had lived in the role on Broadway, then found out Cynthia Nixon played that part!) The story - or lack of one really - takes a back seat to the development of all the characters. Some lines in the film are just so good they are still running through my head a week later. Highly recommended. Grade: A

I'm a little rankled by the over-the-top praise for this minor Masterpice Theatre dud. I'm not coming from a historian- or speech therapist's point of view, just an avid moviegoer.

One letdown for me was, well, a pretty big one - after all that speech therapy, the king didn't seem to be that much better off at the end of the film. He never really had a pervasive "Porky Pig" stutter; more like an off-and-on stammer and fear of public speaking (at least that's how it was portrayed in the film). It seemed liked Firth forgot to deliver his lines with the impediment, or else in real life it was not that serious.

The scenes that delivered the "R" rating had Firth being instructed to shout 4-letter obscenities as some kind of remedial. These struck me as gratuitous and inauthentic. This is not a great film, all things considered.

I managed to see one of the last showings in a theater before being pulled. (Thank you Mr MoviePhone for the listing 25 miles away!) I kept my pre-knowledge to a minimum as I wanted to see it "fresh". The opening scene is one of the most gripping I have ever seen. It needs a big screen to be fully experienced. From then on the miracles of this film do not let up. It is a masterpiece and Eastwood's finest film, which is high praise. It is bleak and very "European" in its focus on characters and the more trying moments in life. An unforgettable scene in which someone is holding a loved one's cremated ashes in an urn, this silent lingering moment, makes us think about what has happened to the vital living person that is now encased in that cold metal. Picture yourself as the person holding that urn, and you will get what this film is all about. Acting, screen writing, cinematography, direction - you will find it all done to perfection here.